Mary Sues in Harry Potter - Part II (continued)
[comments disabled due to excessive spam]
Because the post-HBP essay on Ginny's traits as a Mary Sue is very long, I split it into two parts. Before commenting, please read part I of this essay. Thank you. :)
III. The Litmus Test
The Ginny character scored in the following manner (for every "yes" answer one point was given, unless mentioned otherwise; total score is in red for each section):
Section 1 - The Name Game:
Is the character named after you? (This can be your first name, middle name, or the name you go by in chat or irc.) If so, stop now. Put your pencil (mouse?) down and turn in your test.
No.
Does the character have a really cool name that you wish you had?
Unknown.
An unusual spelling of a normal name? An unusual spelling of a normal word?
Yes. 1 point (Ginevra, instead of Virginia, which is the Italian spelling of Guinevere, again making the name unusual).
Does this lead to an intolerable amount of puns/Tom Swifties? (Note: One of two Sirius/serious jokes are okay. Ten are not. Your readers will come after you with torches and pitchforks.) Does the character have more than one name? (i.e. a nickname or a pseudonym) Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs count.
No (unless "Ginny" counts as a nickname).
Did you spend more than a day looking for just the right name? (This doesn't count if the resulting name has historical/mythological significance. That's the whole purpose of names in HP. Baby name books, however, count.)
Have you considered naming your pet the character's name?
Unknown.
Total Points: 1.
Section 2 - Physical Attributes
Is the character the same gender as you?
Yes. 1 point.
Is the character a hybrid of two or more species? (part-Veela count. If the character is part cat, turn in your test NOW.)
No.
Is the character beautiful or roguishly handsome?
Yes. 1 point.
Does one or more of the regulars find the character highly attractive?
Yes. 1 point.
Is s/he (or is s/he related to) a Veela? Do other regulars see him/her as a threat because of this? Does the character have an unusual eye/hair color for no apparent reason? A Weasley that doesn't have red hair? Will this be a plot point later? Do his/her eyes change color from time to time?
No.
Do you mention hairstyle a lot? (soft silver waves, thick auburn curls, etc.)
Yes. Four that I know of when it comes to Ginny. Half a point.
Does the character have an accent that is not British? Students from non-Hogwarts schools (ex: Beauxbatons and Durmstrang) count.
No.
Total Points: 3 and a half.
Section 3 - Personal Traits
Is the character the long-lost child, descendent, sibling, or ancestor of a regular or recurring character? Of Sirius, Remus, Peter, or Snape? Of Harry, Ron, or Hermione? (If it's a long lost sibling of Harry, turn in your test. I don't care how well developed s/he is; I don't want to read it) Of Malfoy, Hagrid, Voldemort, Neville, Dean, Seamus, or any other significant character mentioned in J.K.'s books? Of any of the 4 Hogwarts founders?
No. But I think that the following bit of information does count, as this part of the test deals with traits that are supposed to make the Mary Sue’s backstory unique:
The MN/TLC interview with Rowling
MA: Does she have a larger importance; the Tom Riddle stufff, being the seventh girl -
JKR: The backstory with Ginny was, she was the first girl to arrive in the Weasley family in generations, but there's that old tradition of the seventh daughter of a seventh daughter and a seventh son of a seventh son, so that's why she's the seventh, because she is a gifted witch.
1 point.
Of another original character for whom you intend to write another story or even another series?
Unknown, but probably not, if one considers Rowling’s words about not writing about HP anymore once she was done with book 7.
Is the character an exchange student from one of the other wizarding schools? And traded for one of the other major characters? Hermione? Does the character have a twin? About whom you plan on writing another story later? Is the character remarkably intelligent? As smart as (or smarter than) Hermione?
No.
Do any of the teachers have an unusual liking toward your character?
Yes. Slughorn. 1 point.
Does McGonnagal?
Not specified.
Does Snape? (Bonus if s/he's not in Slytherin)
Half a point for Slughorn's preference for Ginny.
Do any teachers particularly dislike him/her? Does Snape?
No.
Does s/he particularly dislike Malfoy, even though they're not in the same year?
Yes. 1 point.
Does s/he play Quidditch?
Yes. 1 point.
Is s/he exceptionally good?
Yes. 1 point.
Is s/he seeker?
Was. Half a point.
Is s/he in Gryffindor?
Yes. 1 point.
Does the character make more wisecracks and play more practical jokes than the Weasley twins?
Ginny’s excellent humour should be considered here. 1 point.
Because Fred and George are your favorite characters?
Unknown.
Does everyone end up liking the character (among the regulars you like)?
Almost everyone, yes. Half a point.
If an adult, is s/he unusually young for his/her position in the work force?
Not the case.
Does s/he have random hobbies that are undeniably convenient to the plot?
Not specified yet.
Do school rules not seem to apply to your him/her?
Yes. 1 point.
Does s/he get away with insubordination with teachers/authority figures? Does s/he spend an absurd amount of time depressed/brooding/sulking/being generally miserable about a situation beyond his/her control? Many Lupin fics are nauseating in this respect.
Insufficient examples.
Total Points: 9 and a half.
Section 4 - Wizarding Powers
Is the character muggle-born, or doesn't know s/he is a witch/wizard until s/he gets his/her letter? Does s/he get her school supplies with Hagrid? Is this scene nearly identical to the corresponding scenes in Philosopher's Stone? Does the character have telekinesis or telepathy? Does the character just "know things" for no apparent reason? Is the character skilled in healing? Do animals instinctively like the character?
No.
