Ron or Hermione?: Harry's Truest Friend

Discussion of the editorial Ron or Hermione?: Harry's Truest Friend (http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-hpboy1302.shtml) by hpboy13.

Read more by hpboy13 here (http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-hpboy1301.shtml).

I really like the idea of analyzing how Harry's friendships evolved throughout the books. However, I think your approach of comparing who's the better friend is not the way of going about it. Many of the examples were a bit unfair. Such as in the fifth book when Hermione is organizing the DA and the interview and such. Hermione is definitely smarter than Ron, but that doesn't make Ron less valuable as a friend. To give an analogy, if someone were having hard times financially, and they had one rich friend and one poor friend, just because the rich friend might be able to help this person out more than the poor friend doesn't mean the rich one is a better friend. Friendship is about more than what a person can do for you.

I do agree that Hermione has a better understanding of friendship than Ron does and that she is a lot more mature. This makes her easier to be friends with, for sure. But friends do make mistakes, and Ron made a big one based on his own immaturity, insecurities and lack of strength. But he realizes he makes a mistake and he comes back. I find it interesting that you don't go any further into Deathly Hallows beyond Ron trying in his inexperienced way to get back into Hermione's favor. I haven't read the book since it came out, but I think there is plenty to redeem Ron.

I think JKR really understands friendship and she depicts it very well in the books. And one thing she understands (that you don't seem to, going from your article) friendship isn't like a reality show where you get one chance and if you mess up, you're gone. Also, you don't have the same liability and it's not a competition. People don't want to lose friends and they don't want drama, so forgiveness and growth are a big part of it. You can forgive your friends when they make mistakes because the good outweighs the bad. Both Harry and Hermione love Ron (albeit in different ways) for whatever good qualities he brings to their lives, so they're willing to forgive his shortcomings. But yes, there can be a limit, so it's not like Ron can just go about not apologizing (by the way, you say that Ron didn't apologize enough, but his sucking up to Hermione is in a way apologizing) and taking advantage of the forgiveness part of friendship, and he doesn't. He doesn't do mean things to his friends knowing that they'll just forgive him anyway. If he did, then he would be a bad friend. Instead, he had a real lapse in judgment, but by realizing his mistake and coming back, Hermione and Harry are able to forgive him.

So, overall, I'm afraid I was a bit disappointed at this article. Though it is interesting to see how Harry and Hermione's friendship did get stronger overtime, I think there was a bit too little insight into friendships in general for the comparison between Ron and Hermione to work.

I disagree with the basic premise of this article; measuring friendship by what a person does for another person is an intrinsically flawed concept. You can't judge who was a better friend by who had talents that happened to help Harry more!

Later, Hermione is also the only one to accompany Harry during the climax because Ron broke his leg. And this is where Hermione is able to gain ground as Harry's friend.

Chance that made Ron unconscious during the Time Turner (and by the way, it was more Harry accompanying Hermione, I think) hardly makes him any less a friend.

When he’s in the hospital wing at the end of the book, he believes Cedric’s death is his fault (typical Harry, blaming everything on himself). When he’s about to start crying (He could feel a burning, prickling feeling at the inner corners of his eyes.), He wished Ron would look away. (pg. 714). He’s more comfortable crying in front of Hermione, yet not in front of Ron, his usually preferred friend.

I think that's more a social thing - culturally, crying is more acceptable for girls than for guys. :/ Harry didn't want to show his weakness to a guy, even to a best friend. Ron and Hermione are both Harry's best friends in different ways, but this doesn't make one better than the other.

(the entire OotP discussion)

Again, measuring the trio's friendship by what each could do for the other in any particular instance is hardly fair. The situations they were in in OotP - practically organized rebellion - played to Hermione's strengths as a thinker and planner. Ron wouldn't have been able to come up with the story about the weapon - he's not as quick-thinking as Hermione. This hardly makes her more worthy of Harry's friendship.

It's chance that she but not Ron can go to visit Gwarp, insignificant that Ron ends up telling Umbridge about Peeves (I think this is just as dangerous; it would be obvious to Umbridge that he was in on the plot), and chance that when the group splits up, she and not Ron is with Harry.

This shows Harry’s friendship with Hermione at this point is at least as strong as his friendship with Ron, if not more so.

Sure, they are equally his friends, although in different ways. Recognizing that one's friend is being a total git (as Ron himself would say) hardly means one is growing apart.

This book presents the final showdown between Ron and Hermione for the position of Harry’s best friend.

Friendship is not a contest!

All in all, I’d say Hermione’s sacrifice counts for more in this case.

Friendship is not a contest! Besides, again it's only chance that their plans end up this way. Hermione needed to do this to protect her parents, while Ron didn't. It would hardly be a mark of Ron's friendship for him to force his family - who can play a real role in the war against Voldemort - abroad unnecessarily.

Ron saved Harry’s life, which earns him brownie points, but I’m still shocked at how quickly Harry forgave him. Fortunately, Hermione is not like that, and will give Ron what he had coming.

I disagree. Sure, he runs out on the quest, but you notice - he comes back. I believe Harry gives a quote somewhat like this about the Deluminator, that it was most important that he returned. And I thought that, while Hermione was justifiably angry (I certainly don't blame her), the better friend to Ron in this instance was Harry, who forgave Ron as soon as the opportunity came. Holding grudges and giving "what one has coming" isn't the right thing to do; Harry tried that in GoF (as you pointed out) and hurt himself as much as he hurt Ron. "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." A burn for a burn leaves the whole world friendless.

Harry liked Hermione very much, but she just wasn’t the same as Ron. There was much less laughter and a lot more hanging around in the library when Hermione was your best friend.
(pp. 316-317)
This little excerpt says it all.

It certainly does - everything you don't understand about the trio's friendship. It isn't defined by what each does for each other - that would make friendship a mere bartering system. It's defined by an emotional/spiritual side beyond jealousy or judgement.

Friendship is not a contest.

I agree with Member of Spew - friendship is not a contest and you can have several different kinds of friends as well. It just so happens that Harry preferred the comfortable easy going friendship he had with Ron to the practical useful friendship he had with Hermione. Harry loved them both in different ways and Hermione was more like an older sister to him. Remember he also had a great friendship with Ginny too which also happened to be romantic. But remember it was Ginny who took his hand and led him away from Albus' body in HBP and not Ron or Hermione or Hagrid (another close friend). It was Ginny who was the only one who could comfort him then. Harry had several close friends it seems and all for different reasons which is why they all meant a lot to him but not one of them was better than the other. As has been pointed out - friendship is not a contest - and never should be.

Someone is obviously not a Ron fan girl. While you obviously did your research before writing your editorial, I felt as though it wasn't really fair. Yeah, Hermione is helpful and useful, but just because she is a bit more clever doesn't mean she's better than Ron. And I don't see how being unconsicious in the hospital wing with a broken leg and therefore not able to save Sirius makes Ron any less of a friend. As for Ron's jealousy towards Harry in Goblet of Fire, the reasons behind it go much deaper than pure "Oh, he's famous I'm not." It's the fact that Ron is constantly living in the shadows of others. He is being constantly overshadowed by his five older brothers. So it doesn't help that once again, he is being overshadowed by his best friend. Its tough on him. Finally, It's not entirely fair to judge Ron's loyalty to Harry based on him leaving in Deathly Hallows. You sort of downplayed the influence of the Locket. Yeah, Harry and Hermione both wore it to. But while they only felt kind of gloomy and unhappy, Ron was completely tormented. The things he saw in the Locket when it was finally destroyed were playing through his head for those few hours when he had it on. Imagine having a voice buffet you for five hours, telling you that your friends don't like you and your parents hate you. It got to him, like it would get to any reasonable person. And why were you shocked that Harry forgave him? I mean, Ron had just saved Harry's life. If I was in a fight with a friend, but then they apologized and saved me from being strangled, I would forgive him. Anyways, both Ron and Hermione are loyal, true friends of Harry's. The story would be incomplete without both, so neither is less important or less loyal.

I have to admit I was disappointed with this editorial. Although I completely agree that Hermione's friendship with Harry did grow throughout the books, Ron will always be Harry's best friend. And I disagree with you saying that he doesn't deserve to be. I just have some comments on statements you made throughout the editorial. Some of these were said by others, but I spent forever typing this and I don't want to delete some of it now, so bear with me. :)

Sure, Ron envies Harry – who wouldn’t? But honestly, to just abandon him when he’s facing a potentially lethal tournament is not something a true friend does....Ron's [reaction] is quite the opposite of Hermione’s reaction, which is much calmer and rational.
Everyone has their flaws, and jealousy is Ron's biggest. He is poor, Harry is rich. Ron is overshadowed by his older brothers, while Harry is always the center of attention. Yes, he does have a family, he isn't destined to fight Voldemort like Harry is, but with Harry having all of these things that Ron wants so badly, its amazing that Ron made it this long without a major explosion towards Harry. This was what Ron needed in order to become more mature and I believe it actually made their friendship stronger. Knowing that they could work through major conflicts in their relationship gave them more strength as best friends. It is also important to note that while Ron didn't make any effort toward reconciling with Harry, Harry made no effort either. They both missed each other, but their pride prevented them from admitting it. As for Hermione's reaction, of course it was more calm and collected! Typically, Hermione is way more rational, especially compared to Ron's (and Harry's) impulsive nature and short fuse.

Ron displays his insensitivity toward Hermione, and then is extremely insensitive toward Padma at the ball because he’s busy being jealous of Viktor Krum. Again with the jealousy! And yet, at this point Harry still sides with Ron, albeit passively.
Ron is fourteen and has a major crush that he doesn't know what to do about. Boys at that age are not known for their sensitivity (Harry wasn't exactly a fabulous date either) and we as readers are already very familiar with Ron's issue with jealousy. The two combined explain Ron's behavior. Harry is able to stay on Ron's side because he empathizes with Ron - Harry knows what Ron is dealing with because of how he feels about Cho. Ron's major flaw adds to his behavior, but again, no character in the series is perfect - that's the beauty of the books! Harry's major flaw (his hero complex) has gotten him into worse trouble (Sirius) than Ron's insensitivity.

When he’s in the hospital wing at the end of the book, he believes Cedric’s death is his fault (typical Harry, blaming everything on himself). When he’s about to start crying (He could feel a burning, prickling feeling at the inner corners of his eyes.), He wished Ron would look away. (pg. 714). He’s more comfortable crying in front of Hermione, yet not in front of Ron, his usually preferred friend.

Very simple explanation for this - Ron is a guy. Hermione is a girl. I am a girl, and guy friends (who are not romantically interested in me) would rather cry in front of me than their guy friends. Guys as a general rule (and remember I am not a guy, so this is just my experience with them) want to be manly in front of their friends. Even their best friends. Harry is fourteen, dealing with first crushes and other things that happen at that age and doesn't want to feel like less of a man - he's already insecure enough! He's not a child anymore, and he's at that age when he thinks that grown men don't cry. If this situation happened in later books, he probably wouldn't have felt that way. As for Hermione, she is a girl and girls are usually much better with emotions than guys. Its important that Harry doesn't have any romantic feelings towards Hermione because if he did, the same desire to prove that he was man enough for her would apply. Since he doesn't, he is much more comfortable with Hermione there than Ron.

And Hermione, seemingly more than Ron, understands how Harry is feeling.
Hermione is much more emotionally inclined. That is to be expected.

Also, Hermione shows she’s not afraid of Harry’s temper, while Ron cowers whenever Harry starts yelling.
Ron loves Harry and wants to be friends. Although we never find out how he felt while he and Harry were fighting, it was probably similar to Harry's feelings at the time. That is still fresh in his mind and he does not want to repeat it.

And, Hermione catches on to Harry’s feelings for Cho much faster than Ron does.
Not to stereotype my gender, but, again, Hermione is a girl. Girls catch on to stuff like that faster than boys do.

After Harry kisses Cho, Hermione is the one who stands up for him when Ron starts to question Harry’s kissing ability. (pg. 458) This shows she actually cares about Harry’s feelings and realizes he’s probably not feeling very comfortable with the whole situation, while Ron just makes jokes at his expense.
Ron is joking, not realizing that Harry is uncomfortable because he is a guy and is not as tuned to emotions as Hermione. Since Ron and Harry both are more sarcastic, goofy people, Ron's reaction isn't as rude as it sounds in the editorial.

Hermione continues to excel as a friend, and gets Harry’s story to the public via The Quibbler. Ron, meanwhile, does precious little that is praise-worthy. It is Hermione who accompanies Harry when they are introduced to Grawp, which solidifies Hermione’s role as Harry’s sidekick.
It is no secret that Hermione is much cleverer than Harry or Ron, so that is why she comes up with the Quibbler idea. Being smarter doesn't make her a better friend. As for Grawp, Ron was playing Quidditch. He would've come if he could've.

"The Cruciatus Curse ought to loosen your tongue," said Umbridge quietly.
"No!" shrieked Hermione. "Professor Umbridge — it’s illegal!" […] "The minister wouldn’t want you to break the law, Professor Umbridge!" cried Hermione.
(pg. 746)
Hermione does everything in her power to dissuade Umbridge from torturing Harry. What does Ron do? Absolutely nothing. But when Umbridge won’t be dissuaded, Hermione is the one who ultimately saves Harry. She feeds Umbridge a cock-and-bull story about the weapon they made for Dumbledore, and then Harry and Hermione head off to the forest with Umbridge close behind. Hermione uses her ingenuity to get Umbridge carried off by centaurs, and they meet up with the rest of the gang.
This is a case of a passage being taken out of context. If you look a few pages earlier, on page 742, it says:
"There was a commotion outside and several large Slytherins entered, each gripping Ron, Ginny, Luna, and -- to Harry's bewilderment -- Neville, who was trapped in a stranglehold by Crabbe and looked in imminent danger of suffocation. All four of them had been gagged." (Emphasis mine)
How could protest? How could he help? He was trapped, presumably wandless, and unlike Hermione, was unable to speak. Even if he hadn't been gagged, he probably wouldn't have come up with such a clever plan (since, as I have already established, he is not as bright as Hermione), but he certainly would have protested the Cruciatus Curse and would've gone along with Hermione's plan.

