On Ron

[donnaimmaculata]

Oh, right. Apparently I have no middle gears. First I don't update for, like, two weeks at all, and then I am unable to shut up.

But there is something I have to address before it slips from my mind (like many other brilliant thoughts have done before, I am sure). You know how half the fandom is convinced that Rowling is oblivious to the fact that her hero characters, the ones on the side of Light, have flaws and faults and that they base their judgement on moral values which are more than dubious? Within the space of the last few days, I have read posts and comments accusing her of painting black-and-white characters, of thinking Harry, Hermione, Dumbledore, Sirius etc. are always right, of never questioning her characters' actions and of thinking that Gryffindors can never go wrong.

Obviously, the characters don't question their actions - Harry and Hermione especially are scarily self-righteous - but does is hence follow that Rowling is unaware of the fact that their judgement is flawed? I, for one, don't think so. Yes, she says she likes Sirius and dislikes Snape, but you know what? I like Sirius better than Snape, too. I don't think that Sirius is "good", that he's the "rebel with a heart of gold", but I like him nevertheless. His flaws undeniably exist, but he's got redeeming values, and I like him for them. I realise that Remus is passive-agressive and liar, but it doesn't stop me from loving him. As to Harry - poor, angry, capslock Harry - I love him since OotP, because he has finally realised that he is trapped in a nightmare and reacts accordingly. And the only way he can vocalise his anger and pain is by lashing out at people - which also happens to be Snape's method (whom I likewise adore, though not as much as Sirius).

Somehow, I do suspect Rowling is - on the whole - intelligent enough to realise that. She has created a number of fascinating, multi-layered characters, and she likes them not because she doesn't see their flaws but in spite of them. Or would she be entitled to liking her good guys only if they were flawless, never erred and their moral judgement never failed? I don't agree with her moral values in many instances, but I don't think that she completely fails to see that her good guys are ridiculously self-righteous.


And this is where Ron comes into play:

"What's that?" said Ron, pointing at a large dish of some sort of shellfish stew that stood beside a large steak-and-kidney pudding.

"Bouillabaisse," said Hermione.

"Bless you," said Ron.

"It's French," said Hermione. "I had it on holiday, summer before last, it's very nice."

"I'll take your word for it," said Ron, helping himself to black pudding. (GoF, Chapt. 16)

Now, if that isn't a meta comment, I don't know what is. Ron illustrated here exactly the attitude that Rowling's characters show in all their actions: He's absolutely biased towards the food he knows and disregards the unfamiliar dish as disgusting. From an outider's (and foreigner's) PoV, both dishes are likely to seem equally strange or disgusting. Ron sticks with what he knows and does not question his aversions/preferences. He is just as self-righteous here as Harry/Hermione/Sirius are in matters of moral significance. I don't think that this is a coincidence.

There is the theory floating around that Ron will turn out to be a Seer, because many of his throw-away remarks turn out to be true. It has been pointed out that it was he who said that Snape is reading minds - or Harry's mind - at some point, and that this turned out to be true as Snape is a Legilimens. While I don't remember whether and when Ron said that, I have come across something else that struck me:

In the Chapter "Padfoot Returns" in GoF, Harry, Ron, Hermione and Sirius discuss Snape's role and possible guilt regarding Harry and his involvement in the Triwizard Tournament. The dialogue is as follows:

"So you think Snape could be up to something, then?" asked Harry, but Hermione broke in.

"Look, I don't care what you say, Dumbledore trusts Snape-"

"Oh, come off it, Hermione," said Ron impatiently, "I know Dumbledore is brilliant and everything, but that doesn't mean a really clever Dark wizard couldn't fool him-" (GoF, Chapt. 27)

Which, of course, is exactly what is happening. While the other characters (Hermione in particular!) implicitly trust Dumbledore, Ron questions his abilities and, on a meta level, gives away the plot. The others suspect that an outsider (Karkaroff) is the villain and that Dumbledore is entirely blameless, but it's Ron who states that Dumbledore is not infallible. Which, again, turns out to be correct.