1 point for “the most marvelous Bat Bogey Hex" (Slughorn’s words), in spite of no specific question about this. The reason why I gave this point is because this section of the Litmus Test deals generally with wizarding powers that are special and that usually only the Mary Sue possesses. By the end of HBP, Ginny is the only one mentioned to do a Bat Bogey Hex, and people commenting on how great that Hex was make it a Mary Sue-ish trait.
Total Points: 1
Section 5 - The Love Connection
Does the character fall in love with Harry, Ron, or Hermione?
Yes. 1 point.
With Malfoy or Snape? With another recurring character? Double points for James/Lily/Snape love triangles. ::gag::
No.
With whom *you* have a crush on?
Unknown.
Sirius? With another original character? With an original character *you* have a crush on?
No.
Total Points: 1.
Section 6 - The Real World and Your Character
Would you like to be friends with the character if you met in real life?
Unknown.
Do you think everyone who reads the story should automatically like the character and want to be friends with the character?
I think it is safe to assume an affirmative answer when correlating the following (emphasis mine):
The MN/TLC interview with Rowling
I really like Ginny as a character.
Positive assertion about a loved character.
She's tough, not in an unpleasant way, but she's gutsy. He needs to be with someone who can stand the demands of being with Harry Potter, because he's a scary boyfriend in a lot of ways. He's a marked man. I think she's funny, and I think that she's very warm and compassionate. These are all things that Harry requires in his ideal woman.
-snip-
And I feel that Ginny and Harry, in this book, they are total equals. They are worthy of each other. They've both gone through a big emotional journey, and they've really got over a lot of delusions, to use your word, together. So, I enjoyed writing that.
Argumentation.
JKR: Well, no, not really, because the plan was, which I really hope I fulfilled, is that the reader, like Harry, would gradually discover Ginny as pretty much the ideal girl for Harry.
Conclusion: the readers should also like Ginny (because she is Harry’s ideal girl).
I think this idea is further sustained by this quote:
JKR: I think so. I hope so. So you liked Harry/Ginny, did you, when it happened?
ES: We've been waiting for this for years!
JKR: Oh, I'm so glad.
1 point.
If someone tells you he/she doesn't like your character, do you take it as a personal attack on you? (Be honest)
Unknown.
Total Points: 1.
Section 7 - The Fiendish Plot
Do you introduce the character on the first page of the story? (J.K. did a great job of this in "Philosopher's Stone" and "Goblet of Fire")
No. But Ginny is introduced earlier than many other characters and she is the first girl that Harry meets. Since I think that the point of this question is to emphasize that a Mary Sue will always be introduced as early as possible, and since the first chapters of Harry Potter deal mostly with the Muggle World which later has a rather small importance to the plot (as opposed to the Wizarding world) I feel it is safe to give Ginny half a point for being present in the first pages where the real action begins.
Do you tell the story from the character's point of view, all or mostly?
No.
Does the character meet the main characters, and after a few tense pages of plot, become friends with them?
No, but Ginny does develop quick friendly relationships with mostly everyone (Hermione, Luna etc.). Again, I feel it is justified that at least half a point is given.
Does the character manage to develop a friendship with an otherwise villainous character, and through this friendship, reform the other character? Does the villain become evil again after the character dies, but retain some last vestige of goodness from his/her interaction with the character, evidenced in one selfless action at the end of the story? Is the character transformed into a magical or genetically-altered being? Is the character happier in her/his new form? Do you wish you could be transformed because of the neat powers?
No.
Does the character save the day and/or another character's life?
Half a point for saving the captured DA members in Umbridge’s office in OotP.
Through magical/mystical intervention? Through dying? Does everyone go into mourning? Does s/he get not-dead by the end of the story? In the sequel? Do you plan to write many more stories revolving around this character?
No.
Total Points: 1 and 1/2.
Summary: 18 and 1/2 points for Ginny, which according to the scoring scheme, place her here:
16-19 Borderline character. Characters in this range are potential MS's, who can go either way dependent on the author's skill.
However, I strongly feel that in fact Ginny falls under this category:
20+ Mary Sue/Gary Stu. Proceed with greatest caution.
and this is because of the following reasons:
- questions that were left unanswered because I could not give an answer which Rowling did not reveal yet;
- the half a point issue. The test does not specify if this could be done. If I were to consider every half a point I gave as a full point as per the test’s instructions, then Ginny’s scoring would go above 20.
The bottom line is that either way Ginny’s score does not put her in the Developed character section (0-15 points); she's either a borderline or a clear Mary Sue-ish character.
Note: 1) Unless specified otherwise, all quotes are from the HP Litmus Test by Priscilla Spencer (which is based on the test created by Dr. Merlin). 2) For brevity reasons, questions with the same answer (Yes/No) were grouped together.
IV. Ginny is not a Mary Sue because...
Assertion 1: The Ginny Sue hypothesis stems from Harmony bias
I think this argument against the Ginny as a Mary Sue hypothesis is incorrect for three reasons:
1) When I first wrote about the possibility of Ginny being a Mary Sue, I was not a shipper; in fact, I was one of those who thought OBHWF would happen and who didn’t care about it. Seeing Ginny as a Mary Sue had nothing to do with me being biased about the ships I saw in canon. (Links to two of my original posts here and here).
2) Other people see it, too. Shippers and/or non-shippers: Example 1; Example 2; Example 3; Example 4.
3) Even if shipper bias was an issue, this however would not cancel all the points I made now and in the first version of this essay; attacking the person and not the arguments that the person brought up is a logical fallacy commonly known as argumentum ad hominem. So, saying that just because someone called themselves a Harmonian their hypothesis was invalid (sour grapes related reasons etc.) is not an argument.