Instead of just being on Ron’s side, Harry realizes he’s being immature, mean, and downright pathetic in his behavior towards Hermione.
Again, and I feel like a broken record here, but Ron is jealous! He has had a crush on the same girl for YEARS, and has not seen any evidence (in his mind - Hermione probably thinks she's dropped plenty of hints!) that she likes him back. So he goes for the one girl in his life that has paid him any obvious romantic attention. When Hermione starts acting jealous, Ron feels that she deserves to feel a bit of what he felt at the Yule Ball, and in his immaturity, he goes too far. This is a case of teenage love gone wrong. Ron is miserable the entire time. And, Hermione also goes with Cormac to Slughorn's party to make Ron jealous. So she isn't above these tactics either. Harry realizes that Ron has gone too far and knows that Hermione needs him more than Ron. That is not a sign that Hermione is a better friend, only that Harry knows how to choose which friend to be with at what time.

So let’s see how the sacrifices of Ron and Hermione compare with each other. Hermione has made her parents forget that she ever existed so she can go with Harry on his journey. Ron cooked up a comfortable plan with his family that will have the ghoul pretend to be him with spattergroit. All in all, I’d say Hermione’s sacrifice counts for more in this case.
Yes, Hermione did sacrifice more than Ron, but not because Ron wasn't willing to sacrifice more! His family lives in the wizarding world - they have jobs there (several in the Ministry where they were already being watched for their associations with Harry) and Ginny needs to be at school. Someone would notice if the entire Weasley family vanished and would be looked for. By comparison, Hermione's parents are Muggles. No one in the wizarding world would've noticed their disappearance. Also, Hermione's parents, being Muggles, have no way of defending themselves against wizards. The Weasleys are all magical and capable of defending themselves against Death Eaters if need be.

Hermione holds up reasonably well under the conditions, especially since she’s a girl and not really used to roughing it out. Ron, instead, acts like a spoiled brat. Ron and his family may be poor, but in many ways he is far better off than Harry and much more spoiled. He has been loved and sheltered all his life. He’s lived in a comfortable, if not extravagant, home.
Yes, but again, we have one of Ron's many faults - his temper and his immaturity. He is more volatile than Hermione ever was. Harry used to be like him, but has since matured. Ron has not had the big event needed to make him fully grow up. There is no denying he was the last of the trio to mature completely. His more pampered sheltered life meant that he did not have to mature as quickly as Harry, and as for Hermione, it is a commonly accepted fact that girls mature faster than guys. Hermione, being the type of girl she is, probably matured even faster than most girls.

This is a blanket statement for all comments about Ron's behavior prior to and after leaving Harry and Hermione during DH.
RON IS IMMATURE AND HAS A SHORT FUSE!!!! Harry has outgrown this by now so the horcrux doesn't affect him like it does Ron. Ron's jealousy drives him out because the woman he loves (yes, he really, truly LOVES her at this point) has made what he perceives (under the influence of the horcrux and its after-effects) as a choice for the person who has always beaten him and got everything he wanted. Ron is jealous, which is intensified by the horcrux and the strain of their situation. When he saves Harry after coming back, the event that he has needed to completely mature him has finally occurred. He has faced his worst fears: Harry, who has almost always gotten what Ron wanted (attention, girls, popularity), finally takes the one thing Ron does have: his mother’s love. Harry, who has almost always gotten what Ron wanted, takes Hermione, the girl he has loved for years. These are not lowly fears! These fears are close to Ron’s heart and he has always struggled with them. This editorial suggests that these fears are stupid, that they don’t matter, and that they are unreasonable. But aren’t many fears unreasonable? Cockroaches? Heights? Spiders? The dark? Most of these aren’t reasonable fears. What will the average cockroach do to you? Sitting in a window seat on a plane isn’t any more dangerous than driving on the highway. But Ron fears the loss of two people that he loves deeply to the man who has been his best friend for many years. While this may be unreasonable to us, to Ron, who is constantly bested by Harry, it is a completely reasonable fear. The fact that he finally conquers it matures him. In this moment, he realizes that his fears have been based on nothing, that he is worth something, and that he was wrong. Ron finally matures, getting over most of his jealousy and his temper.

But when I read one sentence, I just felt my jaw drop: Harry was glad that Ron was fighting back. I couldn’t believe this! After everything was said and done, after Ron betrayed him and Hermione stuck by him, after the incident at Godric’s Hollow, after six and a half years of unwavering loyalty and support from Hermione, Harry still sided with Ron.
This part is very simple – Harry saw what Ron faced. He saw what Ron did. I don’t think Harry ever realized the extent of Ron’s fears until that moment. And seeing that and seeing him best that made Harry realize why Ron did what he did. The important thing throughout DH is that RON CAME BACK!!!!! That took more strength than anyone could imagine. And that is why Harry forgave him and wanted him to fight back. He knew how much Ron wanted Hermione and knew that he had to fight to get back on her good side.

So now that the trio is reunited, let’s take a look at what Ron’s priorities are. No, they’re not helping his best friend stay alive, or vanquishing the ultimate evil in the world (Lord Voldemort, for those who haven’t been paying attention). It’s sucking up to Hermione so as to get back in his crush’s good books.
He works to get back in Hermione’s good graces by agreeing with everything she says. He makes himself look stupid, but just because he has finally matured completely doesn’t mean he understands women. And her ideas aren’t bad ones – so it isn’t a bad thing that he agrees with her. That doesn’t change his priorities, however when something on the path to defeating Voldemort can also help him get back in Hermione’s “good books” then he takes that opportunity. Like I said, he doesn’t agree with any bad ideas.

And so, our reflection on the friendships between Harry and his two best friends ends. I could delve further into Ron’s character to show just why I lost faith in him, but I think the dynamics between the trio say all there is to say. However, we must then ask ourselves why Harry still considers Ron his best friend, above Hermione? I think the answer is perfectly clear: they’re both guys, and are both less serious than Hermione. So Ron ends up being Harry’s best friend, despite everything.
That is exactly it. Hermione may be cleverer and more emotionally tuned than Ron, but Ron and Harry have more in common. And even though Hermione is smarter doesn’t mean she’s a better friend. She doesn’t hang out with Harry like Ron does, she doesn’t goof off with Harry like Ron does, and she doesn’t play Quidditch like Ron does. Ron and Harry have a lot in common, that is why they are friends.

I think that this editorial made a very good argument as to why Hermione is smarter and more mature than Ron. But we all knew that already. That does not make her a better best friend to Harry than Ron Weasley.

As someone said, Friendship is not a contest. A lot of people in Harry Potter fandom have never gotten that and I've given up trying to explain a concept that you have to live to understand. I've felt from book 1-6 that Ron was the truer friend although Hermione's friendship was very deep and sincere. However, after Deathly Hallows, I think their friendship is on the same level.

Ron and Hermione are equally as true to Harry in my opinion. Ron was always insecure and susceptible to stuff like the locket so I don't think of that but Hermione really stepped up in Deathly Hallows to prove herself where she hadn't really before. She's never given the impression that she would die for Harry which I think has always held me back from thinking of her as a true a friend as Ron. Since book 1 Ron has shown his willingness to die for Harry. Hermione showed that a lot in Book 7 so she's definitely on equal footing now, in my opinion.

Cheers :tu:

As for Ron's jealousy towards Harry in Goblet of Fire, the reasons behind it go much deaper than pure "Oh, he's famous I'm not." It's the fact that Ron is constantly living in the shadows of others. He is being constantly overshadowed by his five older brothers. So it doesn't help that once again, he is being overshadowed by his best friend. Its tough on him. Finally, It's not entirely fair to judge Ron's loyalty to Harry based on him leaving in Deathly Hallows. You sort of downplayed the influence of the Locket. Yeah, Harry and Hermione both wore it to. But while they only felt kind of gloomy and unhappy, Ron was completely tormented. The things he saw in the Locket when it was finally destroyed were playing through his head for those few hours when he had it on. Imagine having a voice buffet you for five hours, telling you that your friends don't like you and your parents hate you.

Think about it. 2 of his older brothers had been Headboy, another one had been Quidditch Captain and the other 2 had a successful business. Then there was his younger sister who was very popular. And beyond his family there was Harry who always got everything and he feared that his parents prefered Harry as a son to himself. Then his other best friend (and love interest) Hermione, always outshone him in everything academic or to do with quick-thinking.

All in all i think that everything was summed up very well by _magic_freak_ and i completely agree with him/her. Friendship is not necessarily based on what a person can do for you or even how loyal they are to you - it is based on common interests.

I think that this Editorial is very biased. The author seeemed to relish the chance to bash Ron at every opportunity.
I agree with everything that _magic_freak_ said.

Oy vey! Looks like I got in over my head going against Ron, who I know is a very popular character (where are you, Harmony and Dramione shippers?! I need you!). Anyway, let me say this now before I get any more similar comments: I KNOW FRIENDSHIP ISN'T A CONTEST. Did I ever say it was? I'm analyzing from afar and looking at who appears ot be the better friend, I said nothing to suggest they should compete for Harry's friendship. Member_of_SPEW, I fully realize that the Trio's friendship isn't a bartering system. But I see nothing wrong with analyzing the individual friendships between members and how they compare with each other. And Mad_Druid, yes this editorial is biased. I think we're all well aware of that.

Okay, first off, to all the people who are exclaiming as to how I say Hermioen accompanies Harry during so-and-so while Ron's injured/playing Quidditch/etc. I never said Ron sould have accompanied Harry. I am using these examples to point out Harry and Hermione's friendship, Ron for ht emoment is out fo the picture. Believe it or not, this editorial isn't all about Ron-bashing (though I was tempted).

Second, all the excuses being made for Ron that he's a guy and immature/not in tune with his emotions/etc. Let me just say that I'm a 15-year-old guy, so frankly, I don't sympathize. I had one close guy friend, and I had no problem crying in front of him. And Harry has never exactly striven to be macho-macho-man. I don't mock my friends after they've had a confusing romantic experience. And guys, however clueless, shoudl notice their best friend's obsessive crush of two years.

Yes, Ron is less smart. Yes, he has limited resources. But the fact remains that Hermione does infinitely more for Harry during OotP than Ron does. I'm nto condemnign Ron in these instances, I'm merely pointing out the difference. And yes he's jealous. He has good reason to be. That's why I continued to like him after GoF (believe it or not, Ron was one of my fave characters until DH). But to let his jealousy get the better of him like he did in DH, to abandon his friends in their darkest hour, that is not so easily forgiven. If I was on the run in a desperate attempt to survive and my best friend decided to up and leave (and try to take my other best friend with her), I wouldn't forgive her that easily.

Well, it's clear that my editorial had the misfortune of running into Ron fangirls. I am truly sorry if you were disappointed, since editorials are as rare as good HP movies on Mugglenet now and this is the first new one in exactly a month and only like the 8th one since DH came out. However, I'll keep writing them, and boycott if you wish. Right-o, now where's my backup of Harmony and Dramione shippers?

And Mad_Druid, yes this editorial is biased. I think we're all well aware of that.


I just happen to consider a well written editorial one that is unbiased.

I think I'm a little old to be a Ron fangirl but being mature think I can see Ron in an unbiased way and I do remember knowing lots of young teenagers rather like Ron and Harry as the other posters seem to have done. So please don't label us all as Ron fangirls an accept any criticism with grace. Your editorial was well-researched but you lost the plot a little with your defining of the friendships Harry had with Ron and Hermione. They were different types of friendships.

Ron might have had to compete with accomplished siblings and friends but did have his talents too. Think the chess game in book one, think opening the Chamber by speaking parsletongue in book seven and other heroic deeds in between. He was as essential to the trio as Harry and Hermoine were - they were a team but Ron had the misfortune to feel the most insecure of the trio. Anyone would be with the middle name of Bilius - think bilious - poor sod.

As I said before you can have different types of close friends without one being less important than the other. It just so happens that Harry thought Ron was his best friend most of the time and that his his prerogative.

This has nothing to do with being a Ron fangirl. You simply overlooked a lot about friendship and people in general. Try re-reading some of the criticisms of your argument and really think about them some.

You say you don't think friendship is a contest, but the very topic of the editorial and your tone throughout it all but state that idea.

You don't find Ron's leaving them forgivable? That probably has a lot to do with the fact that you aren't his friend (so you don't see the benefit of forgiving him), and I'm guessing you've never been in a real situation where a friend has hurt you and apologized. Or even better yet, you've never hurt a friend. Ron made a mistake, and he owned up to it. If he hadn't come back, it would have been unforgivable. But he did come back. Why would Harry and Hermione want to end their friendship with him when he's apologized (in both actions -i.e. coming back - and literal words)? If your close friend let you down, but then realized his mistake, would you just end that friendship? If a person feels bad about it and learned their lesson, why add salt to the wound and lose a friend completely?

The fact that you can cry in front of guy friends has nothing to do with Harry and Ron's friendship. Lots of guys do have this hang-up, maybe not out of machoness, but just out of a lack of sentimentality. Neither Ron nor Harry (at this point) are very emotionally mature, either, so of course Harry would be embarrassed to show feelings of that kind in front of Ron (and vice versa). This doesn't mean they're not best friends. It might mean just the opposite.

Also, just because you don't joke with your friends about romantic mishaps doesn't mean people who do are bad. I personally thought that scene was rather funny and true-to-life. Of course Ron will joke. As we have seen from that quote about laughing less when Hermione is your best friend, that's something that Harry values in Ron.

Finally, like I said, this has nothing to do with Ron fangirls, and I find it a bit insulting that you would toss people's thought-out critiques of your editorial as being nothing more than crazy fangirl loyalty. In fact, I didn't get the vibe of Ron fangirlishness from any of the replies. They pointed out legitimate flaws in your argument and your lack of understanding (as shown in the article) of the characters and the nature friendship.

