[QUOTE=Askia]
Well, I agree that grown women do not, as being coy is part of the game, but I think young females often do, especially when they don’t realize they’re being observed in turn. Teeny boppers and eggheads like Hermione do not react terribly different, except, perhaps, that eggheads would likely grow out of it sooner. Remember Hermione’s crush on Gilderoy Lockhart?
[/QUOTE]
I have to disagree. Girls, women–look “longingly” at guys and men who are not attainable–rock stars, movie stars, teachers etc–star football players in high school (think of Jake Ryan and Sam in the film, 16 Candles ). Those males are out of the female’s “sphere” and so a crush can be indulged in. (anecdote–I know a girl who fainted when the star basketball center passed her in the hall and said “excuse me” to her).
I would lose all respect for Hermione if she looked longingly at Ron or Harry or anyone in her peer group at all–she is too smart for that. Notice that none of the girls in Harry’s year do so to him–but some second years look and giggle etc , when he is older.
Ron and Hermione are equals–Rowling has done a nice job of NOT having the boy be better, stronger, faster, wiser etc. Hermione is an excellent role model for girls (I can’t stand fiction that wants to send a message, and I do not think that Rowling created Hermione with that message in mind–but inadvertent or no, Hermy is still an extremely savvy, smart and vulnerable female character.) I enjoy her complexities. Ron is perfect for her-there is no need for her to look up to him, but to look next to her, and there he is. I love it–it is almost edgy in its rejection of standard archetypes and characterizations. Ron softens Hermione’s sharper edges, and she makes him stay up to the mark.
As an archetype she may be more “deserving” than Ginny to “get” Harry, but (I am rereading the books now) I dont’ see that. Rowling has not beaten us over the head with the Ginny/Harry connection, but upon rereading, it is there. Harry is clueless for the most part (and admittedly more distracted with near death experiences etc), but they certainly share moments of humor and emotional connection-glances and smiles and odd bits of dialogue.
All this talk of literature etc–I can see the point, but find it irrelevant. Sure, Rowling is probably more of a midlist writer. Her writing at times is almost painful to read,with its awkward phrasings, poor sentence structure, and, frankly, she lacks the deft touch for imagery and metaphor. She can be pedesterian in her relating of backstory and painfully repetitive in her alluding to previous events.
But.
IMO, that is more a fault of her editor than her. The HP phenomenon took everyone by surprise–she needs a heartless surgeon with a fresh scalpel to aid her.
And.
She does have narrative drive. She has created characters that many, many people care about. We want HP et al to succeed and triumph. I cried the first time I read who died in books 5 and 6. I worry about Neville and McGonagall and a host of other characters. I have a world in my head, thanks to Rowling–one that in some ways resembles the movie version and some ways doesn’t in the least. I am sure this is not unusual.
So, in essence, I think that while, yes, there are better writers out there for kids in general–Rowling is an excellent writer for this time. How many kids today do you know that have read the original Alice in Wonderland? Even I have not read it in its entirety. Just an example.
I think I would put Rowling in with Laura Ingalls Wilder–their writing is quite similiar, really. I keep wanting to say it’s concrete writing (even though JKR writes about the supernatural). It is pleasantly plebian, while involving the reader in a world unfamiliar to them. It works. It will last, IMO–not at the level it is today, but I am sure my grandkids (of which I have none-I’m only 43) will be reading HP.
I don’t get the whole “but do underprivilege kids read HP” dissent. That baffles me. Why is it up to Rowling to create a reading culture for certain demographics? She has a story to tell, and it’s a popular one at present. What’s next-accusing her of racism, since the books involve primarily white characters? I don’t get it.
If an underpriveleged child never reads a book at all–that is not anything to do with Rowling. If HP causes same said child to read voraciously–again, not much to do with her. It has alot to do with that child, though. He or she has had to want to invest time and effort into the books, find a source for the books-and be allowed access to that source- and also be allowed time and space to read.
I would think (WAG here) that economically disadvantaged kids are more likely to not read because of undiagnosed learning disorders, forced reading programs which turn reading into a chore, lack of role modelling re reading by the adults in their lives, and lack of books at home. I can only speak for myself, but I have been in homes where there is not a book to be found. In such homes, there is usually at least one large TV, if not several, and many movies. Not trying to dump on folks who prefer film to books, just saying that most homes have a TV in them, but not all homes have books. My point is that none of this has anything to do with Rowling. Her massive success is due more to the shrinking of the world marketplace and of piqueing the fickle interests of that market. She continues to deliver the goods, so her success continues. Perhaps her true test will be whatever books she writes after these, if any.
Sorry to go so far OT.
Ron and Hermione 4ever! 