Assertion 2: Mary Sues exist only in fan fiction
I think that many people find it difficult to admit (or they are simply unaware of it) the real cause for a Mary Sue's existence in a story. Throughout the debates about this in which I was a part of, I came across the objection that Rowling could not write a Mary Sue, because Mary Sues were effects of bad writing and since Rowling was not a bad writer, she was above creating a Mary Sue. I disagreed with that argument then and I am disagreeing with it nowadays, too. The main cause for a Mary Sue's existence in a story is not bad writing - that is the effect. The cause is wish fulfillment and the cause to that is Ego. To sum these up in a sylogism, it would go like this:
Every author is first and foremost a human being who possesses an Ego
Every Ego requires self esteem validation
One way to achieve validation is wish fulfillment (which can be achieved via dreams and art etc.)
A Mary Sue is a wish fulfillment device
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rowling, as an author with an Ego could have created a Mary Sue in Ginny
*insert proof as to why she did or did not resist the temptation*
*if said proof is reasonable enough we get to:*
The existence of a MS which comes out as:
Bad writing
As you can see, bad writing is the last effect of a Mary Sue insertion, and not its main (first) cause. Its cause - and this is why everyone is subject to creating a Mary Sue - is one's Ego. This is why one needs a Mary Sue: to fulfill a wish and thus validate the Ego. I do not need to know exactly how much of how she wanted to be like Ginny Rowling expressed in the former in order for me to analyze the possibility of her creating one, because by default, every human is subject for Ego validation. What I do need to do is to find out if she did create one, and prove it in this process, by providing arguments. And this is what this expansion of my original essay is supposed to do.
Of course a canon Mary Sue will be less obvious than a fanon one - if I may name them like this - and this is because the canon's author is loads more familiar with the world s/he created than the fanon author. So although we probably won't get any of the usual Serena Francesca Mariana Snape Potter we might get something like Ginny Weasley who although more subtle, she is still more than close to being a Mary Sue.
Note: a very eloquent and reasonable post about Mary Sues in canon can be found here.
Assertion 3: H/G does not lack in development because it is exactly how relationships happen in real life, and therefore the relationship is excluded from adding to the Mary Sue issue.
In Book 6 Harry suddenly realized he was in love with Ginny and that didn't really flow well when considering the first five books. And no, this has nothing to do with shipping; but it has everything to do with consistency. If Harry, after five years spent in indifference towards Ginny suddenly realized his true love for her, then he should have had a good reason for it in order to explain why it didn't happen before even in extreme circumstances (her crush, her near death experience, her dating other boys etc.). That reason should have been shown and proven; it was not, unless one counts how he mused in passing about the time spent at the Burrow. I think that as a general rule of believable stories one could consider motivation; one can't just write something like "And then he suddenly realized...". Not in a 7 book series out of which 5 have been spent building up other relationships (from romantic ones - Harry/Cho, Ron/Hermione etc. - to friendship types of relationships: Harry/Hermione, Harry/Ron etc.) while half of the Harry/Ginny ship spent 2 books being background.
This essay's goal however is not to argue the validity of the Harry/Ginny ship but rather to analyze how that relationship reflects and impacts upon the premise at hand - Ginny's Mary Sue-ish traits. While the argument about real life relationships which are often sudden and unexpected is very true and valid, the problem is that it cannot be applied to literature. An author that intends describing a relationship, any kind of relationship (including friendship, romance, parental love etc), must develop it, by both showing it and telling it, especially when the books in question are declared to be "character driven" and there is seven of them, out of which the first two showed the Hero's indifference to his eventual pair's crush for him and even to other significant events for her, such as her being possessed and her dating other boys. Literature has different rules from real life. In real life you are the actor. In books/movies/etc., you are the observer. You only take part in the action because an author guides you through it; and this can not be done without careful description of character's motivation.
Assertion 4: HP are not romance novels, therefore how the Harry/Ginny relationship was treated and how it reflected on Ginny is not relevant to the Mary Sue hypothesis.
In most of all art forms the major themes can be reduced to two things: love and conflict. Which can be summed up to journey. One can not exist without the other without damaging the realism. To me, a good writer must excel at both themes mentioned above. Either that or I prefer the author to refrain from approaching one of the themes. Had HP been a single book, I think that how Harry fell for Ginny wouldn’t have been that much of an argument for the Mary Sue hypothesis. As things are, we get the following though:
-Books 1-4: Ginny's crush for Harry; Harry's indifference to the crush and him pining for another girl;
-Book 5: we first meet Super!Ginny and Harry has no reaction to this, not even at the thought of her dating other boys, apart from a neutral observation about how she started to talk in front of him.
-Book 6: HBP and Harry’s sudden and passionate interest in Ginny, which apart from the flowery smell hint, starts with a direct contradiction with OotP:
"Right," said Harry. He felt a strange twinge of annoyance as she walked away, her long red hair dancing behind her; he had become so used to her presence over the summer that he had almost forgotten that Ginny did not hang around with him, Ron, and Hermione while at school.
As things are, that paragraph is not consistent with OotP!Harry who did not care about either Ginny dating Michael Corner or Ginny choosing Dean Thomas. An example of consistency is Ron’s interest in Hermione’s crushes, ever since they were 12 (Lockhart) to more serious issues such as Krum and McClaggen, in spite of his own interest in other girls (Fleur etc.). As Rowling had already proven with Ron/Hermione that she is capable of consistency, and seeing that in the Harry/Ginny case she did not adhere to its rules, it thus follows that yes, once again we're looking at a Sue-ish element (weakly developed romances) which adds up to the premise of this essay.