Being a solid friend, or loyal, doesn't make someone a best friend. It's more about how the two characters are able to relate, how they spend time together and how much they depend on each other.

Ron is Harry's best friend because they can relate in ways that Harry and Hermione will never be able to. It was shown in Book4 and Book7 that when Harry and Hermione only have each others company things are very boring, tense and Harry gets frustrated with Hermione.

Harry even tells Ron how important he is, and how miserable Harry and Hermione have been without him.

Ron is the ever-important glue that sticks the trio together, that makes things fun and makes tough times more bearable. Without Ron their Horcrux Hunt stopped.

So yes, maybe Hermione has been a more stable and reliable friend to Harry, but that by no means makes her a closer friend to Harry. Ron has plenty of other qualities that make Harry and Ron best friends.

Ron is someone Harry generally has felt more comfortable to confide in, and being guys they have spent some good times together that Hermione could never share. Hermione tends to look down onto them and criticise, and is a lot like a mother. Harry feels that Ron is more on his level.

I really don't think that there should really be an argument about this. Ron is Harry's best friend, and that's the way things have always been. Just because Hermione may have certain qualities that Ron lacks doesn't mean she will ever be able to take Ron's place.

2a. The goal of CoS Forums is to make sure everyone has a good time and can make friends. Obviously not everyone will agree with one another and we ask that you respect the opinions of others. Making sarcastic, or rude remarks directed at another member, or attacking others for holding views different to your own will not be tolerated. If you see this taking place, please report it to an Unspeakable.

Please keep criticisms constructive everyone

I think it was a good, well researched editorial, though I was less impressed with the passive-aggressive tendencies of obvious dislike towards Ron. I think you may have lessened the validity of your editorial by leaning on Ron so heavily. I'm not a Ron fangirl myself---my faves are Dumbledore, Snape, and Hermione actually. I think it may have been a mistake to label those who disagreed with you as "Ron fangirls". We all respond to criticism differently, and while some of the replies may have indeed been made by Ron "fangirls/boys", I am sure that most were not. I think readers just may have been turned off by the way you presented the friendship---as a series of deeds stacking up to which friend did "more". Of course, friendship doesn't work that way, so I am thinking many readers thought it was an unfair comparison.

HOWEVER---editorials are biased. That's what editorials are; they are opinions. And even though the way you presented the piece wasn't liked by all, you did an efficient job in comparing Ron and Hermione...even if it was mostly on deeds. I absolutely agree with you that Hermione was the "better" friend in Deathly Hallows. She was better prepared for their journey, and abandoning Harry never crossed her mind, no matter how tired, terrified, or frustrated she got. When Ron abandoned them, it was a total act of betrayal. A forgiveable act (especially considering he came back and saved Harry's life), but an act of betrayal nonetheless. I too, thought Harry forgave him too quickly and easily to be realistic. However, in such dire circumstances, I think forgiveness and unity are the way to go. I think Harry realized this, too. When you get in a situation where one or all of you could concievably die at any moment, holding grudges and hatred is never a smart idea. And I do believe the friendships balanced out. Throughout the series, Hermione was helpeful, resourceful, brilliant, sensitive and caring. Ron was fun, brave, fierce, passionate, fiery, exciting and very loyal...not because of his jealousy and betrayals...but IN SPITE of them.

In the end, they are equal. And love was all that mattered. I did quite enjoy your editorial though. I really did.

I just happen to consider a well written editorial one that is unbiased.

An unbiased editorial wouldn't be an editorial at all: it'd be a list of facts. As soon as you state an opinion or cast a judgement, you have become biased.

That's just what this editorial does: it states an opinion - that Ron is a worse friend than Hermione - and backs it up by bringing to the readers attention all the situations where Ron has failed Harry.

To those saying that "friendship isn't a contest" and that friendship isn't about "what you can do for people": I don't think you have a very good idea about what friendship is.

If a person consistently betrays you, argues with you, chooses others over you, does not take you seriously, hampers your personal development, mocks you, does not support you when you're down, is jealous of you, and exists solely to provide occasional comedic relief, then this person is not a friend.

This is what Ron does.

I agree that most in the editorial is true to what happened in the books, but I've got to say that this aspect of the books was something that was most disapointing to me. I think JKR got a little unoriginal in HBP and DH falling back on the Ron flaws. I think she established Hermione's flaws in PoA and OotP but only subtly and and she never really laid them on the table for a moment when Hermione would get a really shameful moment.

In prisoner of Azkaban we see Hermione deal with her perfectionist instincts, a problem that really only lasts through that book. Once she drops a couple of classes and gives up on the time turner, she seems to have come to terms with not having to be perfect. But another theme is also introduced in that book through the introduction of professor trelawney; the conflict between reason and the mystical. In PoA Hermione and grounding in reason get the clear upper hand. Trelawney is an old fraud. But there is one part where it is clear that Hermione was sceptical, logical and still wrong- the prophecy trelawney gave in front of Harry during his final exam. She scoffs at this too, into the next book, but we know and Harry knows that there is no logical explanation for it.

This theme doesnt come back until OotP. I dont agree with the golden assesment given of Hermione in OotP in this editorial. Sure, she demonstrates loyalty, sacrifice etc. But it was also again hinted that Hermione is in her own way closed minded, this time through the introduction of Luna. Once again, while most of what Luna comes out with is absurd, Luna demonstrates a certain wisdom that Hermione could never when Harry talks to her about death at the end of the book. Hermione's insistent, even hysterical, "there is no in there!" about the veil is a pointed moment. My reaction to that was "thats what voldemort would say too.". How could a person who is trained in MAGIC shut themselves out to such things as the possibility that some magic can't be seen or proven?

Hermione's closed mindedness doesnt surface again until the second half of DH when they go to Lovegood's house and learn of the Deathly Hallows. Hermione's insistance, almost contemptuous insistence that a resurection stone "cant possibly be real" is very simalar to her reaction to the veil. When Dumbledore explains how he wanted Harry to possess the hallows safely and that he was counting on Hermione to slow him up, he's not necessarily saying anything kindly about Hermione. Remember, we discovered the minipulative side of Dumbledore in this book. I see more like him knowing her closed mindedness and banking on her to react so violently to the possibility of the Hallows. He didnt necessarily see her as a voice of wisdom, he was using her. He gave out the things in his will based on what he knew about the person. He knew Ron and his flaws and gave him a way to come back (he knew ron would have the strenth to come back in the end ) if those flaws led him astray. So he knew Hermione's strength in that he knew she would stop at nothing to decipher the meaning hidden in the book, and also that her closed mindedness would lead her to dismiss that meaning as rediculous and slow Harry down.

This is a very subtly done slap to Hermione by JKR. It comes to its final culmination when Harry's unravelling of Dumbledore's eventual intentions early on prove to be accurate later on. That Stone was real. But Harry never gets an "I told you so" moment like is gleefully described when Hermione beats up Ron when he comes back. I suppose you could consider all the events of the last 75 or so pages of the book to be Harry's revenge on all the charecters of little faith. How the final battle went down struck me as a vindication of all of Harry's core values and proof that other worthy and supposedly wise people, did not have the same strength. Lupin was annoying to the point of being pathetic with his "dont use expellarmus!" tirade. Hermione was the same with her demonstrations of her unique form of being closed minded.

So when it comes to Harry's friends I'd say that there is a subtle rebuke of Hermione that if seen is just as important as the ones dealt to Ron. I think it was too subtle and that few have realized its there and that the imbalance is one of the only flaws in the series. I don't believe that it was JKR's intention to give Hermione any kind of edge. I think DH itself is somewhat balanced in its treatment of Harry's friends. Peoples flaws are a key aspect of the that book. Dumbledore, Lupin, Ron, Hermione, Xeno Lovegood, Snape. She was trying to show that people are a composite of things. With Ron and Hermione she was I think just too overt with Ron's flaws and too subtle with Hermione's.

A discussion of the Trio's relationships -- Harry and Ron, Harry and Hermione, Ron and Hermione -- is definitely interesting, but I feel like this editorial has leeched the depth and color out of them. All three of them have their failings, and they all do things that jeopardize their friendship, but the important part is that they always come around in the end. A more effective analysis would have moved away from the "who's better" line and focused instead on the group dynamic -- let's not forget that Harry is a part of the Trio as well. Friendship isn't always about being nice and making sacrifices for each other. Realistically, the best of friends fight and do hurtful things to one another, but they love each other enough to get through it. That's exactly what the Trio illustrates. The editorial neglects to mention the fact that, despite Ron's being a "spoiled brat" and an all-around terrible friend (according to this piece), Hermione marries him, and he an Harry remain best friends -- brothers, really -- for the rest of their lives. Ron and Hermione are both willing to follow their friend to the end, and Harry would certainly do the same for them if their roles were reversed. Whoever wrote this seems to have quite a lot of anti-Ron sentiment to the point that he/she doesn't really analyze his and Hermione's behavior (or Harry's to provoke it) and instead simply lists the negative aspects of Ron's character. The writer even makes fun of some of the possible reasons for Ron's actions:
Basically, Ron’s afraid that his mother loves Harry better than him. (For Merlin’s sake, this is Molly Weasley! There’s enough love to go around!).
This is extremely counter-productive, IMO. To make such claims, one really must back them up with some thorough analysis.

In response to Strider62442's comment on Hermione's flaws, I disagree that Jo was very subtle about them. Afterall, she is introduced as a terribly bossy and irritating character, and though we see her mature in SS and beyond, she retains some of these characteristics that were so off-putting in the beginning. She's an extremely loyal friend, but she is close-minded. She's brilliant, but she can't see what's right in front of her face. Her relationship with Harry was never as volatile as hers with Ron, so we don't see as much tension between the two of them, but I found it really telling in DH that she refused to even consider the possibility of the Deathly Hallows, despite the fact that she held the clues in her hands. She can be very judgmental; look at how she treats Luna, Fleur, Trelawney, Xenophilius, and many others. She (and Ron) both thought they knew better than Harry in HBP, but Malfoy led Death Eaters into Hogwarts and Dumbledore got killed. I think Hermione is much more open with her flaws than Ron is, at least in the way that Harry perceives them. Hermione's failings are readily visible from the very beginning, but Ron keeps so much bottled it that when he breaks, it's in a big way. Don't get me wrong, I adore the both of them. My point is that they are well balanced in terms of strengths and weaknesses.

The editorial was interesting but it will be unfair to decide who's Harry's truest friend. Both, Ron and Hermione, had their faults but both helped Harry the same. And most importantly, Harry trusted them both.

Oceania and Taure, thank you both very much! I agree completely, if an editorial is unbiased, it's barely an editorial at all. I am sorry if people took my "fangirls" comment as literal, I obviously realize that not everyone here is a Ron fangirl. As to your point that what Ron did was forgivable - I do agree that it could be forgiven eventually, as Hermione does, but I don't think he should be welcomed back with open arms.

Strider62442, you bring up very valid points about Hermione. Obviously, no one in Potterverse (except maybe Lily Evans) is a Mary Sue, and Hermione has flaws like eveyone else. However, the point of my editorial wans't to compare characters and analyze their strengths and flaws, rather, it was to compare friendships. Also, I'd like to adress your comment regarding Luna - while Hermione may have initally not treated her well, notice that in the end, Hermione opens up enough to remark that Luna's Snorkack-hunt "sounds lovely".

wandlessmagic, I guess we disagree on what makes a really good friend. I happen to think that loyalty and understanding are more important in a friendship than common interests (though both are of high significance), so I say Hermione's the better friend.

inkling7, I don't try to downplay what Ron did - notice that I included his moments of glory in the editorial as well. I just found a lot less of them in later books. Aldawen, I never said Ron was terrible all-around or anything like that, I'm saying that he was a bad friend in DH, and has a lot of negative aspects to his character. Yes, Hermione marries him (and notice that in the epilogue, he's lying to her), I never said he shoudl be isolated form all of humanity forever. And regardless of what you think would have been more productive, I chose to analyze individual friendships - the group dynamic is for another editorialist to analyze.

Criticism of a piece of writing isn't personal; I simply pointed out the flaws in the structure of it. I think your point was lost in your tone, and your argument left out some key pieces to the puzzle. It wasn't terrible by any means, but it didn't really illustrate your conclusion, IMO.

Although doing a comparison of "Friendship Acts" to see whether Ron or Hermione deserved the "Best Friend" status has many flaws, it is not entirely without merit. In HP we are only given insight to Harry's Thoughts and the Writer's Perspective throughout the Narrative. This limits how far we can examine the thoughts and feelings of Non-Harry characters. Thus, making it very difficult to always place correct motives and feelings. This is important because we only really know what Harry "THINKS" he sees. This skews the perspective.

Let me explain with an example. In HBP, Harry saw anger and hatred sketched into every line of Snape's face, right before he killed Dumbledore. Harry interpreted this as betrayal and disliking for Dumbledore. Therefore, some people take Harry's thoughts to be truth, and placed Snape onto the Voldemort Supporter side, which we know to be completely false.

My point is simply that we can't take every description of a character's motives/feelings for absolute truth. Harry's feelings are the only one's we are sure of. With that disadvantage, the author of the editorial had to pick something to take from the books and go with it. So cut him/her a little slack.

Having said that, I think it is important to look at a few other factors when it comes to friendship. Yes, Ron and Harry are both less mature, and boys. True points made. Hermione does start with a disadvantage and is a step behind. But think about all of the things that must have happened during the years at Hogwarts, which weren't written, but must be applied to the friendship equation. 1. Harry and Ron shared the Same dorm room for 7 years, which we only know Hermione came up on very few occations. During that time they must have talked about other non-serious or school related or future related things, play wizard chess, talk about girls, etc. 2. They shared a love of a Sport. AND they were on the same "Sport's Team"!! Something they shared together, without Hermione. Come on! You can't find that same kind of unity or connection when you are part of that kind of group. The Magic of Sports. (Not to sound sexist, but I know MANY Women who can't grasp this concept!!)