So why I agree that Hermione, especially OotP Hermione, represents the authorial voice, I have begun to suspect that Ron is the meta commentator. Hermione gives us background information and tells us what is happening during the narrative, but Ron tells us what is going to happen and questions the characters' actions on a meta level. In any case, I will pay more attention to Ron when reading HBP.

Comments

[froda-baggins.livejournal.com]

I like this and I agree with it. I think people tend to assume that Rowling is writing her own personal views in her good guys or something, while that is not necessarily the case. Or that, as the author, she's too close to them to see their flaws, while...well I've never understood that concept because, well...she created these characters. I would hope she knows them well enough to see their flaws.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

From all that I know, she has stated in interviews that Remus does act like a coward and that Sirius is hypocritical and rash. She likes them despite their flaws, as do the majority of the fans. I don't get the impression that she thinks everything her good guys do is inherently good. The good guys think that they're always right, but that's quite a different matter.

[fluffyllama.livejournal.com]

My head is trying to explode with a headache, so I'll be brief. I think what you've said is far more interesting than all the 'Ron is a seer!' stuff, and I'll be paying more attention to what Ron says in HBP too. I like him more and more, I must say.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Oh, you poor thing :-( I hope you'll be better soon. I hope you've got some kick-ass tablets to make it go away.

I've always liked Ron, and I hope he's got a more important function than being the clueless sidekick. And it's Parvati who's going to be the Seer anyway ;-)

[marinarusalka.livejournal.com]

Verrry interesting. I'll also throw in the bit in CoS, when the Trio are speculating about what Tom Riddle might've done to earn his award for special services to the school. Ron jokes, "maybe he killed Moaning Myrtle," which, of course, turns out to be quite true.

And I've always been confused by the notion that JKR set out to create a bunch of one-dimensional, whity-white good guys, accidentally gave them a bunch of character flaws, and is completely unaware of what she's done. I don't understand why this is such a widespread belief in fandom.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

You're right. I quite forgot about Moaning Myrtle.

And I've always been confused by the notion that JKR set out to create a bunch of one-dimensional, whity-white good guys, accidentally gave them a bunch of character flaws, and is completely unaware of what she's done.

I know. I also read the other day that she only writes black-and-white characters, which confuses me even more. I mean, can there be a character more flawed than Sirius? She even has both her authorial voices, Hermione and Dumbledore, spell this out for Harry and the reader.

[scarah2.livejournal.com]

Hi, here from Snitch :)

In addition to Ron's function you lay out here, which I agree with, he has another job, which comes up often in criticism of the films. He has to impart any knowledge of the WW which couldn't plausibly appear in Hogwarts, A History. Obviously he doesn't know everything (about the founders, etc.) but with so many older wizard brothers, he gets to be the imparter of wizarding "street smarts" information. Sweets, practical jokes, and more.

This was a big issue people had with giving Hermione the "Mudblood" exposition lines in the CoS film. Where'd she read that, Moste Potente Racial Epithetes?

[spiffariffic.livejournal.com]

This was a big issue people had with giving Hermione the "Mudblood" exposition lines in the CoS film. Where'd she read that, Moste Potente Racial Epithetes?

I thought it was odd that they gave that to Hermione, but it had an interesting effect anyway - it made it seem like Hermione had already been called that before, some time she wasn't with Ron or Harry.

But yeah, if they'd had Hermione explain Quidditch or squibs? Not so much. Well, squibs, possibly.

[mercurycirce.livejournal.com]

I'll bet you any money that she read it in Hogwarts: A History.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Moste Potente Racial Epithetes

This book should totally exist ;-)

I know. I don't like how they stripped Ron's character from any important features in the film. I am also rather put out by Rowling's portrayal of Ron in OotP. He's lost significance as part of the trio, and I really hope that she's not reducing him to the stupid sidekick.

[mercurycirce.livejournal.com]

I don't think half the fandom would be able to write decent fiction if the characters had flaws and the author was somehow unaware of them. They're making it sound like JKR likes them 2 dimensional or something when she's even trying to make bloody Grawp look vaguely human (in terms of learning 'Hermione's name', asking for Hagrid, etc) when most people in the wizarding world consider giants/trolls to be utterly stupid.

