Ron's prejudices; Good/Bad Characters; SHIP (Hermione at the QWC)

[Penny Linsenmayer]

No: HPFGUIDX 38328

Hi --

Jenny from Ravenclaw originally said (this was misattributed as my quote by someone else later, but this was Jenny's original thought):

<<<Ron is easily influenced by others.  IOW, he is rather weak.  The fact 
that he cannot fight the Imperius Curse is evidence of that to me.>>>

Jo serenadust said:

<<<How is this an example of Ron's weakness? In GoF it states very 
clearly that "*not one* of them seemed to be able to fight off the  
curse" in the DADA class.  That would, of course, include Hermione.>>>

Well, in the first mention of Imperius Curse (The Beuxbatons & Durmstrang chapter), actually it's *inferred* that Hermione couldn't shake it off either, but her name isn't mentioned at all.  I agree she probably can't, but I note that her name isn't mentioned (though Neville, Dean and Lavender are mentioned).  And, in that instance, Ron is said to have had "much more difficulty than Harry."  Well, true enough that since Harry is the only one who can throw it off entirely, this isn't necessarily as horrible as all that.  BUT, I agree with Jenny that it just sticks out like a red flag to me.  It might end up being a red herring or just a throw-away reference .... but it strikes me that Ron's susceptibility to Imperius is slightly highlighted.  He also has had trouble shaking off the effects of charms IIRC.  It just seems like one of those subtle little foreshadowing hints that JKR is so fond of inserting OR maybe we've all just had too much time since the last book to make mountains out of molehills.  :--)

Jenny continues:

> When it comes to prejudices, I feel that somewhere along the line when Ron 
was much younger, he heard some arguments against werewolves and 
giants 
> (or maybe he simply heard what nearly everyone around him was 
saying) 
> and took those comments for fact without thinking them through for 
> himself.  Ron isn't one to question and is much more likely 
to "judge 
> a book by its cover", so to speak.  He's not strong enough to 
stand up 
> alone and express his views the way Hermione does. 

Jo serenadust argued:

<<<Ron not *strong* enough to stand up and express his views?  Are we 
reading the same books? <g> He's the one who stands up to Snape on 
Hermione's behalf, he's the one who was going to stand up to Fudge 
(his dad's boss!) on behalf of Buckbeak if Hermione hadn't stopped 
him.>>>>>>

I suspect that Jenny might have been referring more to Ron's tendency to throw out theories without alot of thought or logic going into the mix-master.  It seems to me that Ron has become increasingly insecure as the series progresses, and his tendency to just blurt something out has become more pronounced.    

I would like to clarify *yet again* that I don't think Ron is evil.  I don't think Ron will "turn" evil.  I don't think my favorite love-triangle theory (FITD) requires that Ron be evil or dead.  I *do* think Ron is susceptible to manipulation, and even though the other characters are also potential candidates for manipulation by the DEs, I think Ron is more at risk for this than others.  I think it's thus possible for him to *unwittingly* betray Harry.  I must say that I don't understand why when someone raises any of Ron's faults or questions his motivations at all, that person is immediately accused of being a member of the Evil!Ron camp.  It really ought to be possible to acknowledge that Ron is as flawed as any of the other characters; one ought not to have to choose between Perfect!Ron (who would never intentionally or unintentionally betray Harry because he's *perfect*) or Evil!Ron.  Can I take a middle ground without lots of tomatoes being thrown my way?  Please.  

I don't think Ron is a bad person, though I do say that I have liked him less & less as the series progresses.  His faults have become more pronounced in my interpretation, whereas Hermione's faults seem to be improving as the series progresses.  But, yes, it would be boring indeed if all the characters were pure white or pure black.  It is the faults, ambiguities & gray areas that make it all the more interesting ... which leads me into this week's discussions of Good/Evil:   

I don't think I can at this point add much to the excellent points made by Dave, Eloise, Gwen and others, though I did have to comment on this:

Dave: <<<<<<<<<<Another pairing is Sirius with his own animagus form. (I find it hard 
to understand why this only works for me with him, and not with 
James, Peter, Miverva or Rita.  Certainly Prongs represents 
continuity not variability, as he is Harry's Patronus.)  It is in his 
name: Sirius Black.  Sirius is the brightest (and most twinkling in 
northern latitudes) star in the sky, so his name is a pairing of 
opposites: the dark star.  His ability to flip between man and dog 
comes across to me as an indication of a fundamental instability, the 
see-sawing between higher and lower, the base nature ever reaching up 
to trip up and shock the civilised man just when he thinks he has 
made it.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Wow!  I just had to throw this in for a brief comment.  This is really intriguing; I hope Dicey (authoring an essay on our collective thoughts on Sirius) is paying attention.  Very perceptive analysis, Dave.  I'd never noted that his name pairs opposites really.  

Barb wrote a lengthy analysis of the well-rounded morally ambiguous nature of the "good" characters, contrasted against the relatively flat one-dimensional "bad" characters:  

<<<<Five "bad" people who were masquerading as "good" people did things 
that were sometimes not so bad until their true nature was revealed:

Quirrell
Pettigrew
Crouch, Sr.
Crouch, Jr.
Bagman>>>>>>

I note that I suspect Pettigrew is a prime candidate for a character who will get more depth in future books, particularly if he does indeed repay his debt to Harry.  

I too would like to see less flatness overall though with respect to the "bad guys."  I agree with Dave that Draco needs depth as much or more than he needs "redemption."  I think it *is* his flatness that bothers so many of us really.  

Rohit, arguing against his own ship (H/H), said:

<<<<1)The whole debate about seating arragements at the Quidditch 
World Cup is moot.  Hermione only pulls Harry back into his seat 
because he was the only one standing up--we get not a single 
indication that Ron was standing up, and indeed, the fact that Mr. 
Weasley *leaned over* to stop Ron from tearing the shamrocks 
on his hat indicates that he was, in all likelihood, sitting down.  
Combined with the seating chart argument, though, this is 
almost incontrovertible proof that Hermione was not showing a 
preference for either of the two boys when she pulled Harry back 
into his seat.  <snip> Indeed, hermione in general seems to be annoyed 
with both boys when they show interest in girls solely based on 
attractiveness...>>>>>

*That's* the point!  Her annoyance with Ron's reaction to Fleur, IMO, is not because she has romantic interest in Ron.  It's just more evidence that she's annoyed when *either* of her best friends succumbs to the admittedly-normal-for-14-yr-old-boys impulse to be attracted to a girl based on her appearance.  The fact that she shows annoyance with Harry to the point of pulling him back into his seat, with an "Honestly!" thrown in for good measure, is quite good evidence that her later reactions to Fleur *might not* be motivated by jealousy due to romantic interest in Ron.  If they *are* motivated by romantic interest in Ron, how do you explain her reaction to Harry at the QWC after all?  Yeah.  Exactly.  <g>

Penny



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]