Typical things that would happen in school/high school, that even wizards would experience. So unless your a Senior, or have been completely through high school, you probably can't quite imagine ALL of the emotional bonds and aspects that they experienced during that time...at least not yet.


Lastly, from the editorial. 1. In GOF, It was clearly shown through the actions of the book, that Ron didn't really believe Harry put his name in the goblet. He just was kicked to the side one too many times. Ron, up until that point, was extremely good at putting up with having the Popular friend, when he was not so popular. 2. The only other REALLY big falter was leaving in book 7. Yes, I found that hard to forgive. But it was stated that the INSTANT he left, he regretted it. This was pointed out as a huge flaw in the editorial. But the point wasn't that he left. The most important thing was that HE CAME BACK! The difference is Hermione didn't ever falter. Good right!?!? Maybe, but the real fact is, is that it's very easy when your right. Hermione NEVER had to own up to being out-of-line and admit to others that she was wrong. It takes a heck of a lot more courage to fall off the beaten path and Get Back On, owning up to making the mistake, out loud, to others, then Never having made a mistake. I see this as a bonus point for Ron.

Wow, that was a mouth full. Guess that's what happens when you don't post on the boards for over 3 months.

An unbiased editorial wouldn't be an editorial at all: it'd be a list of facts. As soon as you state an opinion or cast a judgement, you have become biased.

You can state an opinon without being completely biased IMO :)

I think quite a bit of what Ron said was said tongue in cheek but the problem was some people didn't have quite the same sense of quirky humor that Ron did. Harry most likely did and I guess. So must I as I smiled when Ron said these things - and I am definitely not some immature teenager - I just got the funny side whereas a few did not.

However, having said that, I must stress that we all have different types of senses of humor. I don't happen to find shows like Friends et al or many other so called comedy sitcoms from the US at all funny - in fact I find them irritating so I don't watch them. I prefer some of the comedy shows like The Goon Show, Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, The Vicar of Dibley and Black Books from the UK so I watch (or listen to) them. However I realise that many others don't like that brand of comedy and don't watch them.

We are all different and it is the same with Harry, Ron and Hermione. Harry finds Ron more fun than Hermione who doesn't seem to have much of a sense of humor as she is a more serious person and Harry prefers the lighter side that Ron has. It's his choice. However remember that the three of them were a team and each had important contributions to make to this team. Remember the world would be a pretty boring place if we were all the same - variety is the spice of life and the Horcrux Hunting Team had this variety and because of their different strengths and weaknesses had quite a bit of success, I would say, in their endeavours to destroy the horcruxes and defeat Voldemort.

I agree that Hermione is an awesome character and a wonderful, loyal friend. I don’t agree at all with most of what is written about Ron in this editorial.

I’m afraid the basic premise - comparing friendships and their worth - is already very unfortunate. As others have pointed out, the editorial was unfortunately biased and provided more opinion than 'evidence', IMO. Now maybe that's the nature of an editorial, but personal opinion is always debatable, so here we go. There were a lot of quotes from the text, which is always a good approach generally, but I feel these quotes were a bit unfairly assessed and some of them were outright taken out of context (which is never a good thing)

i.e. Ron not accompanying Harry, Hagrid and Hermione into the Forbidden Forest to visit Grawp. Ron was playing Quidditch at that time and couldn’t go with them. Hagrid chose the Quidditch match as a diversion for Umbridge and the Inquisitorial Squad (the whole school was on the stands) to be able to show his half brother to Harry and friend(s) without risking to get caught. It was the best of times Hagrid could introduce Grawp to the trio, just that one of the trio had another obligation and couldn’t come.

That’s an example of a quote taken out of context and in consequence unfairly assessed. This is used as a slight - well, at least that's how it came across to me - against Ron and as 'evidence' of why Hermione is the better friend. And I just don't think instances like these have anything to say about who is the better friend or about who is a bad character.


However, the point of my editorial wans't to compare characters and analyze their strengths and flaws, rather, it was to compare friendships. But you can't compare friendships. Comparing friendships to see who is the 'better' friend is like a contest and friendship is not a contest. Simple as that.
A person's worth as a friend cannot be judged by their usefulness or anything like that. Love and friendship are not about who deserves it. Every person deserves to be loved. Harry loves Ron, Hermione loves Ron. That’s why they consider him a wonderful friend (and boyfriend and later husband) and not a spoilt brat who acts like a git for no reason.

You might not want a friend like Ron, but a lot of people would love to, Harry and Hermione obviously love to. Your opinion is that Ron is a bad friend and Hermione is an awesome friend. Well, you have your opinion and that's your prerogative. However, I think that this opinion is not really backed up with canon in your essay.

Ron’s leaving also is blown out of proportion, IMO. I feel a very important factor is being ignored. Ron didn’t only come back, which is a huge thing to do in the first place, he wanted to come back immdediately. His absence of weeks wasn’t intentional. He was prevented from coming back right after he had disapparated. He was out of the locket’s influence, wanted to return and ran into snatchers who held him up so that Harry and Hermione were already gone when he was back at their campsite. It’s all there in the text. Reading that, I got the impression that Ron's running out of the tent was more like someone running out of the room and slamming the door shut behind them after a fight. Then, after a while, they come back and apologize. Ron wanted to come back, but couldn't. Ron's temper (one of his flaws) got the best of him and unfortunately, due to the circumstances, the consequences of him being absent were more severe than in a regular fight situation. I wasn't too pleased with Ron when he left, but when he came back and I read what fears and insecurities had botherd him so much, I understood. And I forgave. Just as Harry and Hermione have forgiven.

Also, Hermione shows she’s not afraid of Harry’s temper, while Ron cowers whenever Harry starts yelling.
I do remember however Hermione retreating in tears more than once when Harry yelled at both his friends. I don’t think it’s fair to ignore that.

wandlessmagic, I guess we disagree on what makes a really good friend. I happen to think that loyalty and understanding are more important in a friendship than common interests (though both are of high significance), so I say Hermione's the better friend.But Ron is all of that also. Example: We see incidents (or at least I recall one) when Harry needs to relax, when he needs a time out, yet Hermione – meaning well – wants to talk about everything over and over again. Then it is Ron who instinctively feels that Harry needs a break and he suggests to play Quidditch. And although talking about the problems is important, there is a time for everything. And sometimes it’s time for Harry to just be a teenage boy who has some fun with his friends and Ron sees that. So I don't think we can blankly state that Ron has no understanding for Harry. Ron was after all the one who understood that Harry felt awful at the Dursleys in CoS and planned a rescue mission with the twins.

And Ron is also loyal. Remember how he stepped up for Harry in OotP when the whole world thought he was crazy. He even tore a letter from his own brother apart just because Percy had suggested Ron should sever ties with Harry. Ron defends both, Harry and Hermione, on countless occasions. He was willing to die for both of them on several occasions. I don't think that making a huge mistake - which running out on them in DH certainly was - can or should negate that completely.


Yes, Hermione marries him (and notice that in the epilogue, he's lying to her), Seems like Hermione is not as clever as we always thought. Marrying a useless, lying, spoilt brat ;)

You suggest yourself in the last paragraph that you maybe should have delved deeper into Ron’s character – if you'd done that, I’m sure you would have understood why Ron acted like he acted sometimes and you would have seen that Ron never intentionally did these things to hurt people (okay with a few exceptions). He did these things because he was immature (something most teenagers are), exceptionally insecure and inexperienced with how to deal with his feelings.

As others have said before me, this editorial was incredibly biased. I agree with everyone who said that friendship is not a contest. And that premise is where this editorial fails.

Hermione is the one who comes up with the brilliant idea of the DA. And she is pretty much second-in-command once the DA is formed – she is the one who has the members write down their names, she has them “officially” choose Harry as leader, and so forth. And, Hermione catches on to Harry’s feelings for Cho much faster than Ron does

This is most likely female intuition and not a lack of observation on Ron's part. Girls just pick up on emotions better then guys, this does not make her a better friend then Ron. It makes her a girl.

Hermione continues to be the main sidekick when Harry decides to break into Umbridge’s office a second time. She goes into the office with him, which is infinitely more dangerous than telling Umbridge tales about Peeves (Ron’s assignment).

Well, they couldn't all go in to Umbridge's office. Ron volunteered to go head Umbridge off. Ron was the one who was ready to go with Harry to save Sirius right away. And I would argue that heading Umbridge off is just as dangerous as hiding out in the office. Ron was the last line of defense. He was the one who trying to keep everyone else safe by keeping Umbridge occupied. Unfortunately, Umbridge knew he was lying instantly.

Hermione does everything in her power to dissuade Umbridge from torturing Harry. What does Ron do? Absolutely nothing. But when Umbridge won’t be dissuaded, Hermione is the one who ultimately saves Harry. She feeds Umbridge a cock-and-bull story about the weapon they made for Dumbledore, and then Harry and Hermione head off to the forest with Umbridge close behind. Hermione uses her ingenuity to get Umbridge carried off by centaurs, and they meet up with the rest of the gang.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember Ron being gagged or something. In other words, he was unable to speak. So it's not fair to say that Hermione was the only one who helped Harry. Now in the movie, I would agree, but in the book, if Ron was gagged like I remember, then it's not fair. I would also like to point out that Ron helped the others escape while Harry and Hermione were in the forest, and Hermione's "ingenuity" nearly got the two of them killed by raging centaurs.

Fastforward to the Ministry battle. It’s interesting to note that when the six teens split up into two groups, Hermione is with Harry, yet Ron isn’t. I think Jo purposefully does this to cement Hermione’s role as Harry’s right-hand person.


Very true. Hermione is with Harry. Yet, Hermione is taken out of action within minutes. I would argue that Harry's right-hand in this battle was neither Ron or Hermione, but Neville. Neville is the one who stays by Harry, survives injury, and is the most helpful.

This shows Harry’s friendship with Hermione at this point is at least as strong as his friendship with Ron, if not more so. He is finally there for her when she needs him, just like she helped him out in the previous year. Ron, meanwhile, continues to act despicably for several months before coming around and reconciling with Hermione. But the final evidence is to arrive in the final book.


Actually, it is Ron who wants to reconcile with Hermione. Hermione is the one who takes forever to forgive Ron. Ron realizes by Christmas just how badly he has messed up, and he starts trying to make it right. I'm not saying Hermione should have forgiven him right away, but it took a near-death experience for Hermione to decide her friendship with Ron was worth more then anything. Ron didn't need that kick.

Ron only gets worse as time goes by. Even if he was wearing the locket, that’s no excuse – Harry and Hermione only became a bit more short-tempered – Ron deserted his friends.

Ron also had much deeper insecurities then the others. He admitted to be already thinking these things, but the locket magnified them. The book states over and over that Ron is more deeply affected by the locket then the other too. It's not his fault, the locket was able to attach itself to Ron and feed off his insecurities. It's not fair to fault him for being flawed in this way. If left to himself, Ron would not have left. The locket just made everything so much worse that he lost control.

Honestly, what was Ron expecting? He should have known it would be a long and grueling journeyl. Harry had told him everything he did and did not know. Ron and Hermione made it clear to Harry that they knew what they were getting themselves into, yet apparently only Hermione really did. And this is the point where the bond that was holding Harry and Ron’s friendship together, even after the episode in the beginning of fourth year, finally snaps.

Well, I admit that it's been awhile since I read DH, but I seem to recall Hermione being disappointed in Harry's lack of information as well. It's just that she didn't have as deeply rooted insecurities or temper issues as Ron did. Hermione was always more rational and logical then the other two.

Jealousy has always been one of his defining characteristics, but this is too far. When Hermione decides to stay with Harry, as they both promised to, Ron’s immediate conclusion is that she’s picking him romantically over Ron. He clearly has no notions of loyalty in friendship.

No notions of loyalty? Loyalty is one of Ron's defining characteristics. I'd say that this was less jealousy, and more of a reaction to a confirmed fear of Ron's. He's always worried that Hermione would not return his feelings. Why would she love him over someone great like Krum or Harry? And now here she is, choosing Harry over Ron. To him, it's confirmation that she likes Harry better. Of course, we know it's not true, but as readers, we can't fault Ron for what we know, but he doesn't. It's called dramatic irony.

Basically, Ron’s afraid that his mother loves Harry better than him. (For Merlin’s sake, this is Molly Weasley! There’s enough love to go around!). More importantly, he's afraid Hermione prefers Harry to him. He’s afraid that Harry and Hermione think they were better off without him, that Ron’s done nothing in comparison to Harry, and that Hermione loves Harry. This culminates in a projection of Harry and Hermione kissing, which drives Ron over the edge, making him finally stab the locket.

And yet, you don't seem to understand why this bothers Ron. Ron is the last son, only in existance because Molly wanted a daughter. He knows Molly loves Harry like a son, maybe even more because of her compassion for his situation in life. The thing to keep in mind here is that insecurities such as these are not rational. Ron can try to tell himself that they're not true, but logic rarely beats out fear. Yet, Ron is still able to defeat his insecurities once and for all, proving himself a Gryffindor and now able to be a truly loyal friend.

So after everything, Ron comes back with a simple "sorry," and thinks everything’s going to be just peachy? Honestly, has he read that book on charming witches or not? There should definitely have been a chapter on apologizing! At the very least, Ron should have come with flowers and chocolates, and possibly a very sweet "I love you," but he just says "sorry"! I think Hermione’s snipe about racking his brains, while mean, is very true.

Well, as Ron said, what else was there to say? "I'm sorry I ran out" pretty much sums it up. And where on earth was Ron going to get flowers and chocolates? He didn't know how to find them, and when the Deluminator helped him, he got up and left. There was no time to bring gifts. Besides, I think Hermione would have smacked him for that. You can't buy your way back in.

Hermione shouts that she doesn’t care what Ron’s done, and indeed, little could make up for what he did! Indeed, he might very well have simply left them to die, and it was an absolute miracle they didn’t, as Hermione recounts. While losing fingernails is doubtlessly unpleasant, the two hardly equate! And Ron’s uncertainty about their fates must certainly have been excruciatingly unpleasant, but fighting for your lives is a bit more unpleasant.