You have a good point with Ron. I've been wondering lately about WHEN his uncle Bilius saw a Grim and if it was Sirius Black. You know when you read something and it comes back to you later, nagging you like an old auntie? Well, maybe you don't ;) But I'm sure you get what I'm aiming for. Also, I don't think Ron is a Seer, rather that he tends to know which gut reactions/instincts to follow, especially when he's joking.

[mercurycirce.livejournal.com]

Oh, also, when my class reached that age, they all started rebelling - a lot of them had been through traumatic things, myself included - and there were lots of in-school arguments and fights, so when Harry starts shouting and people don't like it, it annoys me; I mean, for fucks sake, it's supposed to seem real. If everyone wants Harry to suffer quietly then that's the exact opposite of what they should expect, he's an orphan who has watched one of his classmates die, he lost his godfather who is the only real family he ever had, he knows Peter Pettigrew is alive and well, he's been part of some weird life-inducing ritual, he has a curse, a prophecy, is famous for having dead parents AND at the age of fifteen, he's been told he has to kill someone. I don't know what other people were thinking but I was more than expecting this; and it was almost a relief when he kicked off. I was glad that Harry had finally reacted to everything that was happening to him.

I thought this was a normal response but so many people disliked the book for that reason. Am I crazy?! ;)

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

I think it's highly unlikely that Rowling has created characters like Sirius or Snape and remained entirely unaware of their ambivalence.

Good point about the Grim! I've got the vague impression that it sounded as though it's been a long time since Uncle Bilius saw the Grim, but I might be wrong. Sirius Black, murderer by accident?

I think that Ron often reacts reasonably without thinking through his motives. Quite unlike Hermione, who loves to analyse a lot.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think the text has lots of hints that we're not supposed to be agreeing with the characters on everything. You're right-Ron's a great example--I listen to him *a lot* for things like this. Ron in book one grumbles about Hagrid blaming him for being bitten by a dragon, and I think since then he's usually been the one to present the other pov on Hagrid (Hermione does too at times, in a different way). He also blatantly makes decisions based on who he likes and doesn't like (thinking there's something fishy about somebody because Ginny's dating him). There's even times where to me the narrative voice throws up a red flag that this is maybe we something we should think twice about, or sometimes it's just the choice of words other characters say that seem like a sign to do that.

The characters are often shown specifically to be wrong too, imo. In OotP Harry complains that no one wants to be in the same room with him while Ron is sleeping peacefully in the same room with him. Ron tells Hermione she's just too honorable to believe anyone else would be dishonorable--when in fact Hermione is ten steps ahead of Ron and underhandedly set out to punish the dishonorable party. Harry's reaction to Pensieve!James is one of many times when we see Harry's judgment isn't exactly objective.

Now, there are still times when I suspect my views on some particular thing are not the same as Rowlings so we're not going to agree on right and wrong in every situation, but I think if I weren't in fandom it would never occur to me I wasn't supposed to be questioning the characters' actions and opinions. The only time I usually think that is after talking to somebody so offended that I question an action that they demand to know HOW DARE I suggest X character might not have done the best thing ever because there was nothing else they could do, or because they felt badly or whatever. It's a strange thing about characters having flaws. Sometimes *saying* a character has flaws becomes a way of denying flaws in itself. You don't want the character to be perfect, but you don't want anybody seriously criticizing him/her either.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Now, there are still times when I suspect my views on some particular thing are not the same as Rowlings so we're not going to agree on right and wrong in every situation

I don't agree with all Rowling's views, either. But I still think that she is well aware that her good guys are as flawed and prejudiced as it gets. Moral judgement of the characters is carried out on three different levels: there is Rowling's perception of the characters, there is the characters' perception of themselves and of each other, and there is the reader's perception. While I don't agree with Rowling's views in many respects, I acknowledge that she does not consider her good guys to be morally infallible. She values courage and loyalty more highly than I do, but that doesn't mean that she doesn't realise that courage and loyalty are often the causes for her characters to go wrong. I think that the entire plotline of Parvati and Lavender as loyal supporters of Trewlaney is a comment on Harry's blind loyalty towards Hagrid, for example.