Assertion 5: Ginny is not a self-insertion, as Hermione is the already admitted self-insertion
A Mary Sue is supposed to be two things, which are complementary between each other:
1) she is a wish fulfillment device. This means that the character's personality is not, nor has it ever been real, otherwise the author wouldn't desire to fulfill said wish;
2) because this is a wish and one tends to wish for the most Ego-satisfying things, the wish tends to lack in flaws and bad parts as much as possible.
When correlating the above with a quote like this one:
J.K. Rowling interview transcript, The Connection (WBUR Radio), 12 October, 1999
Q: I was going to say, are you a Hermione?
JKR: Yeah. I mean none of the characters in the books are directly taken from life, but real people did inspire a few of them, but of course, once they are on the page they become something completely different. Yeah, Hermione is a caricature of what I was when I was 11, a real exaggeration. I wasn’t that clever. Hermione is borderline genius at points and I hope I wasn’t that annoying because I would have deserved strangling. Sometimes she’s an incredible know-it-all.
... I think it is rather clear why Hermione is disqualified from being a Mary Sue because as per the author's own words, Hermione is a caricature of her former self, and thus far from being a flawless instrument to serve for wish-fulfillment, by the very definition of the word "caricature". There are multiple other quotes from Rowling interviews which show that although she loves Hermione, she is neither considered perfect, nor ideal, but rather a flawed character. I don't think an author who created a Mary Sue would state that at some points said character was so annoying that it deserved strangling. While a joke, it is still a powerful statement that shows how the author is conscious of the character's flaws - a thing that does not occur when an author talks about a Mary Sue.
Assertion 6: The reason why we don’t see any flaws in Ginny is because we see the characters through Harry’s point of view and since he happens to like Ginny, there are hardly any flaws he notices.
I confess I never really understood how Harry not seeing any flaws in Ginny because he liked her was supposed to excuse her Mary Sue characteristics when it is the very fact that a character is supposed to have its flaws confirmed via other characters that we’re discussing here. If Harry does not consider some flaws of Ginny because he likes her too much for that, then this only adds up to the Mary Sue issues, it does not counter it. It is common sense that there are two sources that can tell us how the author views the Mary Sue and those are:
- the author her/himself;
- confirmation of point a) via other characters present in the story (because the author’s views are often stated by means of other characters).
One can not bring Harry not perceiving Ginny’s flaws because he liked her as an argument to this issue for two reasons:
1. Double Standards. If this argument was valid, then it (“Mary Sue is flawless because it is the Hero who perceives her as such”) should apply for every other known and pointed at Mary Sue, and for her lack of flaws in all fan fictions and all canon material everywhere, as per the logical rule against double standards. Example: if Aragorn/Legolas/Snape/Angel/*insert random desired object of wish fulfillment* sees any other original/canon character as perfect, flawless, ideal, it is because they are in love, and not because the character in question is a Mary Sue. It shouldn't matter if the characters in question come out as Sues. It thus results that LJ communities, essays, posts etc. which deal with Mary Sues in general and their perfection in particular have no point in their existence.
2. Authorial intent. If Harry sees no flaws in Ginny, then this is Rowling’s responsibility and not Harry’s, seeing as she is the one in full control of her own work. Because Mary Sues come from wish fulfillment causes, if Rowling’s wish was for Harry to fall for the idealized version of herself, then she will make it as such. The point is that when considering the issue of lack of flaws with Mary Sue, which boils down to them being idealized versions of the author, bringing character intent into the picture is irrelevant, as the main premise for discussion is the authorial intent, which is ultimately the one responsible for how characters perceived one another.
V. Conclusions
I feel that even by the end of HBP, we've yet to see every detail and every attribute that make Ginny a Mary Sue; book 7 is still to come and it might be possible that Rowling fixed Ginny's characterization into something more realistic (and more palatable for that matter). However, as far as I am concerned, I doubt that this will happen, considering that she had HBP to do it and instead of adding some flaws to Ginny and thus changing her from a borderline Mary Sue character to a developed one, she did not, as the canon analysis and Litmus Test show. Judging by her comments on Ginny in the MN/TLC interview as analyzed in this essay I find it safe to assume that the best that will happen to Ginny in book 7 is that she'll become a borderline Mary Sue while the worst will be her remaining the almost fully-fledged Mary Sue that she is now (of course, with additions to her already existing perfection and idealistic features).
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't think that loving Rowling should keep you from observing her possible weaknesses; I am rather tired of those people who keep jumping in protest against any form of criticism at Rowling's address. I won't start my own rant on why a part of the HP fandom has a rather unhealthy tendency to worship and defend Rowling beyond any limits. I'll just say what I said so often in the past: no one is, nor should they be, above criticism.
VI. Links
1. Analysis of Ginny's characterization:
Why is the difference in Ginny’s character between GoF and Books 5&6 poorly written?
On Authorial Intent, Mary Sues and Ginny
The Two Faces of Ginny
Report of Ginny at canonsues
Ginny's Powers: Beyond the Bat-Bogey Hex
2. General Mary Sue information and analysis:
The Mary Sue Concept on Wikipedia
The Mary Sue Manual
Shameless Setteis and Mary Sues
Fantasy, Self-Indulgence, and Wish-Fulfillment
General article
The Essential Guide to Mary-Sue
A Summary and Discussion on the Mary Sue Phenomenon
Just because it’s funny :P
Credits: Many thanks to violaswamp, sistermagpie and myrhlyn for allowing me to link to their insightful and thought-provoking essays about Ginny and for giving me the privilege of reading them in the first place. :) I am eternally grateful to thereader, Darynthe and Mad Eyed Mike for all the support they’ve given me with this essay now and in the past. *hugs*
Because the post-HBP essay on Ginny's traits as a Mary Sue is very long, I split it into two parts. Before commenting, please read part I of this essay. Thank you. :)
III. The Litmus Test
The Ginny character scored in the following manner (for every "yes" answer one point was given, unless mentioned otherwise; total score is in red for each section):
Section 1 - The Name Game:
Is the character named after you? (This can be your first name, middle name, or the name you go by in chat or irc.) If so, stop now. Put your pencil (mouse?) down and turn in your test.