Ron must have been in agony. As ronjalina pointed out, he wanted to return immediately. He has to wait, everyday hoping that no news of them will surface, and yet wishing for news so that he would know they were safe. He knows he has no way to find them and figures they will probably never forgive them. Yet despite this, Ron still seizes his chance to find Harry and Hermione once it surfaces. He doesn't know how they will react, but he still returns. For all he knows, they will turn him out on the spot, but he has to know they are safe. He wants to help. That is loyalty.

But when I read one sentence, I just felt my jaw drop: Harry was glad that Ron was fighting back. I couldn’t believe this! After everything was said and done, after Ron betrayed him and Hermione stuck by him, after the incident at Godric’s Hollow, after six and a half years of unwavering loyalty and support from Hermione, Harry still sided with Ron. It’s obvious that Harry and Ron are both guys, which makes them closer, and they were friends first, but it still doesn’t add up! Poor Hermione – after everything she’s done, Harry sides with Ron against her. It brings to mind Hermione’s old line – "Boys!"

Harry had forgiven Ron. He understood Hermione's anger, but he was shocked and scared by her outburst. It made Harry feel helpless and uncomfortable to watch Ron being screamed at like this. He may also have thought it would cause Ron to relapse into his insecurities. But Ron fights back. Harry is relieved that Ron is standing up for himself and not losing self-esteem. He is gaining confidence and is bringing himself back to an equal plane with Hermione.

Apparently, Ron is more concerned about gaining Hermione’s favor than their fates – which, while understandable under normal circumstances, isn’t the thing to prioritize when one false move can cost you your life. But it’s fairly clear that Ron’s priority is getting Hermione to be his girlfriend, not supporting his friends.

Hermione had already decided to visit Lovegood. I don't think Ron thought it was a bad idea to go there, or he would have contested it. He and Hermione have always bickered. He's never been afraid to stand up to her. I think Ron must've agreed with Hermione, and since he did, he agreed with her in a way that gets him back in her good books. It's not true to say that gettig back in Hermione's good books was more important then supporting his friends. Getting back in Hermione's good books would make the isolation from the rest of the world so much more pleasant. If there's only three of them, and 2 out of the 3 don't get along, then it's not going to be a good situation for them. Ron needed to get them back to a functional unit.

So in conclusion to this long post, I don't think that we can say either Ron or Hermione is a better friend. Harry needs both of them to succeed, and both are there for him. Ron had a character arc that needed to be solved with a final confrontation with his insecurities. Hermione had insecurities, but her arc was never as wide as Ron's. It's not fair to say Hermione is better because she never wavers. Even though she is solid, Harry still needs Ron to balance them emotionally. Ron is just as necessary and just as good a friend as Hermione.

Ron also had much deeper insecurities then the others. He admitted to be already thinking these things, but the locket magnified them. The book states over and over that Ron is more deeply affected by the locket then the other too.

This is also a very good point. To continue on with the point: Yeah, Harry and Hermione had to deal with the locket too. Correctly stated by the author. And yes, they didn't go nuts about it. True! HOWEVER, this isn't the first time that we have seen magic affect 1 person more than another either! After all, in POA Harry was the only one affected by the Dementors enough to get knocked out. People thought Harry was weak, when really it was a simple matter that the Magic Involved Affected him more. With the Locket, it simply affected Ron more. So that entire point is rather meaningless.

The first thing I want to say is THANK YOU for writing a new editorial!!!!

And it was a good one. Easy to read and follow, lots of quotes from the books, and, even better, sparking off a great discussion in the forum!

I think the author made some valid points. I can definitely see his point by the end. It was quite revealing though to discover you are a 15-year-old boy yourself - I think I read it from quite a different perspective now!

The people above have also made various valid points, but let's not bash this editorialist - you guys get out there and write another editorial for us to debate instead! :)

I completely agree with many other posters that this editorial is flawed. Friendship is not a large game of whats in it for me!!!

That is almost Voldemort like. To him people are only as good as whatever they can do for him at that given moment.

Many other people have very compelling arguments and I agree with the points that they bring up especially magic freak the 6th post that one pretty much covers everything.

The editorial made some good points, but it's discussing a moot point. I agree with the consensus that you cannot compare friendships.
Hermione and Ron are different people, and therefore are friends to Harry in different ways. They're closer to Harry and he trusts them because of everything they've shared, and they've remained loyal despite their low points.
Harry is also friends with people like Seamus and Neville, but they're not lesser friends. They're simply not as close because they've shared fewer experiences together.

Ultimately you can't have a "truer" friend. You could be closer to someone by shared experiences, similar personalities, earned trust, etc., but you're either loyal or you're not. It's a yes or no question, not a better or worse comparative.

...
Even if the article was discussing who was a closer friend, it's still a moot point. He's close to both. He just shares his time differently with both of them, but for the most part, spends his time equally with Ron and Hermione.

originally posted by SoccerDM
This is also a very good point. To continue on with the point: Yeah, Harry and Hermione had to deal with the locket too. Correctly stated by the author. And yes, they didn't go nuts about it. True! HOWEVER, this isn't the first time that we have seen magic affect 1 person more than another either! After all, in POA Harry was the only one affected by the Dementors enough to get knocked out. People thought Harry was weak, when really it was a simple matter that the Magic Involved Affected him more. With the Locket, it simply affected Ron more. So that entire point is rather meaningless.

Exactly! :agree:

Even if the article was discussing who was a closer friend, it's still a moot point. He's close to both. He just shares his time differently with both of them, but for the most part, spends his time equally with Ron and Hermione.

I agree with this as well. It's really not valid to try to determine who is a better or closer friend. Harry needs both of them. Jo has made of point of making the trio a unit, needing all three of them to survive. This unit would be a triangle with equal sides rather then a lopsided triange (I forgot the geometric terms :p but you get my point).

No notions of loyalty? Loyalty is one of Ron's defining characteristics. I'd say that this was less jealousy, and more of a reaction to a confirmed fear of Ron's. He's always worried that Hermione would not return his feelings. Why would she love him over someone great like Krum or Harry? And now here she is, choosing Harry over Ron. To him, it's confirmation that she likes Harry better. Of course, we know it's not true, but as readers, we can't fault Ron for what we know, but he doesn't. It's called dramatic irony. I agree. Ron is loyal. Illoyalty would have been to run to Voldemort and tell him what Harry was up to in exchange for his family's safety for example. Something Ron would never have done.

Well, as Ron said, what else was there to say? "I'm sorry I ran out" pretty much sums it up. And where on earth was Ron going to get flowers and chocolates? He didn't know how to find them, and when the Deluminator helped him, he got up and left. There was no time to bring gifts. Besides, I think Hermione would have smacked him for that. You can't buy your way back in. For all Ron knew he had mucked up his chance with Hermione forever. He couldn't know, if she would ever forgive him, let alone reciprocate his feelings, so heartfelt confessions of his undying love would have been a bit bold. Saying 'sorry', just the word 'sorry' is one of the hardest things to do, especially for stubborn people. An honest simple 'sorry' has more impact then anything else, IMO. Ron was sorry for what he did and he said so. There wasn't much more he could do.

Ron must have been in agony. As ronjalina pointed out, he wanted to return immediately. He has to wait, everyday hoping that no news of them will surface, and yet wishing for news so that he would know they were safe. He knows he has no way to find them and figures they will probably never forgive them. Yet despite this, Ron still seizes his chance to find Harry and Hermione once it surfaces. He doesn't know how they will react, but he still returns. For all he knows, they will turn him out on the spot, but he has to know they are safe. He wants to help. That is loyalty. Exactly. Ron doesn't know, if he will be welcomed back. But he gives it a try nonetheless, because knowing about his friends and trying to help them is more important. I think it needed strength and a lot of love and loyalty for Ron to do that. And that shouldn't be underestimated, IMO, when the whole Ron leaving and returning!! issue is dealt with.

Hermione had already decided to visit Lovegood. I don't think Ron thought it was a bad idea to go there, or he would have contested it. He and Hermione have always bickered. He's never been afraid to stand up to her. I think Ron must've agreed with Hermione, and since he did, he agreed with her in a way that gets him back in her good books. It's not true to say that gettig back in Hermione's good books was more important then supporting his friends. Getting back in Hermione's good books would make the isolation from the rest of the world so much more pleasant. If there's only three of them, and 2 out of the 3 don't get along, then it's not going to be a good situation for them. Ron needed to get them back to a functional unit. Trying to get back into Hermione's good book would only have been bad had it caused harm to anyone or to the quest. That hasn't happened. Although they almost got caught at Xeno's - something they couldn't foresee since Xeno was supposedly on the good side - they have gained some valuable information about the Hallows there.

It has been a while and I must say that I am pleased to have another new editorial to comment on. I want to agree with those who said thank you for writing the editorial. It was interesting and expressed a particular point of view very well.

The fact that a great many people have not shared your point of view is neither here nor there, because, as has been pointed out, everyone will have their own opinion, based on their own understanding and their own experiences and observations.

I also do not reach the same conclusions that you have, l but that is based on MY understanding and MY experiences and observations. And I'd like to make a few.

The fear of losing (or maybe even never having had) your mother's love is one that I personally am familiar with. My mother, perhaps jokingly, used to tell me that I was a major disappointment, since she already had a son and I was supposed to be a daughter. Unless you have truly experienced that for yourself, you've no idea how that can affect you. And to have been exposed to that idea from the time you were perhaps 4 or 5, and to have been continually exposed to it, year after year - well, I fully understand Ron's anxiety, and I can understand too how incredible it might seem to others that he should have that fear.

I think others have pointed out that Ron is the one who has been required, on more than one occasion, to literally apologize for messing up. Hermione has never explicitly apologized for messing up, except once. She was sorry - very sorry - for having accidentally broken the Phoenix and Holly wand. Think about this, however. Harry's reaction to his wand's demise is no diferent than his reaction to Ron's leaving. Ron's departure breaks a part of the bond that he thought was so unbreakable. The breaking of the wand leaves Harry feeling exposed, unprotected, more vulnerable than he had ever felt. He forgave Hermione in exactly the same way he forgave Ron. He realized that she did it by accident, that she had saved his life (as Ron had in the pool) and that in her own way, she was facing her inadequacies (whether real or creations of her own making is immaterial) just as Ron did with the locket - and having just as much difficulty doing so as did Ron. It is very difficult for Hermione to admit that she screws up occasionally, that she DOESN'T know everything, that she is not perfect. Much the way I felt (tongue FIRMLY in cheek here, although there there is some truth to what I'm saying too) when my children discovered that I was not all-knowing, all-seeing.

I think there were several instances in DH besides the locket scene, that indicated just how deep were Ron's insecurities. One that immediately comes to mind is the time that Ron responds to Hermione's compliment with the words "always the tone of surprise" - she makes him feel that it must have been a lucky occurrence, and unlikely to ever happen again. Let's face it, Hermione can be intimidating to an insecure teenaged boy, especially one with a crush on her and a deep-seated inability to act on it - and she does very little to try and understand his insecurities (and really, why should she).

Also, remember that not once does she say a word of apology for badgering Harry about the Hallows, insisting that they are not real, couldn't possibly be real, only to find out that they are not only real, but of paramount importance to completing the task Dumbledore set for Harry. And, to be fair, neither did Ron.

I guess, if it isn't already obvious, the point I hope I'm trying to make is, unless one has walked in another's shoes, it is impossible to truly know how one would react in a similar situation.

Now, having rambled on sufficiently long, I really wanted to say that I appreciate the fact that there is this new editorial, I appreciate the fact that I'm able to comment on it, and I appreciate the fact that the author does not seem to be taking the criticism personally, because I truly believe it is not meant that way. That's another experience I've had, to have written something and to have had it dissected. It took me a long while to understand and accept that there was nothing personal - and that I becaume a better writer (and person) because of the dissection. And I believe I was a lot older than the author when I had MY experience!

M.

Thank you very much, SoccerDM, for your support (by the way, I'm hpBOY13, I'm a him). You do bring up valid points, that Harry and Ron lived together practically all the time for those seven years. And I guess that's why Ro ends up beign Harry's best friend, despite everything. As to your point abotu Hermione never having anything to own up to, that's nto true. For her, it's just on a smaller scale usually, she never betrayed Harry like Ron did. But she does admit she was wrong about prophecies, she does own up to Crookshanks eating Scabbers, if memory serves she even tries to own up for starting the DA when Harry's miserable about it after it's disbanded.

inkling7, you're right about the different senses of humor - mine is actually a lot like Ron's, I'm very sarcastic. But even I wouldn't mock my best friend after he's just had a very awkward first kiss - notice that Harry refrains from commenting on his fling with Lavender.

ronjalina, as I've already stated, the instances where Ron's absent I use to support Hermione, not as a slight on Ron. Also, your analogy of walking out of a room and slamming the door has a flaw: normally, the person remaining in the room isn't in mortal danger. I believe the only time Hermione was in tears when Harry yelled was when he actually had a reason to be mad: first in OotP after he's been stranded at the Dursleys, and then when his wand is broken in DH. Ron, meanwhile, cowers whenever Harry's temper comes out. Also, I never said Ron has no understanding of Harry: just nto as much as I'd expect him to. As for understanding that Harry was miserable at the Dursleys - anyone with half a brain would have understood that! Ron standing up for Harry in OotP was something any decent friend would do, and he was far from being the only one (the DA comes to mind). And he tore up the letter from Percy because he and Percy never got along well, and because he hates Umbridge who Percy loves, and because Percy walked out on the whole family. Though the comments abotu Harry probably also helped.

dweaselqueen, you seem to just be making excuses for Ron. Apparently, Ron's insecurities excuse just about everything. Concerning your point about the Ministry battle: Hermione wasn't taken out immediately. As I recall, she put up a decent fight against the Death Eaters before being hit by the purple fire curse thingy, and she was the one who showed the gang how to lock doors. As for Ron, I don't remember hearing much about how he fought the Death Eaters. However, I won't say that that's his fault, because Hermione is clearly a better witch, and here everytihng was based on who the Death Eaters targeted. And as for Hermione not reconciling with Ron - in her defense, he really hurt her. Perhaps the teenage girls here can back me up on this: how fast do you usually forgive a guy who broke your heart after realizing your affection for him?

