Why I think Ron's going to be the victim (a little long)

[Brittany]

No: HPFGUIDX 53745

Kary wrote: 
> Lynn:  I applaud you for finally having the guts to say what I've 
> been thinking but being afraid to say forever.  I know we're going 
to 
> get beat up here by all the Ron lovers and H/R shippers but I 
really 
> feel storng about Ron dying if not in this book then in a future 
> one,  Here's my reasons.
> #1  JKR has never said straight out in an interview that all the 
TRIO 
> is going to live.  She always replies evasively.  Such as "and 
what 
> makes you think that they will all survive?"  and that worries me.

My turn!  Just to make this more objective, I'm not a huge Ron 
lover, though like most everyone, I am rather fond of him.  I just 
want to throw in another opinion here.  I honestly believe Ron won't 
get the axe in book five, though I wouldn't argue with a book six or 
seven theory.  And I found what JKR said in an interview that I was 
referring to earlier, and I was wrong when I said that she said she 
wasn't killing off one of the trio (I couldn't remember exactly), 
but it still leads me to believe she won't kill of Ron in the next 
book.  (If I find another quote about this, I'll be sure to post 
it.):
"Q. People love Ron, for example. Kids think you're going to knock 
off Ron because he's the best friend.
JKR's A. Kids do, because they're sharp and they've seen so many 
films where the hero's best friend gets it. So they think I'm going 
to make it personal by killing Ron. But maybe that's a double 
bluff... It's not that I sat down with a list and decided to 
write, "you're going, you're going, you're going." There are reasons 
for the deaths in each case, in terms of the story. So that's why 
I'm doing it." 
I just think there are too many plot elements left hanging if Ron 
dies in book five.


Kary wrote:
> #2. Ron has made statements and grumblings about being in the 
> backseat to his famous friend.  I can see Ron getting the chance 
to 
> be the Hero and save Harry  and Hermione and sacrificing himself 
in 
> the process.
> 3# Of the trio Ron has been portrayed as the weakest both 
magically 
> and scholarly.  I imagine he's a few steps abouve Neville.  In 
fact, 
> I can't recall much postively said about his talents. That's got 
to 
> be frustrating in a family with Bill, Charlie, Percy, and even 
Fred 
> and George having some type of talent.  I see Ron just wanting to 
> stand out in some way rather than just as Harry's friend, this 
leads 
> back to #2.

Ok, this idea just depresses me!  The way that Ron will finally 
stand out and get the credit we all know he deserves is by 
sacrificing himself, or maybe being the martyr?  I hope not.  I 
agree Ron needs to get something, but I don't think Harry could 
handle his death, and I think it will be something substantial that 
Ron gets, not the "fame after death" idea.  I just couldn't see this 
happening.  I'm not saying it won't, but if it does, I honestly 
think I'd chuck the book across the room.


Kary wrote:
> #4  I also picked up on the quotes from Hagrid and Harry that 
Lynn.  
> Those were strong hints for me.  I don't think Harry would be 
> prostrate from grief from losing his friend instead motivated more 
> into action.

My previous point.  I, too, and waiting for something to make Harry 
snap, make him search out Lord Voldemort himself, but Ron's death, I 
still think would be too much this soon.  As I said, maybe a later 
book, but Harry is sensitive, and I think this soon after the whole 
book four ordeal, Ron would just be too important.  


Kary wrote:
> #5.  Since CoS I' ve felt that someone, namely L. Malfoy and LV 
have 
> had it in for the Weasley's.  Maybe because of the Muggle 
protection 
> act, maybe because of something in the pasy we don't know about 
yet.  
> It's just a feeling we have.
> #6.  A lot of people (Sorry Suzanne :-))will argue that it would 
> leave too big of a hole in the plot, but the truth is, the loss of 
> Hagrid or Dumbledore or any other major character is going to 
leave a 
> hole no matter when it happens.  I just feel that Ron hasn't had 
as 
> large as a role or as been as well developed as the other two of 
the 
> trio.

I agree that the Malfoys have had it in for the Weasleys, but Draco 
has had it in for Hagrid since book one (Norbert, then he gets sent 
to Azkaban in book two, then Buckbeak, and then the half-giant/Rita 
Skeeter mess).  And I would argue that Ron is more developed than 
Hermione, we know far more about his family and upbringing, but I 
think both Ron and Hermione are too important to kill right now.  
Anyway, back to my point, Hagrid honestly wouldn't leave a huge plot 
hole, though I'm not necessarily saying he will die, but I can see 
where people get the idea.  Maxime can carry on with the giants, and 
besides knowing Fridwulfa's whereabouts, Hagrid could die, and the 
plot would still be quite intact as far as I can see.  His story has 
been told.  Ron and Hermione haven't even had a story yet.  


Kary wrote:
> #7  When I read the interview about writng OotP . At least I 
> understood that this quote was from this book.  Sorry I can't get 
it 
> to link. http://books.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4326559,00.html  
> SHe said that there was a death that was extremely difficult to 
write 
> in it. For some reason, I never though that would be of a minor 
> character like one of the Creaveys - I interpreted to be one of 
the 
> Trio, but not Harry.  Therefore Ron-  I guess it's just gut 
instint 
> like anything else. 

I admit, it would just depress me to see Ron die.  But Ron dying, 
and Harry later in some apocalyptic duel with Lord Voldemort, just 
seems so cliche to me.  Rowling is definitely not cliche.  They both 
may die for all I know, but right now I'm just expecting something 
else.

 
Kary wrote: 
> Anyways I need Ron to depart to fufill my crazy adapted (that I've 
> also been too afraid to post)  theory of Heriomione the heir of 
> Ravenclaw, Harry the heir or Griffindor and Neville the heir of 
> Hufflepuff,each helping to defeat  evil LV and the DEs; Ron just 
has 
> to be out of the picuture.  But that's another post for another 
day 

I've heard theories like this before, and I can't agree with them.  
Rowling always says its our choices who make us who we are, and 
having it be all the heirs that defeat Lord Voldemort would be 
supporting the blood heritage idea, not the we-are-who-we-choose-to-
be idea.  Though the Harry being Gryffindor's heir theory coming 
true would not surprise me, there's a lot of proof for that.  But I 
think there will be more to Harry's defeating Lord Voldemort than 
just that fact that he may be Godric's heir.  Otherwise, James 
should have been able to defeat him (I'm assuming Godric's blood is 
on James's side, because Lily was muggle-born).  I just think, and 
want, there to be more to Harry than that his blood is meant to 
defeat Lord Voldemort.  There is also the whole Harry-has-Lily's-
eyes thing, which we know will be important.  My hunch is that Harry 
will be something or be able to do something none of us expected, 
and maybe not in huge magical terms.  One essay on possible ideas 
I've always liked is the one at the Harry Potter Lexicon, the 
Unifying Theory essay at www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/essay-
unifying.html.  I don't know if this is what will happen, but I like 
the theory behind it.

Ok, I'm done now.

Brittany, who's favorite character is obviously Harry himself