No.
Does the character have a really cool name that you wish you had?
Unknown.
An unusual spelling of a normal name? An unusual spelling of a normal word?
Yes. 1 point (Ginevra, instead of Virginia, which is the Italian spelling of Guinevere, again making the name unusual).
Does this lead to an intolerable amount of puns/Tom Swifties? (Note: One of two Sirius/serious jokes are okay. Ten are not. Your readers will come after you with torches and pitchforks.) Does the character have more than one name? (i.e. a nickname or a pseudonym) Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs count.
No (unless "Ginny" counts as a nickname).
Did you spend more than a day looking for just the right name? (This doesn't count if the resulting name has historical/mythological significance. That's the whole purpose of names in HP. Baby name books, however, count.)
Have you considered naming your pet the character's name?
Unknown.
Total Points: 1.
Section 2 - Physical Attributes
Is the character the same gender as you?
Yes. 1 point.
Is the character a hybrid of two or more species? (part-Veela count. If the character is part cat, turn in your test NOW.)
No.
Is the character beautiful or roguishly handsome?
Yes. 1 point.
Does one or more of the regulars find the character highly attractive?
Yes. 1 point.
Is s/he (or is s/he related to) a Veela? Do other regulars see him/her as a threat because of this? Does the character have an unusual eye/hair color for no apparent reason? A Weasley that doesn't have red hair? Will this be a plot point later? Do his/her eyes change color from time to time?
No.
Do you mention hairstyle a lot? (soft silver waves, thick auburn curls, etc.)
Yes. Four that I know of when it comes to Ginny. Half a point.
Does the character have an accent that is not British? Students from non-Hogwarts schools (ex: Beauxbatons and Durmstrang) count.
No.
Total Points: 3 and a half.
Section 3 - Personal Traits
Is the character the long-lost child, descendent, sibling, or ancestor of a regular or recurring character? Of Sirius, Remus, Peter, or Snape? Of Harry, Ron, or Hermione? (If it's a long lost sibling of Harry, turn in your test. I don't care how well developed s/he is; I don't want to read it) Of Malfoy, Hagrid, Voldemort, Neville, Dean, Seamus, or any other significant character mentioned in J.K.'s books? Of any of the 4 Hogwarts founders?
No. But I think that the following bit of information does count, as this part of the test deals with traits that are supposed to make the Mary Sue’s backstory unique:
The MN/TLC interview with Rowling
MA: Does she have a larger importance; the Tom Riddle stufff, being the seventh girl -
JKR: The backstory with Ginny was, she was the first girl to arrive in the Weasley family in generations, but there's that old tradition of the seventh daughter of a seventh daughter and a seventh son of a seventh son, so that's why she's the seventh, because she is a gifted witch.
1 point.
Of another original character for whom you intend to write another story or even another series?
Unknown, but probably not, if one considers Rowling’s words about not writing about HP anymore once she was done with book 7.
Is the character an exchange student from one of the other wizarding schools? And traded for one of the other major characters? Hermione? Does the character have a twin? About whom you plan on writing another story later? Is the character remarkably intelligent? As smart as (or smarter than) Hermione?
No.
Do any of the teachers have an unusual liking toward your character?
Yes. Slughorn. 1 point.
Does McGonnagal?
Not specified.
Does Snape? (Bonus if s/he's not in Slytherin)
Half a point for Slughorn's preference for Ginny.
Do any teachers particularly dislike him/her? Does Snape?
No.
Does s/he particularly dislike Malfoy, even though they're not in the same year?
Yes. 1 point.
Does s/he play Quidditch?
Yes. 1 point.
Is s/he exceptionally good?
Yes. 1 point.
Is s/he seeker?
Was. Half a point.
Is s/he in Gryffindor?
Yes. 1 point.
Does the character make more wisecracks and play more practical jokes than the Weasley twins?
Ginny’s excellent humour should be considered here. 1 point.
Because Fred and George are your favorite characters?
Unknown.
Does everyone end up liking the character (among the regulars you like)?
Almost everyone, yes. Half a point.
If an adult, is s/he unusually young for his/her position in the work force?
Not the case.
Does s/he have random hobbies that are undeniably convenient to the plot?
Not specified yet.
Do school rules not seem to apply to your him/her?
Yes. 1 point.
Does s/he get away with insubordination with teachers/authority figures? Does s/he spend an absurd amount of time depressed/brooding/sulking/being generally miserable about a situation beyond his/her control? Many Lupin fics are nauseating in this respect.
Insufficient examples.
Total Points: 9 and a half.
Section 4 - Wizarding Powers
Is the character muggle-born, or doesn't know s/he is a witch/wizard until s/he gets his/her letter? Does s/he get her school supplies with Hagrid? Is this scene nearly identical to the corresponding scenes in Philosopher's Stone? Does the character have telekinesis or telepathy? Does the character just "know things" for no apparent reason? Is the character skilled in healing? Do animals instinctively like the character?
No.