Thank you very much, Andromeda_T, I'm really glad that you enjoyed this! I too have noticed the horrifying lack of editorials on Mugglenet, and am attempting to rectify that. I agree, this has turned into a lively (if somewhat...passionate) debate, and I do admit the others here bring up good points. Though I'm curious...why was the revelation of my identity such a shock?

samlindude...apparently prizing loyalty is now Voldemort-like? I'm analyzing which friend is more loyal to Harry, and what they did for Harry oftne comes into play. Wow, I just realized that I totally belong in Hufflepuff House, and here I am always thinking of myself as a Ravenclaw!

accioluminos, it may have been a moot point, but I'm running out of unmoot points to editorialize about! And ultimately, Neville and Seamus are viewed as lesser firends - notice neither one of them is ever described as Harry's best friend.

dweaselqueen, if you want to talk geometrically, then I disagree about the equilateral triangle. I view the Trio as a scalene triangle - each friendship between the three is different, yet they come together to form one polygon.

ronjalina, what you're talking about wouldn't have just been disloyalty, it would have been cold-blooded betrayal, a Pettigrew move. I never said Ron was that bad, I'm just saying he wans't a loyal friend. Also, the Wealseys would probably have killed Ron and continued to fight Voldemort anyway. And regardless of whether Hermione reciprocated his feelings, a heartfelt confession of love would probably have softened her up. And as for no bad coming out of Ron's support of Hermione's idea - that just means they got lucky. As we know, the consequences could have been dire.

Well, despite the fact that many of you don't like my editorial, I am enjoying this debate! Looking forward to more arguments!

ETA: The-Old-One, thank you very much for your kind comments. Trust me, the never having a mother's love issue strikes very close to home, since me and my mom have been mortal enemies since my dad died five years ago (he was the peqacemaker). I like your comparison of the situations with Ron and Hermione, but I'd like to disagree. Harry never thought to blame Hermione for breaking his wand, he realizes it was a total accident and necessary. He does blame Ron (at least until Ron shows up again), and Ron's departure was neither an accident nor necessary. Also, you say Hermione doesn't try to understand Ron's insecurities - that isn't true. Remember in GoF, when Hermione explains Ron's jealousy to Harry. Hermione actually understood Ron's insecurities far better than Harry did at that point. Anyway, thanks for rambling with me, I appreciate your comments!

I knew many boys just like Ron when I was young and I daresay there are still many young men like that around these days - at least my granddaughter assures me of this fact as she goes to school with them. Ron is a redhead and aren't they reputed to have fiery tempers? Just joking - but he is rather quick tempered and acts without thinking sometimes - we all do it as nobody is perfect. However he did want to come back after he'd been away from the influence of the locket for a while and was unable so all he could do was follow the voices of Harry and Hermione around with the help of the deluminator. He didn't have a large tent to sleep in and must have felt the cold as much, if not more than they did while waiting for them to appear but he didn't give up and eventually was able to reunite with them.

He was a loyal friend for the most part - he just had a bit of problem with foot in mouth on occasions - as many people have. Ron was just as essential to the horcrux hunting quest as Harry and Hermione were - remember they were a team - each one having their own particular strengths and weaknesses but each contributing to the teamwork in their own way. He was no less a loyal friend than Hermione was.

You do bring up valid points, that Harry and Ron lived together practically all the time for those seven years. And I guess that's why Ro ends up beign Harry's best friend, despite everything. Despite what? People being flawed humans? I appreciate so much that JKR has created three dimensional characters rather than just our perfect, clichéd, flawless hero and sidekicks. Harry loves Ron and he understands Ron, that's why he knows Ron never was intentionally malicious but just made immature mistakes out of inexperience and insecurity. Both being male might of course have helped the two to understand each other. So basically I don't think Ron is Harry's best friend "despite being human" because they spent so much time together. I think they spent so much time together because they are best friends.

As to your point abotu Hermione never having anything to own up to, that's nto true. For her, it's just on a smaller scale usually, she never betrayed Harry like Ron did. She went after Harry's back to report his Firebolt to McGonagall. Of course she was only concerned about his safety, but couldn't she just have informed him about her plans before going to McGonagall? She could have, she didn't. That's why Harry was angry with her and stopped talking to her although he knew she only meant well. Speaking of Harry: he knew Hermione was only concerned about him and meant the best, despite of that, he sided with Ron and stopped spending time with Hermione. Hmmm, isn't that a bit 'illoyal' towards Hermione? Hermione was under enough stress already, she was over-worked with all her subjects. Nonetheless Harry didn't spend a second thought on whether Hermione was okay or not. Interestingly enough it was Ron, despite having a fallout with Hermione, who was worried about her. Is it possible Harry was just an immature teenage boy who was angry he couldn't use his new racing broom?

My point being: all three of them had their flaws and made mistakes. It's just 'human'.

But she does admit she was wrong about prophecies, she does own up to Crookshanks eating Scabbers, if memory serves she even tries to own up for starting the DA when Harry's miserable about it after it's disbanded.Yes, she does. And Ron does own up for his mistakes also. That's the wonderful chance we humans have. When we make mistakes, we can always try to own up to them. :)

ronjalina, as I've already stated, the instances where Ron's absent I use to support Hermione, not as a slight on Ron. If I read the editorial correctly, you used these instances as evidence for why Hermione is a better friend and closer to Harry than Ron. So it is in fact a slight against Ron. Otherwise, to quote these instances would've been a moot point, because we readers already know that Harry sometimes spends time with only one of his friends. Speaking of that: isn't it interesting that Harry spent Christmas in HBP with Ron at the Burrow? I'm sure the Grangers would have loved to invite Harry over Christmas, had Hermione suggested it, to get to know better one of Hermione's best friends. Neither Harry nor Hermione even consider something like that. Which clearly disproves the notion Harry was in any way closer to Hermione in HBP.

Also, your analogy of walking out of a room and slamming the door has a flaw: normally, the person remaining in the room isn't in mortal danger. Harry was not in mortal danger when they had the fight that led to Ron leaving. The situation the trio was in was potentially lethal, but they weren't in immediate danger, due to them hiding in the forest and having all the protective charms around their campsite.
I also think that my example with the door slamming is accurate considering the fact that Ron wanted to come back immediately. Had he not been held up by the Snatchers, he would’ve been back 10 minutes later, aplogized and nothing would have happened. It is irrelevant, IMO, that Harry was in a potentially lethal situation – he was not in mortal danger at the time they were fighting. Emotions were running high, both said things not so nice – Harry defended himself, as was his right, but he said some things that weren’t too nice either – Ron ran out 'slamming the door shut' behind him. Again, had he not run into Snatchers (which he couldn't foresee), he would have been back minutes later.

I believe the only time Hermione was in tears when Harry yelled was when he actually had a reason to be mad: first in OotP after he's been stranded at the Dursleys, and then when his wand is broken in DH. I don't know what you are referring to with the Dursleys, but I recall at least one time in OotP when Hermione retreated in tears because Harry was yelling at her. IIRC that is the exact time when Harry was tempted to shake Hermione. I don't really blame Harry for how he acted in OotP. He was under tremendous stress. Only his outbursts weren't directed at the right people, but from a psychological standpoint, it was understandable, maybe even to be expected. However, if we apply very strict standards to judge friends, Harry really hadn't any reason to be so mad at his friends. They were on his side, his closest confidantes.

Ron, meanwhile, cowers whenever Harry's temper comes out. No he doesn't. He just doesn't know how to handle CAPSLOCK Harry. Neither did Hermione, just the two of them reacted differently in their helplessness. Furthermore, Ron still knew how awful his fallout with Harry the year before had been, he didn't want something like that again and that added to his helplessness in dealing with Harry. You might think all what I say here are 'excuses', however I think they are valid explanations. Maybe you could sometime try to take them into consideration. :)

Also, I never said Ron has no understanding of Harry: just nto as much as I'd expect him to. But that's the point. We all have certain expectations in regards to certain things. Just because Ron didn't meet your expectations, he isn't a bad friend, IMO.

As for understanding that Harry was miserable at the Dursleys - anyone with half a brain would have understood that! Yes, but it was Ron who rescued Harry and not Hermione, who - I think we can all agree on that - has more than a half brain. Whether rescuing Harry from the Dursleys was an intellectual masterpiece or not shouldn't take away from it being a huge expression of concern and friendship and understanding. Being intellectually lacking (which I don't think Ron is, but that is neither here nor there) doesn't mean someone is a bad person or a bad friend.


Ron standing up for Harry in OotP was something any decent friend would do, and he was far from being the only one (the DA comes to mind). And he tore up the letter from Percy because he and Percy never got along well, and because he hates Umbridge who Percy loves, and because Percy walked out on the whole family. Though the comments abotu Harry probably also helped.Yes, Ron stood up for Harry because he is a good friend. I think Ron proved himself to be an awesome friend in OotP (and in the other books of course), I would like to know why you feel the need to downplay our examples here.

dweaselqueen, you seem to just be making excuses for Ron. Apparently, Ron's insecurities excuse just about everything. Ron's insecurities don't excuse everything, but they are an explanation. As a person who's always been insecure, I know how much that can hurt and hold back. Putting oneself down, regarding oneself lowly, that's unfortunately not something someone else has done to me, which I could have dealt with, that's something I have done to myself. And I was lucky (and still am) to have people around me who understand and forgive for the stupid things I did/do or said/say due to this insecurity.

Concerning your point about the Ministry battle: Hermione wasn't taken out immediately. As I recall, she put up a decent fight against the Death Eaters before being hit by the purple fire curse thingy, and she was the one who showed the gang how to lock doors. As for Ron, I don't remember hearing much about how he fought the Death Eaters. However, I won't say that that's his fault, because Hermione is clearly a better witch, and here everytihng was based on who the Death Eaters targeted. Luna tells it all. She, Ginny and Ron were in the planet room fighting four adult Death Eaters. They all held their own and came out of it alive only with Ginny's ankle broken and Ron being hit by a spell that made him giddy. Three teenagers getting out alive fighting four DEs is quite a feat, IMO. We don't see how Ron held himself, but from the fact that he and Ginny and Luna were still alive, we can conclude that all three were very good. We see Hermione being awesome until she makes two almost lethal mistakes, she uses a silencing spell (ever heard of non-verbal spells, Hermione?) instead of a stunning spell on Dolohov enabling him to still cast curses, and then she turns his back on him to compliment Harry. In the midst of a battle!! That's how she got hit by an almost lethal curse from Dolohov. Don't get me wrong, Hermione was awesome at the MoM. But so was Ron. And Harry. And Neville, Ginny and Luna. In the end, they all got out of there alive (the kids I mean, not Sirius unfortunately). I think JKR had a reason to seperate Ron and Hermione during the battle at the MoM, which is tied to their romantic sub-plot, but that is not for here either.

And as for Hermione not reconciling with Ron - in her defense, he really hurt her. Perhaps the teenage girls here can back me up on this: how fast do you usually forgive a guy who broke your heart after realizing your affection for him?
Yes, she got really hurt. I have the fullest sympathy for her. But the whole situation was much, much more complex than just 'Ron being a spoilt brat and intentionally hurting Hermione'. Again it would lead too far to go into detail here. If you are interested in this aspect, you could look here in this thread: Ron and Hermione (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=108077)

ronjalina, what you're talking about wouldn't have just been disloyalty, it would have been cold-blooded betrayal, a Pettigrew move. I never said Ron was that bad, I'm just saying he wans't a loyal friend. Ron never was illoyal. He just acted like a jerk and made a mistake. That’s all. My example might have been a bit exaggerated, but Ron never was illoyal.

Also, the Wealseys would probably have killed Ron and continued to fight Voldemort anyway. And regardless of whether Hermione reciprocated his feelings, a heartfelt confession of love would probably have softened her up. She began yelling at him and pummeling him the moment he entered the tent (and I understood her reaction :)) when was he supposed to confess his love to her? He couldn't even be sure if she still wanted him. His confession could have had the reverse affect and made everything worse or at least very awkward. You have complained about Ron trying to get back into Hermione's good book, but at the same time you require for Ron to have made a love confession when he came back. It feels a bit to me like whatever Ron did, it was wrong.

And as for no bad coming out of Ron's support of Hermione's idea - that just means they got lucky. As we know, the consequences could have been dire.So Hermione is brilliant and a fantastic friend for suggesting something that in the end helped Harry, and Ron is a bad friend for agreeing with Hermione because they could perhaps have died?

Point being, it was Hermione's idea in the first place. So either she is stupid and irresponsible for suggesting something potentially dangerous, or she is clever and careful and really thought about it before suggesting to go to Xeno's, well being aware that anything they did could have bad consequences. I personally would go with the second explanation. They had to do SOMETHING. They couldn't hide in the woods for the rest of their lives. So Hermione thought about something and suggested an action and Ron agreed with her. I consider myself not to be too stupid, but how that can be held against Ron is beyond me. Again it seems to me - just my impression here - that whatever Ron would had done, it would have been wrong.

Well, despite the fact that many of you don't like my editorial, I am enjoying this debate! Looking forward to more arguments!I'm glad you're enjoying this debate. So do I.
I hope you don’t let yourself 'intimidate' by our response to your editorial. I would love to read other editorials by you and I hope you don’t take our ciritcism personally but as a chance to learn something. I have written essays in school and in university and I’ve learnt each time something from my mistakes.

originally posted by hpboy13
dweaselqueen, you seem to just be making excuses for Ron. Apparently, Ron's insecurities excuse just about everything.

