Reintroducing myself and a question (second impressions of OoP)

[sophierom]

No: HPFGUIDX 92002

I (sophierom) wrote:
>  But Ron? He doesn't really stand for anything, particularly as a 
> > prefect.  He's always playing the pure sidekick to Harry. Of 
> course, this is part of his function as a character, I guess.  
And, he has the problem of the twins.  Don't get me wrong, I like 
Ron a lot, but I think he's by far the weakest of the trio.  If we 
could condense MWPP into 3, Harry would represent a bit of his 
father and godfather, Hermione acts most like Lupin, and Ron is 
Peter Pettigrew.   

Susanne responds:

"I violently disagree <g>.

In fact, I have a hard time finding many parallels between
the marauders and the trio at all.

Harry may look a lot like his father, and they both play
Quidditch well, and both have an "arch enemy" (Snape, Draco)
but other than that, it doesn't seem they act very similar or
have a similar outlook on things.
Same with Sirius.

And Hermione never seems to keep quiet, and says what she
believes in, even if it loses her friends, which is not like
Lupin.

And how does Ron resemble PP?

Does he fawn over, and admire Harry and Hermione?
Does he tolerate Harry and Hermione openly making fun of
him?

Ron is able to stand up for himself just fine, and his
morals seem okay to me.
The WW in general has a lot of improvement in that regard,
so why expect Ron to be perfect already?

He's always been able to change his outlook, if proven
wrong, and I do think that seeing werewolves and giants as
dangerous probably has it's reasons. They are, under certain
circumstances.

I'm sure, Hermione would take precautions when meeting a
werewolf at full moon, and seeing how she reacted to
Grawp...

And Jo added:

> I generally don't think that generational parallels work too well 
in HP but I'm afraid that I don't see any similarities between Ron 
and Pettigrew.  Ron tells a (he thinks) murderous Sirius Black that 
> he'll have to kill him first if he wants to kill Harry.  He never, 
> ever fawns over Harry and even goes so far as to have a fight with 
> him when he feels betrayed in GoF. I can't quite picture Pettigrew 
> doing any of these things. In addition, academically, he's Harry's 
> equal, according to Harry, and while Hermione is the intellectual 
> support behind Harry, Ron is his main emotional support.
> 
> I think that the trio is quite well balanced, overall and I'm 
> looking forward to seeing each of them overcome their personal 
> challenges as well as helping Harry defeat Voldemort.  Ron is no 
> more of a weak link than Hermione, IMO."

Sophierom now responding to Jo and Susanne:

Wow! I have to admit I'm kind of excited because I don't think I've 
ever provoked violent disagreement on the list before <g>!  I think 
both of you are right ... I oversimplified when I made the 
comparison between MWPP and HRH. When I compared Ron to PP, I didn't 
mean to suggest that Ron fawned over Harry or would become a traitor 
or even a liability to Harry. I guess I was thinking about the way 
that Peter seemed to act in relation to everyone around him. I saw 
Ron having that same problem, though not to the same extreme.  And, 
after thinking it over some more, I guess that where Peter failed 
(his lack of confidence led first to becoming a follower of MWP and 
then of LV), Ron is succeeding (he doesn't let his fear of the 
twins - and I do believe he's afraid of what they think - stop him 
from trying out at Quidditch).  And when I compared Hermione to 
Lupin, I saw them both as the conscience of the group, though you're 
right to point out that Lupin fails to speak his mind whereas 
Hermione always opens her mouth. Perhaps we can say, then, in both 
these cases, there is a general inability to communicate effectively 
(too much can lead to tuning out; too little, no impact). I do 
believe that Harry shares a lot of similarities to Sirius - they're 
both impulsive, emotional; they want to be in the thick of things, 
and when they aren't they get frustrated and act unwisely.  Of 
course, Harry is a teenager (so perhaps some of that type of 
behavior can be attributed to age), whereas Sirius is an adult, but 
I do think that JKR intentionally gives us these similarities to 
show us the dark side of Harry's impulsiveness.  As for Harry and 
James, I'll agree that I was only thinking of the superficial 
similarities.  

So, let me modify my statement. I still believe that the trio shares 
some of the potential problems of MWPP, but that they are stronger 
and will overcome instead of fall to these weaknesses.

Okay, on to my other point, about Hermione's "moril peril":

Sophierom (me) said: 
> > I actually thought Hermione was in less "moral peril" in OotP 
than 
> > in any of the other books.  In the other books, she was more 
like 
> > Percy; she tended to believe in the rules for the rules' sake.  
> That 
> > can be just as morally dangerous as disregarding the rules 
> > altogether.  
> > 
> > I actually thought it was Ron who was in trouble morally.  He 
> > doesn't take much of a stand on anything throughout the book.  
For 
> > all the problems in Hermione's S.P.E.W. campaign, at least she 
> > believes in something and is acting on it.>

Jo Serenadust responded:
 I'm afraid that I'm baffled by this statement.  After all, it isn't 
> Ron who is grimly engaging in blackmail or scheming to put someone 
> he doesn't like in mortal danger (Umbridge and the Centaurs).  
> Hermione certainly believes in "something" and acts on it, but 
does 
> it not matter what that something is or *how* one acts on it?
> I thought that Hermione was skating very close to the edge all 
> through OOP, and because she seemed to be right about virtually 
> everything, she never had an opportunity to reconsider any of her 
> actions.  I really think that JKR is setting her up for a big (and 
> well-earned) fall.

And Susanne wrote:
"Regarding Hermione's morals, I think she has gotten past the
point of putting rules above everything, but instead has
moved more toward "the end justifies the means". which could
be dangerous ground."


Sophierom again:
I would like to stand by some of my comments here.  I think we 
fundametally disagree on what is moral (but please don't think I'm 
immoral because of this! :-)  You're absolutely right; "how" one 
acts is important, and what that "something" one believes in is also 
important.  But Hermione's "something" in the case of Umbridge and 
the Centaurs is Harry and the Order.  And Hermione's "how" relied on 
Umbridge's immoral behavior. I can't believe that Umbridge is 
innocent in this scenario (or any scenario!); Hermione simply bet on 
the fact the Umbridge would be rude to the centaurs and cause her 
own downfall.  If Umbridge had respected the dignity of the centaurs 
(either by not entering the "Forbidden" forrest, or by speaking 
respectfully to the centaurs) she could very well have avoided 
violence.  Umbridge had choice in this matter.  Hermione simply read 
her character correctly and let her make that choice.  I don't think 
this was immoral or using the ends to justify the means (in my mind, 
that would mean harming the "victim" directly, or giving them no 
freedom of action). She let Umbridge choose the means, and for a 
good cause.  

Are we to say that if Harry, knowing one of LV's character flaws, 
uses it against him in the final battle, Harry is acting immorally? 

I think you both have many great points about Hermione. She could 
very well have a "fall" by the end of the series.  But, I think that 
she gets a really bad rap on this list, particularly for standing up 
for things like House Elves' rights and her friends.

Okay, enough from me. Fire away again if you'd like. I find it very 
interesting.  Thanks for the posts.

Sophierom, who - being someone like Ron, who usually just goes with 
the flow - really admires Hermione for taking a stand when no one 
else will (house elves) or when some plan of action is needed 
(Umbridge's office).