1 point for “the most marvelous Bat Bogey Hex" (Slughorn’s words), in spite of no specific question about this. The reason why I gave this point is because this section of the Litmus Test deals generally with wizarding powers that are special and that usually only the Mary Sue possesses. By the end of HBP, Ginny is the only one mentioned to do a Bat Bogey Hex, and people commenting on how great that Hex was make it a Mary Sue-ish trait.
Total Points: 1
Section 5 - The Love Connection
Does the character fall in love with Harry, Ron, or Hermione?
Yes. 1 point.
With Malfoy or Snape? With another recurring character? Double points for James/Lily/Snape love triangles. ::gag::
No.
With whom *you* have a crush on?
Unknown.
Sirius? With another original character? With an original character *you* have a crush on?
No.
Total Points: 1.
Section 6 - The Real World and Your Character
Would you like to be friends with the character if you met in real life?
Unknown.
Do you think everyone who reads the story should automatically like the character and want to be friends with the character?
I think it is safe to assume an affirmative answer when correlating the following (emphasis mine):
The MN/TLC interview with Rowling
I really like Ginny as a character.
Positive assertion about a loved character.
She's tough, not in an unpleasant way, but she's gutsy. He needs to be with someone who can stand the demands of being with Harry Potter, because he's a scary boyfriend in a lot of ways. He's a marked man. I think she's funny, and I think that she's very warm and compassionate. These are all things that Harry requires in his ideal woman.
-snip-
And I feel that Ginny and Harry, in this book, they are total equals. They are worthy of each other. They've both gone through a big emotional journey, and they've really got over a lot of delusions, to use your word, together. So, I enjoyed writing that.
Argumentation.
JKR: Well, no, not really, because the plan was, which I really hope I fulfilled, is that the reader, like Harry, would gradually discover Ginny as pretty much the ideal girl for Harry.
Conclusion: the readers should also like Ginny (because she is Harry’s ideal girl).
I think this idea is further sustained by this quote:
JKR: I think so. I hope so. So you liked Harry/Ginny, did you, when it happened?
ES: We've been waiting for this for years!
JKR: Oh, I'm so glad.
1 point.
If someone tells you he/she doesn't like your character, do you take it as a personal attack on you? (Be honest)
Unknown.
Total Points: 1.
Section 7 - The Fiendish Plot
Do you introduce the character on the first page of the story? (J.K. did a great job of this in "Philosopher's Stone" and "Goblet of Fire")
No. But Ginny is introduced earlier than many other characters and she is the first girl that Harry meets. Since I think that the point of this question is to emphasize that a Mary Sue will always be introduced as early as possible, and since the first chapters of Harry Potter deal mostly with the Muggle World which later has a rather small importance to the plot (as opposed to the Wizarding world) I feel it is safe to give Ginny half a point for being present in the first pages where the real action begins.
Do you tell the story from the character's point of view, all or mostly?
No.
Does the character meet the main characters, and after a few tense pages of plot, become friends with them?
No, but Ginny does develop quick friendly relationships with mostly everyone (Hermione, Luna etc.). Again, I feel it is justified that at least half a point is given.
Does the character manage to develop a friendship with an otherwise villainous character, and through this friendship, reform the other character? Does the villain become evil again after the character dies, but retain some last vestige of goodness from his/her interaction with the character, evidenced in one selfless action at the end of the story? Is the character transformed into a magical or genetically-altered being? Is the character happier in her/his new form? Do you wish you could be transformed because of the neat powers?
No.
Does the character save the day and/or another character's life?
Half a point for saving the captured DA members in Umbridge’s office in OotP.
Through magical/mystical intervention? Through dying? Does everyone go into mourning? Does s/he get not-dead by the end of the story? In the sequel? Do you plan to write many more stories revolving around this character?
No.
Total Points: 1 and 1/2.
Summary: 18 and 1/2 points for Ginny, which according to the scoring scheme, place her here:
16-19 Borderline character. Characters in this range are potential MS's, who can go either way dependent on the author's skill.
However, I strongly feel that in fact Ginny falls under this category:
20+ Mary Sue/Gary Stu. Proceed with greatest caution.
and this is because of the following reasons:
- questions that were left unanswered because I could not give an answer which Rowling did not reveal yet;
- the half a point issue. The test does not specify if this could be done. If I were to consider every half a point I gave as a full point as per the test’s instructions, then Ginny’s scoring would go above 20.
The bottom line is that either way Ginny’s score does not put her in the Developed character section (0-15 points); she's either a borderline or a clear Mary Sue-ish character.
Note: 1) Unless specified otherwise, all quotes are from the HP Litmus Test by Priscilla Spencer (which is based on the test created by Dr. Merlin). 2) For brevity reasons, questions with the same answer (Yes/No) were grouped together.
IV. Ginny is not a Mary Sue because...
Assertion 1: The Ginny Sue hypothesis stems from Harmony bias
I think this argument against the Ginny as a Mary Sue hypothesis is incorrect for three reasons:
1) When I first wrote about the possibility of Ginny being a Mary Sue, I was not a shipper; in fact, I was one of those who thought OBHWF would happen and who didn’t care about it. Seeing Ginny as a Mary Sue had nothing to do with me being biased about the ships I saw in canon. (Links to two of my original posts here and here).
2) Other people see it, too. Shippers and/or non-shippers: Example 1; Example 2; Example 3; Example 4.
3) Even if shipper bias was an issue, this however would not cancel all the points I made now and in the first version of this essay; attacking the person and not the arguments that the person brought up is a logical fallacy commonly known as argumentum ad hominem. So, saying that just because someone called themselves a Harmonian their hypothesis was invalid (sour grapes related reasons etc.) is not an argument.