I apologize if it came out that way. I'm not making excuses, I'm explaining why he acts the way he does. As ronjalina said, insecurities are a burden that way you down. Low self-esteem like Ron's is a major issue for him. It prevents him from thinking rationally when he's upset and it prevents him from performing at his best. Take Quidditch. Ron was deeply insecure about his abilities, but when he had confidence in himself ("You can do this Ron" or the "lucky" potion) he is amazing. His insecurities are a large part of his character arc and they are something he has had to fight through.

It seems to be a theme in the series, that battling inner demons can be scarier and harder then real demons (the dementors, or Voldemort's possession of Harry, insecurities, etc.)

Concerning your point about the Ministry battle: Hermione wasn't taken out immediately. As I recall, she put up a decent fight against the Death Eaters before being hit by the purple fire curse thingy, and she was the one who showed the gang how to lock doors. As for Ron, I don't remember hearing much about how he fought the Death Eaters. However, I won't say that that's his fault, because Hermione is clearly a better witch, and here everytihng was based on who the Death Eaters targeted. QUOTE]

I didn't say she was taken out immediately. I said "she was taken out within minutes". As in, she lasted for a while, but not for very long. My point was that she was not beside Harry for the longest, which would be true sidekick status. That honor went to Neville.

[QUOTE]originally posted by ronjalina
Luna tells it all. She, Ginny and Ron were in the planet room fighting four adult Death Eaters. They all held their own and came out of it alive only with Ginny's ankle broken and Ron being hit by a spell that made him giddy. Three teenagers getting out alive fighting four DEs is quite a feat, IMO. We don't see how Ron held himself, but from the fact that he and Ginny and Luna were still alive, we can conclude that all three were very good. We see Hermione being awesome until she makes two almost lethal mistakes, she uses a silencing spell (ever heard of non-verbal spells, Hermione?) instead of a stunning spell on Dolohov enabling him to still cast curses, and then she turns his back on him to compliment Harry. In the midst of a battle!! That's how she got hit by an almost lethal curse from Dolohov. Don't get me wrong, Hermione was awesome at the MoM. But so was Ron. And Harry. And Neville, Ginny and Luna. In the end, they all got out of there alive (the kids I mean, not Sirius unfortunately). I think JKR had a reason to seperate Ron and Hermione during the battle at the MoM, which is tied to their romantic sub-plot, but that is not for here either.


Now this, I agree with. All of the kids survive, which means they are all very powerful witches and wizards. No one dies, and no one sustained life-threatening injuries. Again, my point was just that Hermione was not any better then any one else in the battle. No better, no worse.

originally posted by hpboy13
And as for Hermione not reconciling with Ron - in her defense, he really hurt her. Perhaps the teenage girls here can back me up on this: how fast do you usually forgive a guy who broke your heart after realizing your affection for him?[/

I didn't say Hermione wasn't hurt by Ron running off. Being a teenage girl I totally sympathize with her. I was merely pointing out why Harry was glad that Ron was fighting back. Harry is not a teenage girl, nor as he ever experienced that kind of hearache. He would understand why Hermione is angry and flying off the handle, but it would scare him. After all, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

ETA: Or, if you were referring to HBP when I said it was Hermione who took forever to forgive Ron, I understand her feelings there too. Again, I didn't mean that Hermione should have forgiven Ron sooner, I was merely disputing that Ron was acting despicably. If you're going to argue that Ron should've broken up with Lavender sooner, and that's acting despicably, then I agree. He wasn't respecting Lavender at all, but being insecure and having little experience with girlfriends, I can understand why it took him so long. But he was trying to renew his friendship with Hermione, and that is not despicable. My point was that Ron wanted to be her friend, even though he wasn't sure if they'd ever be more then that, but Hermione refused to be friends with Ron again until she almost lost him.

dweaselqueen, if you want to talk geometrically, then I disagree about the equilateral triangle. I view the Trio as a scalene triangle - each friendship between the three is different, yet they come together to form one polygon.


I can see your point there. My point was that, as a unit, they balance each other out. When they are working together, they are equals and Harry doesn't consider either himself, or either of the other two, above the others. But there are definitely two ways to see this as you've pointed out. (And thank you for reminding me of the geometrical terms, I knew equilateral, but I couldn't remember scalene. :))

originally posted by ronjalina
Point being, it was Hermione's idea in the first place. So either she is stupid and irresponsible for suggesting something potentially dangerous, or she is clever and careful and really thought about it before suggesting to go to Xeno's, well being aware that anything they did could have bad consequences. I personally would go with the second explanation. They had to do SOMETHING. They couldn't hide in the woods for the rest of their lives. So Hermione thought about something and suggested an action and Ron agreed with her. I consider myself not to be too stupid, but how that can be held against Ron is beyond me. Again it seems to me - just my impression here - that whatever Ron would had done, it would have been wrong.

Again, I agree. It was a good idea to go there. They got valuable information, both about Luna and the Hallows, and even a horcrux (the lost diadem was hinted at there). It was a mistake that they almost got caught, but luckily, they got out of there. However, it is not all Ron's fault because he agreed with Hermione. It was, after all, Hermione's idea in the first place. But I still believe it was a good idea. They had to do something, and nothing is with out risk.

If you want to argue stupid, I still think the ministry raid was incredibly stupid, and all three had an equal hand in that. But again, it had to be done. They had to act and choose a course of action.

Well, despite the fact that many of you don't like my editorial, I am enjoying this debate! Looking forward to more arguments!


Well, it's not so much that I don't like it, it's that I disagree. As The_Old_One said, we react based on our understanding of the book and our experiences. So I may react a little too strongly at times, but really, I enjoy debating this. :)

I have read the editorial, and I disagree with the overall message.

* * *

Before I begin, there is a subject I want to touch on. In the editorial, there have been several references as to how Hermione has helped Harry in the fight against Voldemort. I don't think a friendship should be compared based on how much help someone has offered in war. As someone said perfectly earlier in this thread, it's like saying a rich person that is generous with another man is better than a poor person that is friends with the same man. Hermione has helped a lot, but Ron has too. I am going to make a post on another thread showing instances where Ron had a pivotal role in the trio, and I'll link it when I get to that.

Ron behaved irrationally when he ignored Harry after Harry's name came out of the Goblet. The thing is, Ron needed that experience in order to grow up. He made a mistake - I'm not going to dispute that - but there were many reasons why he behaved that way. He was the second youngest child in the family and had a lot to live up to, thanks to the talent and cleverness of his older brothers. I doubt anyone that has such expectations weighing on them will behave perfectly. One person that comes to mind that had to go through this is Neville. He had a high expectations from his family members, and he suffered for it. Ron isn't prefect; he was jealous because he felt himself overshadowed once again by his best friend. Ron should have stayed with Harry and supported him, but he didn't. In the end, thankfully, he did and Harry loved his company once more.

I also disagree with you that Ron is a "spoiled brat." Harry calls Ron childish, not spoiled. As far as I can tell, a spoiled brat doesn't usually live in poor family.

When he’s in the hospital wing at the end of the book, he believes Cedric’s death is his fault (typical Harry, blaming everything on himself). When he’s about to start crying (He could feel a burning, prickling feeling at the inner corners of his eyes.), He wished Ron would look away. (pg. 714). He’s more comfortable crying in front of Hermione, yet not in front of Ron, his usually preferred friend.

Since when does it say that Harry was perfectly comfortable showing his tears in front of Hermione? Harry isn't the kind of person that enjoys showing his vulnerability in front of people . . . I'm exactly like that. I, unlike most girls my age, hate crying in front of my friends, but that doesn't mean that they're not good enough friends for me. It has more to do with me than them, and that's how I always perceived Harry.

Also, Hermione shows she’s not afraid of Harry’s temper, while Ron cowers whenever Harry starts yelling. For example, Hermione brings up the idea of Harry teaching D.A.D.A., and Ron “seemed much keener to join the conversation now that he was sure Harry was not going to start shouting again.” (pg. 330)

Both Ron and Hermione were frightened of Harry's temper. At the end of OotP, Hermione was scared when she was trying to tell Harry that Voldemort was likely getting him in a trap. I don't understand how this means Ron is a lesser friend for not wanting to provoke a person that is yelling at the top of his lungs.

Hermione does everything in her power to dissuade Umbridge from torturing Harry. What does Ron do? Absolutely nothing. But when Umbridge won’t be dissuaded, Hermione is the one who ultimately saves Harry. She feeds Umbridge a cock-and-bull story about the weapon they made for Dumbledore, and then Harry and Hermione head off to the forest with Umbridge close behind. Hermione uses her ingenuity to get Umbridge carried off by centaurs, and they meet up with the rest of the gang.

As someone said earlier, wasn't Ron gagged? He couldn't exactly speak under those circumstances.

So let’s see how the sacrifices of Ron and Hermione compare with each other. Hermione has made her parents forget that she ever existed so she can go with Harry on his journey. Ron cooked up a comfortable plan with his family that will have the ghoul pretend to be him with spattergroit. All in all, I’d say Hermione’s sacrifice counts for more in this case.

Why this is a bad thing about Ron is beyond me. Ron wasn't capable of making as many sacrifices because he wasn't in the position to do so. Hermione had all the books because that was her strong point - her intelligence. Ron didn't do that because he doesn't have that many books. Ron didn't confund his parents because his parents weren't in as much danger. I honestly don't see how they can be compared since they were in completely different situations.

Now, the locket situation. Jealousy wasn't Ron's reason for his behavior in DH. It was the locket and that it recognized Ron's fears and used it against him. Ron, as soon as he took the locket off, tried to get back, but Harry and Hermione already left.

Basically, Ron’s afraid that his mother loves Harry better than him. (For Merlin’s sake, this is Molly Weasley! There’s enough love to go around!). More importantly, he's afraid Hermione prefers Harry to him. He’s afraid that Harry and Hermione think they were better off without him, that Ron’s done nothing in comparison to Harry, and that Hermione loves Harry. This culminates in a projection of Harry and Hermione kissing, which drives Ron over the edge, making him finally stab the locket. Now that that unpleasant affair is over with and done, it’s time for Ron to reconcile with Hermione. Everyone ready to cheerlead for Hermione? Got your pom-poms? Good.

Why should Ron's fears be undermined? He had fears just like every other person - fictitious or not - has. Ron's fears were different from Hermione's and Harry's, but it still is a fear. Ron had those fears due to his childhood . . . isn't it natural for him to feel like that? I respect you view, but I really have to disagree that Ron is a worse friend for having fears and having to confront them. I have gone through insecurity much like Ron's, and it hurts, a lot. Ron compared himself to people and that made it worse for him. I am not making excuses for his behavior, but his insecurity has to be kept in mind. Not many people have the strength to overcome fears, but Ron did eventually. I don't believe judging someone based on who they used to be is a fair argument.

The only betrayal that might equal this one is Snape’s murder of Dumbledore (I’m not counting Pettigrew's betrayal of the Potters, as that wasn’t during Hermione’s time).

I don't think this is a fair comparison. First of all, Snape had to kill Dumbledore. Second, Ron didn't intentionally want to leave Harry and Hermione! Tom used Ron's vulnerabilities to his advantage. I have yet to find anyone that finds being controlled by Riddle/Voldemort "easy." Ginny struggled because Tom used her fears/insecurities to his advantage, and the same goes for Ron. Ron shouldn't, IMO, be blamed for behavior that he wasn't capable of controlling.

Ron his best friend, above Hermione? I think the answer is perfectly clear: they’re both guys, and are both less serious than Hermione. So Ron ends up being Harry’s best friend, despite everything. But I still consider Hermione to be a far better friend to Harry than Ron.

First of all, why should Ron's friendship be considered beneath or above Harry's friendship with Hermione? Harry doesn't seem to think that way, and neither do I. I love Hermione and I recognize she has flaws too just as Ron does, but that doesn't mean their flaws make them poor friends. I respect your interpretation, but I don't think Ron's flaws make him a bad person.

inkling7, how can you say Ron was no less loyal than Hermione? Maybe he was a better friend, maybe he's a good person, but you can't say he was as loyal as Hermione. He abandoned Harry in his darkest hour, as well as that little episode in GoF. He is nowhere hear as loyal.

ronjalina, it's nto despite being human, it's espite abandoning him in his darkest hour. Those are two quite different things. As for the Firebolt reference, what do oyu think Harry would have done had Hermione warned him? I'm thinking along the lines of lied to McGonagall and hidden the Firebolt, and still refused to talk to Hermione. Besides, Hermione turned out to be right about that, didn't she? I don't rmemeber Ron treating Hermione any better at that point than Harry did. And those instances where Ron's absent aren't a slight on Ron, I'm just showing that Hermione is beginning to play a more integral role in Harry's life. Ron used to never be absent from the main action before. Hermione didn't invite Harry for Christmas because she realizes he needs to be in the wizarding world; she's usually there herself and would've been at the Burrow if not for her fight with Ron. And even if there was no immediate danger to Harry and Hermione's lives, that wasn't exactly an opportune moment to leave them. The protective charms could have been broken by the use of one simple word (though that wasn't known at the time), and a million other thigns could have happened.

The incident I'm referring to with the DFursleys was the beginning of OotP when Harry's stuck at Privet Drive without information. Trust me, I do take your points into consideration (otherwise I wouldn't spend so much time rebutting to them). That's actually a good theory, that Ron doesn't want to fight with Harry again. I'll admit I hadn't thought of that. However, there are two thigns to consider here. First, Hermione also fought with Harry less than a year before Ron did. Second, Ron should notice that HE was the one who started the fight, not Harry, and that Harry wlecomed him back with open arms at first opportunity.

