[HPforGrownups] "die, ron, die"

[elfundeb]

No: HPFGUIDX 88057

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Robert Jones" <jones.r.h.j at w...> wrote:

> JKR has said that death is a major theme of the series and I think 

> one of the big three will die. And I think it will be Ron. Here is 

> the summary of the theory.

> 

> (2) The main clue is the chess game at the end of PS/SS (ch. 16). 

> Ron had already demonstrated his skill at Wizards Chess, and in the 

> game at the end of the book he commands the pieces and sacrifices 

> himself so that Harry can get to the stone and defeat LV. 

> In chess, Knights usually don't last to the end of the game, but are 

> sacrificed. Why didn't JKR put Ron on the King or Queen where he 

> would be relatively safe rather than on a minor piece between his 

> friends? It is a foreshadowing of what is to come.

My short answer to this question is not that Ron will die (I think he won't, though your post does an excellent job of laying out the clues in favor) but that Ron became a knight because that is what he is. I'm no expert on knighthood (or chivalry, which I'll get to next), but both Harry and Ron are knights of a sort. Harry could be said to be a knight errant on a quest, except that he is reluctant to take on that role. 

Ron, Harry's sidekick, recalls the knight as vassal who has sworn to protect and defend his lord, even if the cost is his life. Ron hasn't sworn loyalty in so many words, but he does so in his actions. In the only episode where he failed to support Harry, in GoF after Harry was chosen a Triwizard champion, his failure is arguably motivated by a belief that Harry had betrayed him. (Dicentra wrote two excellent posts entitled Anatomy of a Rift: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/52038 and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/52039 sets this out in great detail.) 

The other aspect of Ron as knight is his chivalry. Yes, I know he is lacking in courtly manners. However, every time he takes out his wand in response to another Mudblood insult hurled at Hermione, he's playing the knight, defending the lady's honour. It does not matter that he comes across more like Sancho Panzo than Lancelot. In his own way, he is defending her honor. And while he whines about a lot of things, he never complains about any injuries he suffers in her defense. Remember how cheerfully he belched those slugs?

Why did Ron not choose the King position for himself? I'm no more a chess expert than a medieval expert, but I think one part of the answer is that he would not have been safe as King, since the objective of the game is to checkmate the King. He would also be away from the action, since the other pieces protect the King. The other reason is that Ron did not see himself as a king, but rather as a vassal. 

Even so, he was allowed to be "King" ever so briefly in OOP, when he saved - literally - the Quidditch Cup for Gryffindor. However, he had this opportunity only because Harry had taken himself out of the game (with Umbridge's assistance), oddly enough by reacting in a very Ron-like way to an insult against Lily, and Ron allowed himself to bask in the glory for only a short while before being jolted back to reality.

Harry might have been a more appropriate choice for the King piece, since it was Harry that needed to advance and therefore needed to be protected. But the bishop piece he actually took also seems appropriate (especially if he is to become a Christ-like figure as some have suggested). Clergy were frequently political leaders in medieval times, and knights fought for the Church in the Crusades, so there doesn't seem anything odd about a knight being the vassal of a bishop.

Vmonte wrote:

> The Quidditch positions may also be symbolic. 

Absolutely. The Keeper role is essentially the same role as the Knight role. The Keeper protects and defends the goal hoops by making "saves" that buy time for the offensive players, especially Harry as Seeker. But I covered that in my last post, so I won't bore anyone by needless repetition. 

If Ron becomes team 

> captain, then he will lead an army of children (he will be their 

> strategist). Also, Ron's position is Keeper, so he will act as a 

> goalie to block shots (or the shot that is heading for Harry). Ron 

> may sacrifice himself and take a fatal hit for Harry.

He might take a fatal hit. However, there are clues that he might survive the sacrifice, as he did in PS/SS. One of my favorites is from the first Divination lesson, in ch. 6 of PoA, when Harry reads Ron's tea leaves, and predicts that Ron will have "'trials and suffering' - sorry about that - but there's a thing that could be the sun . . . hang on . . . that means 'great happiness' . . . so you're going to suffer but be very happy." 

Despite the death-and-resurrection symbolism that appears in some of the books, I don't see how a sacrificial death would be consistent with "great happiness", nor do I think achieving his Erised dreams would qualify, either. (I've predicted that, too -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/63474 -along with a suggestion that it is Harry who will make the ultimate sacrifice; after all, Harry and Ron got up from the Christmas dinner table at the same time.) So, either Ron survives, or Harry has no talent at Divination (remember how Harry predicted his own death by decapitation?)

Debbie

Who learned about chess from reading The Annotated Alice


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