Assertion 2: Mary Sues exist only in fan fiction
I think that many people find it difficult to admit (or they are simply unaware of it) the real cause for a Mary Sue's existence in a story. Throughout the debates about this in which I was a part of, I came across the objection that Rowling could not write a Mary Sue, because Mary Sues were effects of bad writing and since Rowling was not a bad writer, she was above creating a Mary Sue. I disagreed with that argument then and I am disagreeing with it nowadays, too. The main cause for a Mary Sue's existence in a story is not bad writing - that is the effect. The cause is wish fulfillment and the cause to that is Ego. To sum these up in a sylogism, it would go like this:
Every author is first and foremost a human being who possesses an Ego
Every Ego requires self esteem validation
One way to achieve validation is wish fulfillment (which can be achieved via dreams and art etc.)
A Mary Sue is a wish fulfillment device
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rowling, as an author with an Ego could have created a Mary Sue in Ginny
*insert proof as to why she did or did not resist the temptation*
*if said proof is reasonable enough we get to:*
The existence of a MS which comes out as:
Bad writing
As you can see, bad writing is the last effect of a Mary Sue insertion, and not its main (first) cause. Its cause - and this is why everyone is subject to creating a Mary Sue - is one's Ego. This is why one needs a Mary Sue: to fulfill a wish and thus validate the Ego. I do not need to know exactly how much of how she wanted to be like Ginny Rowling expressed in the former in order for me to analyze the possibility of her creating one, because by default, every human is subject for Ego validation. What I do need to do is to find out if she did create one, and prove it in this process, by providing arguments. And this is what this expansion of my original essay is supposed to do.
Of course a canon Mary Sue will be less obvious than a fanon one - if I may name them like this - and this is because the canon's author is loads more familiar with the world s/he created than the fanon author. So although we probably won't get any of the usual Serena Francesca Mariana Snape Potter we might get something like Ginny Weasley who although more subtle, she is still more than close to being a Mary Sue.
Note: a very eloquent and reasonable post about Mary Sues in canon can be found here.
Assertion 3: H/G does not lack in development because it is exactly how relationships happen in real life, and therefore the relationship is excluded from adding to the Mary Sue issue.
In Book 6 Harry suddenly realized he was in love with Ginny and that didn't really flow well when considering the first five books. And no, this has nothing to do with shipping; but it has everything to do with consistency. If Harry, after five years spent in indifference towards Ginny suddenly realized his true love for her, then he should have had a good reason for it in order to explain why it didn't happen before even in extreme circumstances (her crush, her near death experience, her dating other boys etc.). That reason should have been shown and proven; it was not, unless one counts how he mused in passing about the time spent at the Burrow. I think that as a general rule of believable stories one could consider motivation; one can't just write something like "And then he suddenly realized...". Not in a 7 book series out of which 5 have been spent building up other relationships (from romantic ones - Harry/Cho, Ron/Hermione etc. - to friendship types of relationships: Harry/Hermione, Harry/Ron etc.) while half of the Harry/Ginny ship spent 2 books being background.
This essay's goal however is not to argue the validity of the Harry/Ginny ship but rather to analyze how that relationship reflects and impacts upon the premise at hand - Ginny's Mary Sue-ish traits. While the argument about real life relationships which are often sudden and unexpected is very true and valid, the problem is that it cannot be applied to literature. An author that intends describing a relationship, any kind of relationship (including friendship, romance, parental love etc), must develop it, by both showing it and telling it, especially when the books in question are declared to be "character driven" and there is seven of them, out of which the first two showed the Hero's indifference to his eventual pair's crush for him and even to other significant events for her, such as her being possessed and her dating other boys. Literature has different rules from real life. In real life you are the actor. In books/movies/etc., you are the observer. You only take part in the action because an author guides you through it; and this can not be done without careful description of character's motivation.
Assertion 4: HP are not romance novels, therefore how the Harry/Ginny relationship was treated and how it reflected on Ginny is not relevant to the Mary Sue hypothesis.
In most of all art forms the major themes can be reduced to two things: love and conflict. Which can be summed up to journey. One can not exist without the other without damaging the realism. To me, a good writer must excel at both themes mentioned above. Either that or I prefer the author to refrain from approaching one of the themes. Had HP been a single book, I think that how Harry fell for Ginny wouldn’t have been that much of an argument for the Mary Sue hypothesis. As things are, we get the following though:
-Books 1-4: Ginny's crush for Harry; Harry's indifference to the crush and him pining for another girl;
-Book 5: we first meet Super!Ginny and Harry has no reaction to this, not even at the thought of her dating other boys, apart from a neutral observation about how she started to talk in front of him.
-Book 6: HBP and Harry’s sudden and passionate interest in Ginny, which apart from the flowery smell hint, starts with a direct contradiction with OotP:
"Right," said Harry. He felt a strange twinge of annoyance as she walked away, her long red hair dancing behind her; he had become so used to her presence over the summer that he had almost forgotten that Ginny did not hang around with him, Ron, and Hermione while at school.
As things are, that paragraph is not consistent with OotP!Harry who did not care about either Ginny dating Michael Corner or Ginny choosing Dean Thomas. An example of consistency is Ron’s interest in Hermione’s crushes, ever since they were 12 (Lockhart) to more serious issues such as Krum and McClaggen, in spite of his own interest in other girls (Fleur etc.). As Rowling had already proven with Ron/Hermione that she is capable of consistency, and seeing that in the Harry/Ginny case she did not adhere to its rules, it thus follows that yes, once again we're looking at a Sue-ish element (weakly developed romances) which adds up to the premise of this essay.
