Do You Think Ginnys Need For Everything To Be Under Her Control (which We Still Have To Discuss How Different

Do you think Ginny’s need for everything to be under her control (which we still have to discuss how different it is from Hermione’s), besides the emotional and traumatic aspects, may also come from her fear of being powerless? Better put, of not having power? And that makes her strive for it more? If it is, it’s a very Slytherin trait for sure

Oh, yes. She would much rather be in a position to have power that she chooses not to use, than to not have power at all. I think it is definitely a Slytherin trait. But also definitely out of her trauma from Tom, from being completely powerless and swearing to herself that she would never find herself in that position of weakness again. I think this is something both Ginnys have in common, and was honestly one of the reasons I thought she could actually work in Slytherin. She isn’t interested in controlling others, only interested in controlling her own destiny and path, and anyone who would try to take that away from her.

And, yes, I think Hermione’s need to control comes from a different place. Primarily the belief that she knows better than everyone else. It probably sounds egotistical, and it is a bit, but it also comes from what I imagine is Hermione’s feeling that she is Very Smart, that this smartness has been ingrained in her as being her core characteristics, her one valuable trait. (She’s bad with people and emotions and does not easily make friends, and maybe panics under stressful situations and doesn’t make the best leader or dueler, but she can always count on being smart, on Knowing Useful Things, and it’s the one thing that if she puts her effort into it, it always pays off, whereas other areas it never seems to matter how hard she tries, it always goes wrong.) Hermione isn’t interested so much in power in and of itself, as in Doing What’s Right, and Knowing More Than Everyone Else What’s Best.

Sometimes I think about your Ginny and Harry and that scene at Slughorn’s dinner and how Parlor Ginny saves Harry (and probably Neville) from doing saying and doing something he’d regret. But how different that is from how she usually saves him by being Cloister Ginny. Does it make any sense? Maybe not.

This one got me thinking. I think you definitely makes sense, though I may be interpreting your ask incorrectly. The way Ginny protects Harry (and others) in public is very much about weaponizing her carefully collected information and her persona, like at that Slughorn dinner. (Though I am honestly not sure that she did that just to keep him from doing something he’d regret as much as refusing to let him feel like no one at that table has his back. She stops EVERYONE at the table from coming after him or making him uncomfortable for the rest of the evening, mostly because it pissed her off and she’s always had way low impulse control when it comes to Harry.) 

Harry defends Ginny in public very similarly, only instead of those much more ‘Slytherin’ tactics, he physically puts himself between Ginny and any danger or attack, like during the DADA NEWT exam where he uses magic to protect her, throwing up an enormous protective shield in reaction to her getting hurt, and then physically putting himself between Robards and Ginny when he seems to be angrily advancing on her. He’s ready to take the hits for her if he has to (as Harry is very willing to do for almost anyone he considers an innocent or in his in-group).

Now who they are in spaces like the cloister is incredibly different because that isn’t public. In these private spaces, they ‘save’ each other in very different ways, and I think that is a fundamental part of who they are to each other. In private, they don’t have to fall back on those other thing–which for both of them is a rare thing, not to mention that those parts of themselves, while fundamental to their character, are also not things they necessarily are comfortable with. In spaces like the cloister, Harry doesn’t feel like he is only good for throwing spells and taking hits, and Ginny doesn’t feel like she is only good for manipulating people and making the hard decisions. They are each most helpful to the other in simply giving space and having enough trust built between them to allow them to be themselves. They ‘save’ each other just through being there, by having space to talk and wonder and be wrong, and through physical comfort. Just like Ginny allowing Harry to talk through his thoughts about his confliction over his father and Snape or what he did to Malfoy. Or Harry holding Ginny and letting her cry over George. These things are not about what they can do for the other person, but how they provide space for them to just be themselves. 

What does Slytherin Ginny think about Albus Severus as a name for her baby? After two dead men with controversial histories? One who didn't care enough for the individual losses in face of greater good and another,a petty bully who was once her close friend's boggart? Perhaps if she got creative enough she could name him after a couple of parlor sisters instead?

1) Don’t assume Slytherin Ginny is going to have James, Albus, and Lily. Sorry next gen kids, nothing against you, but The Changeling universe is not epilogue compliant. I can say for certain that she is not going to have kids at 22.

2) I have a wonky personal headcanon that first-girl-in-seven-generations Ginny Weasley is going to have all girls. I just like that. You know, MAGIC.

3) I’m not on board with naming kids after dead people. I mean, you want to give them a name that’s been in your family for a long while and it’s your long dead great-great-great aunt’s name? Sure. Want to honor your grandmother who was your rock and your guiding light? Sure. Maybe a middle name though. But to give children a name tied to someone who died tragically or who is some larger than life hero? No. I think any kid of Harry Potter’s is going to have enough to deal with. Adding to that is just cruel. There are other ways to honor the dead. (I think I can understand why Harry might want to do that though. Particularly only four years after the end of the war when he probably hadn’t even really begun to heal, and he doesn’t have the healthiest ways to deal with things, so yeah, name your kid after dead people. Okay. But, Harry, WHY? Sometimes it just reads too much as a narrative trick to reinforce the ALL WAS WELL, without actually showing the ‘how’ of any of it. It’s a nice neat bow at the end of what was always a gloriously real and messy story. It’s the happily ever after.)

movie ron: i’ll heh go easy on you. even though you have consistently showed us how proficient you are at spellcasting and how hyper confident you are at magic. i’m the Man so i’ll go easy, don’t worry my overwhelming manliness will not allow me to disarm a poor defenceless girl

book ron: [excitedly] I DISARMED HERMIONE THREE WHOLE TIMES DID YOU SEE THAT HARRY DID YOU?????

Do you remember how you came up with the scene of Ginny being forced to get a tatto? Was that something you had in mind pretty early on? I think it had such a huge impact on a loooot of things after the years, in different ways

Well, at first it just seemed like kind of a vile, shitty thing someone like Draco Malfoy might do to someone he secretly hated, but was having fun stringing along. I knew from the start that Ginny’s dismay at being in Slytherin was not missed by her housemates. She hasn’t really endeared herself, acting like she’s morally superior or something, too good for Slytherin. And Draco is just being a petty shit, showing off for his friends. It was after I first thought of it though, that the long-term implications started to occur to me, and I realized what a long term reminder and symbol that could be, about surfaces and assumptions and control of one’s own destiny--about the ways it might make people assume things about her and how hard that would be, and how powerful it would be for her to turn that to her benefit. So it was an idea bouncing around from the beginning, but one that the symbolism and repercussions took a while to develop.

So here’s the thing. There is no logical reason that Ginny Weasley, as a nearly 17-year-old at the end of Deathly Hallows, would be good at taking care of babies, that she would somehow be this amazing Teddy-caring-for figure. Like, she was (nearly) 17. Her family is big, but she’s the baby, the youngest child and there seems to be a conspicuous canonical absence of Prewett or Weasley cousins in the narrative that could have maybe exposed her to younger kids. She probably has zero baby experience in her entire life. So the concept of her becoming a primary care giver or even being the most competent caretaker of a months-old if not weeks-old infant in the face of Harry bumbling about is so weird to me. (And makes me wonder if this is some ‘women are inherently, biologically nurturing and great at caring at babies because that is what they are meant to do’ cult of true womanhood bullshit that is crazy toxic and makes first time mums feel like they are somehow deficient when they struggle to care for an infant because babies are HARD, yo. anyway, I digress)

Honestly, the Ginny and Harry care for baby Teddy shit would probably go more like this if you ask me:

Keep reading