The characters themselves are highly self-righteous and hardly ever admit that their judgment might be erroneous. But as I said, I think that the example of Ron and the Bouillabaisse shows that Rowling is aware of it.

As a reader, I like the characters precisely because of their flaws, and not because I deny that they have any. I don't have to agree with many of their choices just as I don't have to agree with many of Rowling's choices in order to like them.

You don't want the character to be perfect, but you don't want anybody seriously criticizing him/her either.

There are different levels on which my favourite characters and my preferences for them can be criticised. It's perfectly all right to dislike Sirius because of his violent streak and his unreasonable behaviour. I can understand and accept the arguments, even though they won't make me change my mind about Sirius. But I am somewhat bewildered by the notion of disliking Sirius because he is one of the "good guys" and as such considered a saint by the author as well as his fans. Here, I can offer no arguments, because obviously that person and I don't discuss the character on the same level.

[infinitegraces]

Dude, that's scary.

Scary in that it makes sense. Just like the MS-GS!Grawp thing.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Ah, polemics. Don't you just love it? If supported by the right arguments, just about every idea can make sense ;-) And Grawp does make sense, in a twisted sort of way.

[imadra-blue.livejournal.com]

I am SO glad I friended you. I like this, very insightful and gets my gears turning on how to use Ron in fanfic, and what to watch for in HBP. And just as a side note, even JKR has admitte din an interview that while Sirius has beautiful philosophies on life, he doesn't always live up to them. And I loved him despite this fact, same as I like dear, forgetful, passive-agressive Remus. And why I like cruel, heartless, selfish, petty Snape, especially with that stubborn streak of honor in him. *applauds*

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Sirius has beautiful philosophies on life, he doesn't always live up to them

Oh yes, this is a wonderful description of Sirius' character. He wants to be good, I think, but his own nasty temper makes him unable to live up to his own standards.

I love Sirius, Remus and Snape precisely because they are so tragically messed-up, the poor dears.

[netbyrd.livejournal.com]

Here from the Snitch-- I have always had this view that you are holding here, though I don't think I could have outlined it as elequently as you have here. Also,there are so many instances where it seems like he is the character that verbalizes what the reader might be thinking in a situation. I think that he can be used as a barometer for the wizarding-world-view on a particular issue, like what to think of giants or werewolves or how its "bad" to say Voldemort. I think that he gets a lot of flack about some of these characteristics, but to me, JKR is using Ron to demonstrate average wizarding world beliefs. It gives Harry a front row seat on why Wizard-kind (did I make that up..sorry) might be behaving the way they do to certain news.
I too plan to watch what Ron says in the next book, and I will pay more attention to his quips as I go along in the chapter_a_day readalong.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

JKR is using Ron to demonstrate average wizarding world beliefs

Oh yes, she definitely does. This is one reason why he often comes across as biased and prejudiced (which he certainly is, but not more so than most of the other characters). Ron also shows common sense in many instances (he critices Hagrid, for example). I think that those who like Ron do so because he is easy to identify with. His reactions are natural and understandable.

[jedirita.livejournal.com]

Here via snitch.

The Harry Potter Sleuth books sum the matter up this way:

Hermione is always right, except when she's wrong.

Ron is always wrong, except when he's right.

They point out that he tends to "predict" the truth, but in a flippant comment, as in the Moaning Myrtle remark. So I think you're right - we should always pay attention to what Ron says because he's usually the one who gets it right, even if he doesn't know it himself.

And the whole "black-and-white characters" thing? I don't get that at all. I've *never* seen such a huge cast of ambivalent characters in a children's novel before. Even Dumbledore has proven to be more deeply flawed than any other Merlin character since Obi-Wan Kenobi.

[alchemy-gryph.livejournal.com]

I think the exact quote was: "Hermione is always right, except when she gets emotional about something (e.g. house elves), and Ron is always wrong, except when he's making a joke about something."

