I’ve been pondering this. I was really glad when Hermione started getting to take the spotlight, and a lot of my appreciation was from a straight-forwardly-feminist perspective. I posted a mini review talking about how Hermione had been lacking as a character, the hints Eliezer had dropped about her future development, and my appreciation for the way he eventually handled it. Apparently this comment played a role in Eliezer coming up with the SPHEW acryonym. I’m not sure if it ended up otherwise shaping the arc. He also noted that the initial setup (where Dumbledore basically tells Hermione she can’t be a hero because she just can’t) was intended to be a critique, but not about feminist issues.
A few months later, I think this section is an interesting case study in meta-token-feminism. I think that Eliezer in general agrees with most goals of the movement, but is probably actually opposed to token feminism. (This is based off of a few vague statements he made, I’m only 65% confident). I also think that SPHEW was originally intended to sort of lampshade the issue, addressing some real issues but in a tongue-in-cheek way. (The issues—mostly about the power imbalance that he created between Hermione and Harry—aren’t inherently feminist-oriented, but they happened to interact with the gender dynamics of the original story in a way that made attempt to fix them look like token feminism. I think it could have been pulled off it a much subtler way, but in general MoR isn’t particularly subtle anyway. (Or rather, it IS subtle, but you can’t hear the subtlety over the sound of how awesome Harry is, unless you’re actually looking for it).
And then it turned out to be a lot harder to write than he thought and it dragged on for a long time which made it seem even more long and intense than it actually was. If we were reading this story through all at once, I think the section would still be long, but wouldn’t have generated the complaints it’s gotten.
The important thing to remember about all of this is that this entire segment takes place before the end of year one. Hermione just leveled up dramatically. Yes, Harry got a surprise visit to Azkaban, but I’m pretty sure by the time year one ends, she and Harry will be participating side by side against serious, life threatening issues.
By the end of the section, I’m less worried about how the gender issues played out and more concerned about how the “Hermione and friends are level-grinding by picking fights with bullies” vibe.
Regardless, I think MoR definitely needed a less serious intermission before the next Dark Serious Thing, and I think some over-the-top token feminism and silly level-grinding isn’t too bad a way to do that if it is also addresses some issues with the character-power-dynamics. It would definitely feel out of place in a traditional novel, but with the TV-series pacing, it’s an okay diversion.
I’ve been pondering this. I was really glad when Hermione started getting to take the spotlight, and a lot of my appreciation was from a straight-forwardly-feminist perspective. I posted a mini review talking about how Hermione had been lacking as a character, the hints Eliezer had dropped about her future development, and my appreciation for the way he eventually handled it. Apparently this comment played a role in Eliezer coming up with the SPHEW acryonym. I’m not sure if it ended up otherwise shaping the arc. He also noted that the initial setup (where Dumbledore basically tells Hermione she can’t be a hero because she just can’t) was intended to be a critique, but not about feminist issues.
A few months later, I think this section is an interesting case study in meta-token-feminism. I think that Eliezer in general agrees with most goals of the movement, but is probably actually opposed to token feminism. (This is based off of a few vague statements he made, I’m only 65% confident). I also think that SPHEW was originally intended to sort of lampshade the issue, addressing some real issues but in a tongue-in-cheek way. (The issues—mostly about the power imbalance that he created between Hermione and Harry—aren’t inherently feminist-oriented, but they happened to interact with the gender dynamics of the original story in a way that made attempt to fix them look like token feminism. I think it could have been pulled off it a much subtler way, but in general MoR isn’t particularly subtle anyway. (Or rather, it IS subtle, but you can’t hear the subtlety over the sound of how awesome Harry is, unless you’re actually looking for it).
And then it turned out to be a lot harder to write than he thought and it dragged on for a long time which made it seem even more long and intense than it actually was. If we were reading this story through all at once, I think the section would still be long, but wouldn’t have generated the complaints it’s gotten.
The important thing to remember about all of this is that this entire segment takes place before the end of year one. Hermione just leveled up dramatically. Yes, Harry got a surprise visit to Azkaban, but I’m pretty sure by the time year one ends, she and Harry will be participating side by side against serious, life threatening issues.
By the end of the section, I’m less worried about how the gender issues played out and more concerned about how the “Hermione and friends are level-grinding by picking fights with bullies” vibe.
Regardless, I think MoR definitely needed a less serious intermission before the next Dark Serious Thing, and I think some over-the-top token feminism and silly level-grinding isn’t too bad a way to do that if it is also addresses some issues with the character-power-dynamics. It would definitely feel out of place in a traditional novel, but with the TV-series pacing, it’s an okay diversion.
Absolutely not.
Draco will be in between them.
I’m pretty positive Draco and Hermione will be flanking him.
Dramiorry: OT3 for lyfe.
I’m totally shipping that threesome. And wondering just what their parents would say about it.