(no subject)

[a_t_rain]

So I was in the library today thinking about various Harry Potter pairings, because I will do almost anything to avoid thinking about actual work, and I believe I've come up with a Grand Unified Theory about why certain pairings seem totally natural and intuitive to some readers, and totally wrong to others. Like most of my Grand Unified Theories, it's probably chock-full of holes, but what the hey.


What triggered this train of thought was stumbling across a few posts about Charlie / Tonks, and having the immediate gut reaction, "Oh no, Tonks doesn't go with Charlie at all; she might go with Kingsley if you think Remus has too much baggage, but not Charlie and certainly not Bill -- but she might be rather good for Percy, come to think of it..." After I finished astonishing myself by coming to immediate snap judgments about half a dozen pairings that I'd never thought about before, I tried to backtrack and figure out where on earth all this was coming from, and I came to the conclusion that I was looking for contrasts. The key question I was asking myself was "How do these personalities complement and counterbalance each other?"

And it struck me that this was quite different from the question that Mrs. Weasley asks about Bill and Fleur, and that a goodly percentage of the fans seem to be asking about one pairing or another in the wake of the new book: "What do these people have in common?" If you ARE asking this question, it's fairly easy to see how you might come up with Charlie / Tonks, or Harry / Hermione, or any of a number of other pairings that I'd never quite gotten before. And it's certainly not a bad question to ask about a potential partner in real life, so I can totally see where these people are coming from. But I'm firmly convinced that it wasn't the question JKR was asking herself when she came up with the canon pairings, so it's pretty much useless as a predictive question if you're trying to make an argument about how things are actually going to play out in the books.

What we get in canon: Harry and Hermione are both idealistic, ambitious introverts who take life too seriously and keep things close to the chest, so they get paired up with the expansive, down-to-earth Weasleys. Tonks, on the other hand, is not going to get matched with a Weasley boy because she's already got a Weasley-type personality; she ends up with a quiet, much-older professor. Hagrid lives in a hut and eats stoat sandwiches, so he gets paired with the high-maintenance French headmistress. (While I'm a contrastshipper myself, I have to admit that I'm not sure this was entirely a good idea. There are limits.) Molly, after twenty-odd years of marriage, still doesn't understand her husband's hobbies or see eye to eye with him on a lot of questions. Judging by the brief glimpse we get of James and Lily, they might have ended up much the same way if they were alive. Interestingly, the one big exception to this rule seems to be the couples we're not meant to like -- Petunia and Vernon are two of a kind, as are Lucius and Narcissa.

No wonder the commonalityshippers are frustrated. They're making perfectly sensible arguments that, through no fault of their own, simply don't lead to a payoff in the books. (You can, occasionally, use a commonality argument to justify a canon pairing -- I saw somebody refer to Ginny as a "female Harry" just yesterday -- but Harry actually seems to be attracted to Ginny because she represents things he doesn't have, like a normal happpy family life. I have a feeling that when this type of argument leads people in the right direction, it's by accident.)

As I've said, I expect this theory is probably full of holes, but it does tend to explain a lot of the places where some readers' reasoning appears to be out of sync with JKR's.

Comments

[mafdet.livejournal.com]

Interesting observation! I, myself, thought that Charlie/Tonks was more likely to happen in canon than Remus/Tonks, and while I love Charlie, I was happy to be proven wrong and R/T canon. (For Charlie, there's always OC's. Or Kingsley.)

I think you are right about JKR pairing up opposites, though a lot of us missed it because it was not really apparent as a pattern until HBP confirmed all those pairings. And if opposites continue to attract, should we look for Luna/Ernie Macmillan in Book 7? (I'd say Luna/Neville but JKR has kiboshed that on her website.)

With Hagrid and Maxime, much as I think they're adorable in their large-boned way as a couple, it appears that they have so LITTLE in common that it's hard to base a relationship on. They're both part-giant and in the teaching profession and...that's about it. If they do ever set up housekeeping together, I predict trouble the moment Fang slobbers on Olympe's silk upholstery or Olympe decides to boil a live lobster for dinner. (Hagrid's such a big softy that I could just see him boohooing at the fate of the poor crustacean.)