Assertion 5: Ginny is not a self-insertion, as Hermione is the already admitted self-insertion
A Mary Sue is supposed to be two things, which are complementary between each other:
1) she is a wish fulfillment device. This means that the character's personality is not, nor has it ever been real, otherwise the author wouldn't desire to fulfill said wish;
2) because this is a wish and one tends to wish for the most Ego-satisfying things, the wish tends to lack in flaws and bad parts as much as possible.
When correlating the above with a quote like this one:
J.K. Rowling interview transcript, The Connection (WBUR Radio), 12 October, 1999
Q: I was going to say, are you a Hermione?
JKR: Yeah. I mean none of the characters in the books are directly taken from life, but real people did inspire a few of them, but of course, once they are on the page they become something completely different. Yeah, Hermione is a caricature of what I was when I was 11, a real exaggeration. I wasn’t that clever. Hermione is borderline genius at points and I hope I wasn’t that annoying because I would have deserved strangling. Sometimes she’s an incredible know-it-all.
... I think it is rather clear why Hermione is disqualified from being a Mary Sue because as per the author's own words, Hermione is a caricature of her former self, and thus far from being a flawless instrument to serve for wish-fulfillment, by the very definition of the word "caricature". There are multiple other quotes from Rowling interviews which show that although she loves Hermione, she is neither considered perfect, nor ideal, but rather a flawed character. I don't think an author who created a Mary Sue would state that at some points said character was so annoying that it deserved strangling. While a joke, it is still a powerful statement that shows how the author is conscious of the character's flaws - a thing that does not occur when an author talks about a Mary Sue.
Assertion 6: The reason why we don’t see any flaws in Ginny is because we see the characters through Harry’s point of view and since he happens to like Ginny, there are hardly any flaws he notices.
I confess I never really understood how Harry not seeing any flaws in Ginny because he liked her was supposed to excuse her Mary Sue characteristics when it is the very fact that a character is supposed to have its flaws confirmed via other characters that we’re discussing here. If Harry does not consider some flaws of Ginny because he likes her too much for that, then this only adds up to the Mary Sue issues, it does not counter it. It is common sense that there are two sources that can tell us how the author views the Mary Sue and those are:
- the author her/himself;
- confirmation of point a) via other characters present in the story (because the author’s views are often stated by means of other characters).
One can not bring Harry not perceiving Ginny’s flaws because he liked her as an argument to this issue for two reasons:
1. Double Standards. If this argument was valid, then it (“Mary Sue is flawless because it is the Hero who perceives her as such”) should apply for every other known and pointed at Mary Sue, and for her lack of flaws in all fan fictions and all canon material everywhere, as per the logical rule against double standards. Example: if Aragorn/Legolas/Snape/Angel/*insert random desired object of wish fulfillment* sees any other original/canon character as perfect, flawless, ideal, it is because they are in love, and not because the character in question is a Mary Sue. It shouldn't matter if the characters in question come out as Sues. It thus results that LJ communities, essays, posts etc. which deal with Mary Sues in general and their perfection in particular have no point in their existence.
2. Authorial intent. If Harry sees no flaws in Ginny, then this is Rowling’s responsibility and not Harry’s, seeing as she is the one in full control of her own work. Because Mary Sues come from wish fulfillment causes, if Rowling’s wish was for Harry to fall for the idealized version of herself, then she will make it as such. The point is that when considering the issue of lack of flaws with Mary Sue, which boils down to them being idealized versions of the author, bringing character intent into the picture is irrelevant, as the main premise for discussion is the authorial intent, which is ultimately the one responsible for how characters perceived one another.
V. Conclusions
I feel that even by the end of HBP, we've yet to see every detail and every attribute that make Ginny a Mary Sue; book 7 is still to come and it might be possible that Rowling fixed Ginny's characterization into something more realistic (and more palatable for that matter). However, as far as I am concerned, I doubt that this will happen, considering that she had HBP to do it and instead of adding some flaws to Ginny and thus changing her from a borderline Mary Sue character to a developed one, she did not, as the canon analysis and Litmus Test show. Judging by her comments on Ginny in the MN/TLC interview as analyzed in this essay I find it safe to assume that the best that will happen to Ginny in book 7 is that she'll become a borderline Mary Sue while the worst will be her remaining the almost fully-fledged Mary Sue that she is now (of course, with additions to her already existing perfection and idealistic features).
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't think that loving Rowling should keep you from observing her possible weaknesses; I am rather tired of those people who keep jumping in protest against any form of criticism at Rowling's address. I won't start my own rant on why a part of the HP fandom has a rather unhealthy tendency to worship and defend Rowling beyond any limits. I'll just say what I said so often in the past: no one is, nor should they be, above criticism.
VI. Links
1. Analysis of Ginny's characterization:
Why is the difference in Ginny’s character between GoF and Books 5&6 poorly written?
On Authorial Intent, Mary Sues and Ginny
The Two Faces of Ginny
Report of Ginny at canonsues
Ginny's Powers: Beyond the Bat-Bogey Hex
2. General Mary Sue information and analysis:
The Mary Sue Concept on Wikipedia
The Mary Sue Manual
Shameless Setteis and Mary Sues
Fantasy, Self-Indulgence, and Wish-Fulfillment
General article
The Essential Guide to Mary-Sue
A Summary and Discussion on the Mary Sue Phenomenon
Just because it’s funny :P
Credits: Many thanks to violaswamp, sistermagpie and myrhlyn for allowing me to link to their insightful and thought-provoking essays about Ginny and for giving me the privilege of reading them in the first place. :) I am eternally grateful to thereader, Darynthe and Mad Eyed Mike for all the support they’ve given me with this essay now and in the past. *hugs*