Character List

[mw_mod]

So it seems like there's a lot of interest in another round of Malfoy-Weasley! That's great! We'll still leave up the poll, though, in case others have more input.

That being said, it's come to our attention that there has been some more debate over our character list. It has been argued that Ginny's children should be allowed because they are no

Comments

[butterfly_kate]

I think adding the spouses of younger characters would prove problematic, but I think Ginny's kids should be allowed.

Yay fest though, I'm thinking about experimenting with Scorpius ... er, that didn't come out right did it?! :)

[humbuggirl]

Now are you sure? *grin*

[humbuggirl]

This was the hardest poll ever :(

I ended up indicating yes to Ginny's kids and Audrey through Hermione. Harry I've never thought of as a Weasley in any sense. This is probably my anglo-saxon/western mindset showing. I suppose the excuse I could use is that at no point does Harry take the surname Weasley. It's an evil question though!

Writing the guidelines will no doubt be tricky whatever you do, and if I'm completely honest the only one that I'm 100% behind is adding Ginny's kids. Audrey through Hermione I ticked because I'd like to see Astoria/Asteria involved, and it wouldn't be fair to have one but not the others. Maybe the emphasis should be that they must be, or have been, a Weasley or a Malfoy at some point in terms of canon. Though I suppose that mucks things up for Molly and Narcissa... Hmm.

[gryff_slytherin]

I agree that this was the hardest poll I've ever taken... for the last one, how about only allowing Audrey and Astoria if they're married into the family? Otherwise, that wouldn't really make sense as then they won't be a Malfoy or Weasley...

[snegurochka_lee]

As a watcher of this comm (and gender issues in general), I find this debate fascinating! The fundamental issue, for me, is not just western social/naming norms, but patriarchal ones. Excluding women who marry into a family and take that surname (or don't) gets into some very troubling politics, in my opinion, regarding the exclusion of women in general from family trees based on male-line naming traditions

[terrayn]

I agree. This is a fascinating poll. The whole concept of taking your spouse's surname has always been interesting to me because it's just not done where I'm from. It's true that children take their father's names but in my experience, women who marry out don't change their last names. So for me, Ginny is always a Weasley and Hermione is always a Granger (though it would probably be more accurate to hyphenate...and what a mess that would be!).

I think the fairest way to go about this might be either bloodline only (Victoire but not Molly) or bloodline AND marriage/widowed/divorced (Harry plus Ginny's kids). To pick and choose randomly (Narcissa and Molly but NOT Asteria and Hermione) doesn't seem quite fair.

[snegurochka_lee]

I agree that 'Narcissa and Molly but not Asteria and Hermione' isn't fair. I'm concerned about the word 'bloodline,' though, because I don't think it should mean only something that denotes a male line. As the post says, It has been argued that Ginny's children should be allowed because they are no less Weasleys by blood than their cousins in spite of their last name -- and I agree with that. And I know this is just a fanfic fest, not serious business, but to include Victoire and not Molly really bothers me, in terms of erasing married women from the board.

The only way I see around it is for the mods to pick the characters they want (without any need to justify it other than, "our fest, our characters"!) or to include everyone who has married into these families, and all of their children.

[terrayn]

I agree. I think Ginny's kids should definitely count because they're Weasleys through her. What I meant by bloodline, I suppose, is that all the characters should somehow be related genetically to the oldest Weasley and Malfoy on the list (who just happen to be male) because this is the malfoy_weasleyfest, after all. I don't mean to say that the daughters of later generations and their descendants don't count (Ginny and Rose's hypothetical kids, for instance) but if we're going strictly by genetics, then Hermione or Molly would be out.

Haha, I just realized, though, that all purebloods are related to one another! Going back far enough means including the Longbottoms even. Oh, man...

[midnight_birth]

I indicated I wanted Hermione and Harry, for example, but there is a big thing to consider now that I think about it. Pairings like Draco/Harry and Draco/Hermione in particular dominate the fandom, and I'm afraid, if allowed, may cut down on the rarer pairings that dominate this fest. Just a thought. Though I DO enjoy the thought of Ginny's kids, though (though, once again, things like Scorpius/Albus Severus MAY take over there, too).

I think I would vote anyone who is related to a Weasley or Malfoy to be included, but no one who's only "related" by marriage. I guess the way I look at it, even if I change my name to my husbands, for example, I will still remain a part of my family, descended from my family, and like my family, no matter what some random piece of paper says. Yet I will have nothing, genetically or physically to do with my husband's family except for a piece of paper that says I now have their name. Does that make sense?

[peskywhistpaw]

I forgot to mention this in the post, but one of the huge reasons why we originally didn't want to include Harry and Hermione was because of Draco/Harry and Draco/Hermione. Not that there's anything wrong with the pairings (Draco/Hermione is, I admit, a favorite of mine), but, like you said, they could get out of hand and dominate the fest.

[snegurochka_lee]

If I may step in one more time, and then I promise to be quiet (*g*), I think you can certainly limit the pairings in any way you wish, without having to justify it. I agree that part of the appeal of this fest is the rarepairs that come out of it, and my personal first thought when thinking 'Malfoy/Weasley' is, "Ron/Draco, yay!"

But in that case, I think you need to say, "This fest includes the following characters/pairings, and does not allow the following characters/pairings, because we are trying to promote rarepairs, and also just because we are the mods and we said so." No, really: you don't need to justify that! The problem, for me personally, comes when there are attempts at justifying those characters or pairings based on the incredibly subjective idea of "bloodline" and who does or does not "belong" in these families as "real" members, etc. That can be very troubling, as I mentioned above, especially for women characters.

Okay, going away now. :)

[midnight_birth]

I agree. I think the mods should just make a decision, announce it, and that's all. I guess my thing about rare pairs, I only suggested it as something to keep in mind, maybe, when deciding. But obviously, the mods are miles ahead of me! :D

And yes, indeed it is a VERY hard debate about who's "real" what and why. I don't think there is a right answer, and everyone has really different ideas about it. I mean, it's so difficult because personally, I don't have a way to divide AT ALL. How do you, you know what I mean? What I suggested comes out of the fact that IF you're going to decide based on who belongs to the family or not, you must pick a side or not cast a vote. I would choose based on pure genetics IF I have to choose. Rather, I'll be thankful that I'm not the one who ultimately has to make this hard decision, and accept whatever the mods choose gladly! :D