Merope Gaunt and Tom Riddle Sr. are something of opposites, as well. And with Bellatrix Lestrange and her cipher of a hubby, I think they're opposites in the sense that Bella is larger-than-life whereas Rodolphus exists to do his wife's and their Master's bidding.

I wonder what this says about Andromeda Black and Ted Tonks. I am so dying to find out more about those two.

[a-t-rain.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure "pairing up opposites" is quite what I'm trying to say (because otherwise we'd probably end up with Ron / McGonagall, Hermione / Goyle, and Lily / Voldemort) -- more people who sort of -- balance each other, but have something of a middle ground.

Too true about Hagrid and Maxime, but perhaps they'll decide to maintain separate households.

I wonder what this says about Andromeda Black and Ted Tonks. I am so dying to find out more about those two.

I've always had this mental image of Ted lounging around the house in his underwear and dropping a trail of lager cans wherever he goes, and Andromeda looking sniffily at him :)

[sprite6.livejournal.com]

I wrote a lengthy comment and it was erased! *weeps*

In brief: Excellent points. But I do think JKR's relationships show both commonality and complementarity. Take the Weasleys: Molly and Arthur have many differences, but they're both very family-oriented, and both strongly supported Dumbledore even when it wasn't safe or popular to do so.

I think what makes good relationships is complementary personality traits but common interests and values. That's why I find many non-canon ships annoying, actually - they don't take both factors into account. Draco might have some traits that complement Ginny's personality, but they have totally opposing value systems.

Whereas I think you write keeping both factors in mind. Lupin may be the older, quieter professor, but he's also a former Marauder - I can easily imagine he and Tonks having a similar sense of fun. When you write them, you convey that.

[a-t-rain.livejournal.com]

But I do think JKR's relationships show both commonality and complementarity. Take the Weasleys: Molly and Arthur have many differences, but they're both very family-oriented, and both strongly supported Dumbledore even when it wasn't safe or popular to do so.

You're right, of course, and I've probably stressed the contrastshipping stuff a bit too much to make a point. As I said in my reply to chrysantza, I'm not expecting to see any big revelations about Lily / Voldemort in Book Seven :)

I think what makes good relationships is complementary personality traits but common interests and values.

Ooh, well said. Thanks, that's what I was trying to get at.

[tunxeh.livejournal.com]

I saw somebody refer to Ginny as a "female Harry" just yesterday -- but Harry actually seems to be attracted to Ginny because she represents things he doesn't have, like a normal happpy family life.

Well, but part of his attraction to both Cho and Ginny, I think, involves Quidditch, which is something he has in common with them. And there's enough similarity between Harry and Ginny that they can be confident to know what the other is thinking (not just in HBP, note all the shared glances in earlier books), and I think they both have a similarly snarky sense of humor.

So while it's true, she does complement him well, it's not only because of her differences from him.

[ilirien.livejournal.com]

This is a good thought, but I agree with spritebmc - and apparantly with what you were trying to get across ; ) - in that these relationships (and any healthy relationship) need to be a balance of commonalities and opposition. It'd just be boring otherwise, for starters. ; )

It's so disappointing when someone makes your point before you can get to it. : )

[hannahmarder.livejournal.com]

Interesting as usual. Of course, they say that opposites attract, and that certainly seems to be how JKR thinks. I think with romantic relationships, logic often goes out of the window. So rationally saying 'well, X and Y have lots in common' may be true, and probably indicates they would make good friends, but doesn't really work when the strangeness of attraction is factored in. I do agree with other posters about the commonality needing to lie in values.

Hagrid lives in a hut and eats stoat sandwiches, so he gets paired with the high-maintenance French headmistress. (While I'm a contrastshipper myself, I have to admit that I'm not sure this was entirely a good idea. There are limits.)
Yeah, it seems the main thing they have in common is being half-giant. Having written Fraternisation I must admit I've really started to wonder about their compatability - in my version, Madame is pretty nasty to Hagrid, as you'll see in the next chapter...

[chocolatepot.livejournal.com]

That's really interesting! I love meta!

The Ginny = Harry thing sort of came into my head while I was writing, and I was all "OMG insight!" which NEVER happens with me, so I put it down quickly and moved on. But ... yeah, this makes a lot of sense.

I may link or quote this to/at people; is that all right?

[a-t-rain.livejournal.com]

Sure, feel free to link or quote :)