Why Ron Isn't a Seer

[catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk]

No: HPFGUIDX 21458

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., meboriqua at a... wrote:
> I don't understand why people think Ron is a Seer.  
<snip excellent post with lots of good points I agree with>

I agree with everything you say here.  I can't see any evidence at 
all that Ron is a Seer.  In fact, I have always thought that out of 
the three, he is the one who seems to get the most wrong.  This is 
despite the fact that many of his comments are intuitive.  An example 
of this is Snape.  Ron hates Snape, period.  This is obviously 
understandable, because Snape does treat all the Gryffindors 
abominably, but Ron is still adamant, despite a great deal of 
evidence to the contrary, that Snape=evil and that therefore he can't 
be trusted, and is "after" Harry.  The other two do not see this.  
Harry hates Snape, but has begun to trust him.  Hermione also doesn't 
like Snape, but always refutes any idea that Snape is evil and can't 
be trusted, whenever Ron brings it up.  This to me seems to be an 
example of Ron seeing things at face value and not exploring beyond 
this, whereas both Harry and Hermione are prepared to explore the 
fact that things and people are not always as they appear to be.

Ron always seems to me to be grasping at straws when trying to work 
out what is going on.  He often comes up with one idea after the 
other, many of which do not even come close to hitting the mark - if 
something does, it seems to be more through luck and because he has 
exhausted so many other implausible ideas rather than any real 
understanding of the situation and foresight.  His "intuition" is 
really feelings developed from personal gripes and wizarding 
prejudice.

I think that the real Seer is Harry.  However, I am not sure whether 
this sight has only one focus - that of Voldemort, who is, afterall, 
a part of him (transferal of powers etc.)  IIRC, the only other dream 
unconnected to Voldemort is when he is chasing Prongs through the 
forest - again, a manifestation of his father, therefore a part of 
him. The only other incident which made me think was his prediction 
that Buckbeak would not be executed.  Did he really predict this, or 
was it just stubbornness?  I can quite imagine that he would say this 
because a) it's what he wants to happen  and b) because he knows that 
Professor Trelawney is only interested in the doom and gloom side of 
divination an he therefore is deliberately contrary.

Catherine