- Madox

[divinereverie.livejournal.com]

Amen, I totally agree with this :)

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Thank you :-)

[alchemy-gryph.livejournal.com]

In all honesty I think a good portion of the fandom has bitched itself into a corner when it comes to what Rowling does or doesn't realize concerning her own characters (leaving aside, for the moment, the incredible arrogance, I think, of insisting that Rowling doesn't know them as well as the fan does. Oh, for the love of Christ). She's the only one who knows their respective futures, certainly, but having Harry-as-narrator give a blow-by-blow account of everyone else's exact strengths and weaknesses, including his own, is massively unrealistic and just not good storytelling, period. Harry doesn't realize certain things because he's Harry, and having him throw in nods every once and a while to to someone else's issues ("Sirius is dangerously irresponsible! Lupin is too distant! Dumbledore is arrogant!") is just - who the hell does that?

- Madox

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

I stay away from debates with people who speak an entirely different language than I do when it comes to the HP characters. But that doesn't stop me from bitching about it on my LJ from time to time. It's interesting on which grounds people get attacked for liking certain characters: liking the good guys means, we think they're saints who can never go wrong, because this is what Rowling thinks. Oh well. /end voice of reason

Of course, some people like Sirius for his inferial nuptials with Lily; and I can't deny that a major portion of my attraction to him is based on the fact that he is teh sex. I am that shallow.

Here via Daily Snitch(D.S. via a friend's journal!)

[rated-g.livejournal.com]

Hmm, yes, I'll be listening to Ron a little more from now on too.
On the subject of the main characters always being right, I feel I should also point out that Hermione made a HUGE error of judgement when she told the centaurs that she and Harry lead Prof. Umbridge to them just so they'd kill her for them. Also, if Sirius had replied faster during GoF, Harry would have blinded the dragon as Sirius was going to suggest, thus losing points because the mother dragon would have smashed some of the eggs like she did when she was blinded by another student.
So yes, Rowling certainly does have the characters make mistakes. I was extremely surprised with Hermione's mistake, though.

Re: Here via Daily Snitch(D.S. via a friend's journal!)

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Yes, her characters certainly do make mistakes. But there is the widespread belief in the fandom that neither Rowling nor fans of the "good guys" realise that. I don't think this is true *shrugs*

Hermione actually makes several mistakes in OotP. Her major flaw is that she always thinks she's right and that everyone is supposed to agree with her.

[psychic-serpent.livejournal.com]

You're definitely right about Ron sometimes giving away the plot secrets, such as a really clever dark wizard (Barty Crouch, Jr.) fooling Dumbledore, Tom Riddle killing Myrtle and other things. It's also true that (especially at the start of the series) Ron served the function of initiating Harry into the wizarding world by imparting cultural "folklore" to him. But a third function of Ron, and one that muddies the waters a bit (especially in reference to that first function) is that JKR also uses him to voice red herrings, things she wants the reader to believe before she reveals that the "truth" is otherwise.

For instance, in CoS and OotP especially, Ron's negative opinion of Percy is meant to distract from what he's really up to (sneaking around with Penelope in CoS, working as a spy for Dumbledore in OotP--IMO). We're supposed to take Ron's opinions about other folks at face value as well: Snape, Michael, etc. (We're still suppposed to be wondering about Snape's motives--or at least background--in OotP; Michael was one of the many people meant to be a suspect when someone ratted on the DA, when it turned out to be Marietta.)

Since she is purposefully putting "accidental" insights and misleading red herrings in the the mouth of the same character the trick is sorting them out and distinguishing them. But whether JKR has Ron's insights be spot on or totally off the mark they are all completely intentional; we're supposed to disregard the accurate ones, of course, and buy into the misleading ones. In OotP I think this became easier, but it remains to be seen whether sorting these out will go smoothly in HBP.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. You're right. This is why I will pay much more attention to everything he says in HBP. I still wonder into which category his constant accusations of Snape fall, whether it is a bluff or a double-bluff.