At the beginning of CoS, Hermione has much less opportunity to rescue Harry than Ron, she doesn't have a wizarding family and flyign cars and Weasley twins at her disposal. Anyway, I'm nto trying to downplay what Ron does here. I agree, he was a very good friernd in the first few books, but from GoF onwards, it all begins to go downhill. As for Ron's love confession, I think it would have helped. When Haryr makes hte barrier between them and they're having a very nice heart-to-heart, it would have been a good opportunity to say "Hermione, I'm sorry, I just really love you and I was scared of losing you..." blah blah balh. And as for getting into her good books later on, that was when there were consequences to be had. A love confession at that moment with no strigns attached would have been much better. Besides, a first kiss then would have been so much more romantic, because during the final battle it detracted from *** action ;)

As for the going to Xeno, I think you misunderstand me. It's not about the idea itself, it's about Ron's supporting Hermione regardless of what she said. At no point does it suggest that Ron thinks going to Xeno's will be beneficial, but he decides to go for the sake of sucking up to Hermione. He has to prioritize, whether he wants a smoochign session with Hermione, or to help Harry kill Voldemort. Anyway, I'm glad you like debating this, as it really is interesting for me. And I have learned something: bashing a popular character isn't a good idea! If you want to read mroe by me, I do have several pre-DH editorials published on Leaky and the Lexicon, which I intend on updating and submitting to Mugglenet.

dweaselqueen, I agree that battling inner demons is important. Harry, however, doesn't shrink back form the Dementors, but struggles to fight them. Hermione strives to excel in school, instead of deciding she's a failure. Ron, meanwhile, succumbs to his jealousy and low self-esteem almost regularly. As to the Ministry battle, I agtree that all of them were awesome, and arguing over who was awesomest serves no purpose. But I do disagree about your assessment of Hermione's lethal mistakes. The Silencing Spell did save her life, because the curse would have been fatal had it been uttered aloud. And using stunners all the time lets the DEs know what to expect, which is a no-no. But again, debating the Ministry battle is a very moot point. And what was despicable in HBP was that Ron ever hooke dup with Lavender in the firts place. He had already said he'd go to Slughorn's party with Hermione (which should have given him an inkling of her feelings), and SHE was the one who had ot go out on a limb and ask HIM to the party. And after that he just decides to hook up with Lavender bvecause Hermione kissed a guy two years ago! I know my friends would have murdered any guy who did that.

beatifically, most of your points I have alreayd adressed and disagreed with. However, the poitn abotu the spoiled brat: a person doesn't have to be rich to be spoiled. When I say spoiled,, I mean he's used ot being comfortable: to having huge feasts prepared to eat, whetehr it be at Hogwarts or the Burrow, to have a comfy place to sleep, and so forth. Spoiled can mean things beyond being filthy rich and getitng everything you want. And in the crying scene, it says Harry specifically wished RON would look away. After an experience like Harry just had, he shouldn't really be that uncomfortable crying in front of Ron. But this will probably turn into a debate over masculinity and whatnot, so I propose we drop it.

Yes, Snape had to kill Dumbledore. But Hermioen didn't know that at the time, she saw it as the ultimate betrayal. And I didn't see anyone forcing Ron to leave. He was egged on by the locket, yes. However, he took it off, and still left. Anyway, feel free to disagree with me on this (most people do). However, I never said Ron's insecurities made him an all-around bad person. I'm saying he was a bad friend.

Well, I'm glad you guys are having fun debating this. Awaiting the next rebuttal!

Ron did throw a hissy in GOF but did get back with Harry and matured a little bit in the process. Remember he was only 14 at the time and his hormones were probably on the rampage. When he stormed out of the tent in DH it was more like storming out of a room to calm down and would have come back in a few minutes had not the snatchers got him. He tried to come back as soon as he realised he could hear Harry and Hermione talking through the deluminator but couldn't see them so tried his best to follow them around and wait for them to appear. He has been Harry's best friend throughout most of the story and Harry misses him when they've had a falling out.

Most friends - at least most true friends of long standing -have falling out period during a long time friendship. It is a mark of their friendship that they reconcile and forgive any hurting things that have occurred. That is true friendship really. I think the only reason Harry and Hermione didn't fight much was that they weren't as close to each other and Harry didn't enjoy her company as much as he did Ron's. He enjoyed Ron's company as he had more in common with him and probably because they were the same sex and could understand each other more. Hermione's friendship was on a different level I think but no more or no less valuable.

However if you asked Harry to choose who his truest friend was I think he would probably say Ron as remember it was Ron who was picked as the thing that Harry would miss the most in the second task in GOF and not Hermione. I thought is was a bit strange that she was the thing Victor Krum would miss the most seeing he didn't know her that well - but that is another story.

The other points you made about Ron - such as succumbing to his fears which he did get over later - aren flaws about Ron, not flaws about his friendship with Harry. Hermione has many flaws too, so how come she isn't portrayed as a bad friend?

beatifically, most of your points I have alreayd adressed and disagreed with. However, the poitn abotu the spoiled brat: a person doesn't have to be rich to be spoiled. When I say spoiled,, I mean he's used ot being comfortable: to having huge feasts prepared to eat, whetehr it be at Hogwarts or the Burrow, to have a comfy place to sleep, and so forth. Spoiled can mean things beyond being filthy rich and getitng everything you want. And in the crying scene, it says Harry specifically wished RON would look away. After an experience like Harry just had, he shouldn't really be that uncomfortable crying in front of Ron. But this will probably turn into a debate over masculinity and whatnot, so I propose we drop it.

So Harry had a problem with showing his vulnerability in front of his best friend. Why is that Ron's fault? Ron and Hermione were comfortable showing tears in front of Harry, but Harry wasn't. Harry wasn't even comfortable crying in front of Ginny. I don't understand why this is a point against Ron. Harry isn't comfortable showing tears in front of people in general . . . it has more to do with Harry than anyone else.

Yes, Snape had to kill Dumbledore. But Hermioen didn't know that at the time, she saw it as the ultimate betrayal. And I didn't see anyone forcing Ron to leave. He was egged on by the locket, yes. However, he took it off, and still left. Anyway, feel free to disagree with me on this (most people do). However, I never said Ron's insecurities made him an all-around bad person.

The locket never forced him to do it, but it influenced his actions. Ron even said in DH that as soon as he apparated he wanted to come back.

I'm saying he was a bad friend.

A bad friend how? By being vulnerable to the control of the darkest wizard of all time? By not being nearly as intelligent as Hermione? I'm sorry, but I think loyalty and trust are a lot more important to a friendship that one's intelligence and fears.

inkling7, I agree that it's wierd that Viktor chooses Hermione as what he misses the most. Talk about infatuation! Then again, I doubt Cedric and Cho knew each other that long either, they were in different years and houses after all. And we're all aware that Harry considers Ron his best friend, what I'm arguing is whether that's as it should be. And I also agree about the falling out period. I've had that with just about every friend I've known for a long time, and we usually reconcile. That's why I didn't condemn Ron after GoF. However, if Ron merely wanted to "slam the door", as has become our metaphor of choice, he could have just simply walked a short distance away and then returned. He couldn't have known what would happen when he Disapparated, and it didn't seem like a worthwhile risk to take if he intended upon returning. Also keep in mind he doesn't particularly excel at apparating, so I see no reaosn as to why he'd try it twice for like no reason. It just doesn't add up for me.

beatifically, you seem clearly determined to think I'm just bashing Ron. Some of the things I'm pointing out are flaws in Ron's character, but they heavily influence his friendship with Harry. Hermione's, such as her close-mindedness, don't bear much weight in the friendship, and thus she is not a bad friend. And did I ever say that Harry's not crying in front of Ron was Ron's fault? I most certainly didn't! What you and several other posters need to realize is, not every word I say is meant to bash Ron.

And did I ever say that Harry's not crying in front of Ron was Ron's fault? I most certainly didn't! What you and several other posters need to realize is, not every word I say is meant to bash Ron.

Then I don't understand why this is a mark against Ron for Harry's reluctance to show his feelings. I am not accusing you of bashing, I just don't understand why Ron's flaws (which I am aware exist) are beneficial to the point you make: that Ron is a "bad" friend.

This is a really good editorial topic.

I haven't read all of the comments, but two things stand out to me. One was that Ron and his family were the first people to make Harry feel at ease as he made his way toward the platform. This first link to a boy his own age who wasn't Dudley, who was kind, had parents who loved him, and who had no reason not to like Harry (wicked!) is an important one. It's the first time we know of that Harry ever experienced kindness from a peer.

Second, there is the comment Harry makes in GOF about spending a lot of time in the library when Hermione was his best friend. Despite Ron's faults, Harry is comfortable with Ron, warts and all. In fact, it is because of those warts. Ron and Harry show each other the extremes of what the other wishes for. Ron wishes to stand out in the crowd of his family, and Harry teaches Ron the lesson of how uncomfortable it can be to stand out too much—all the staring, pointing, whispering, and the fickleness of fame. Harry longs for a real family, but Ron and his family show Harry that after all, you don't get to choose your family. Everyone has a bone to pick at one time or another with a parent or a sibling (or an in-law) and it isn't always perfect. Look at Percy, for example. So although Hermione is a true friend and mature, she doesn't complete the same gaps in Harry as Ron does.

Finally, Harry and Hermione both have a tendency to take themselves and other things very seriously. Ron reminds them that life isn't all dour. He knows how to push people's buttons, but often he does it when someone needs to get over themselves. That's why he is the glue of the trio, as JKR said. He is there to remind everyone to laugh. It's just hard to be the funny guy—the second fiddle—all the time.

However you must remember that it's Harry's prerogative to choose his best friend and that seems to be Ron as he feels more relaxed and comfortable with him than Hermione and really - if you can't feel relaxed and comfortable with friends then how can they be your closest friend? Being able to forgive your friends for all their faults and falling out with you makes a true friendship which will prevail no matter what. That is what Harry and Ron have it seems and that is what Harry wants and it seems that Hermione can't offer this as much as Ron in Harry's opinion.

inkling7, how can you say Ron was no less loyal than Hermione? Maybe he was a better friend, maybe he's a good person, but you can't say he was as loyal as Hermione. He abandoned Harry in his darkest hour, as well as that little episode in GoF. He is nowhere hear as loyal.Illoyalty, as I understand it, would have been had Ron actively done something that was against Harry. Now, one could argue that running out on Harry and leaving him in the forest with Hermione was against Harry. But that presupposes that Ron had intentionally planned on leaving Harry with the purpose of endangering him. As I read the part in the book, Ron wasn’t thinking much anyway, he was very upset and in a bad temper.

ronjalina, it's nto despite being human, it's espite abandoning him in his darkest hour. Those are two quite different things.

No, Ron didn’t leave Harry in his darkest hour. I have read Deathly Hallows and Ron was there for almost all of the book. He was there to pick him up during the Seven Potters episode, he was at GP #12, he was with Harry at the Ministry, he was with Harry at the Lovegoods, after his return he was with Harry for months caming here and there, he was with Harry at Malfoy Manor and at Shell Cottage, he was with Harry at Gringotts, and he was with Harry at Hogwarts to defend the castle, risking his life over and over and over again. He made a mistake, came back, apologized and redeemed himself big time. For what reason ever, you seem to be only willing to see the one mistake amidst all the good stuff. The good stuff doesn’t seem to count for you at all and that makes me a bit sad. Life is not perfect and friendships aren’t perfect, but having flaws and making mistakes doesn’t make one a bad friend, especially when making up for the mistakes. :)

The incident I'm referring to with the DFursleys was the beginning of OotP when Harry's stuck at Privet Drive without information. Trust me, I do take your points into consideration (otherwise I wouldn't spend so much time rebutting to them). That's actually a good theory, that Ron doesn't want to fight with Harry again. I'll admit I hadn't thought of that. However, there are two thigns to consider here. First, Hermione also fought with Harry less than a year before Ron did. Second, Ron should notice that HE was the one who started the fight, not Harry, and that Harry wlecomed him back with open arms at first opportunity.

Basically I think this is a moot point also. Ron not knowing how to handle CAPSLOCK Harry doesn't make him a bad friend. He's never seen Harry acting like that, likely he's never seen anyone acting like that. Ron showed throughout OotP that he wanted to support Harry, not always knowing how, doesn't make him a bad friend, IMO.

I agree, he was a very good friernd in the first few books, but from GoF onwards, it all begins to go downhill.

You're stating your opinion as though it were a fact. It's not a fact that Ron went downhill as a friend, IMO. I see nothing in the text to indicate that.

As for Ron's love confession, I think it would have helped. When Haryr makes hte barrier between them and they're having a very nice heart-to-heart, it would have been a good opportunity to say "Hermione, I'm sorry, I just really love you and I was scared of losing you..." blah blah balh. And as for getting into her good books later on, that was when there were consequences to be had. A love confession at that moment with no strigns attached would have been much better. Besides, a first kiss then would have been so much more romantic, because during the final battle it detracted from *** action ;)

Ron’s first and foremost objective after returning was to restore his friendship with Harry and Hermione and to help get the Horcrux hunt going. For the group to function again, it was necessary to be on good terms, and to be honest, I think Ron and Hermione going all lovey-dovey would have detracted from their task for the rest of the book too much. Not that I wouldn’t have found it romantic. It could have played out like that. To be honest, I was expecting something like that when Ron entered the tent. But I don’t think it sheds a bad light on Ron that he was low key when he came back. He clearly hoped for an embrace, as is stated in the text, he raises his arms when Hermione approaches him. But then the yelling began and I guess after that Ron was happy to still have his things together.

As for the going to Xeno, I think you misunderstand me. It's not about the idea itself, it's about Ron's supporting Hermione regardless of what she said. At no point does it suggest that Ron thinks going to Xeno's will be beneficial, but he decides to go for the sake of sucking up to Hermione.

He loves Hermione and he wanted to restore his chances with her. What’s wrong with that? There was no harm done.

He has to prioritize, whether he wants a smoochign session with Hermione, or to help Harry kill Voldemort

Weren’t you just suggesting a smooching session for Ron and Hermione above? What do you want? Do you want Ron to confess his love when he returns and things get going between him and Hermione? Or do you want Ron prioritize and decide to help Harry? Apart from that I doubt Ron expected agreeing with Hermione would earn him a kiss. ;)

Anyway, I'm glad you like debating this, as it really is interesting for me. And I have learned something: bashing a popular character isn't a good idea! If you want to read mroe by me, I do have several pre-DH editorials published on Leaky and the Lexicon, which I intend on updating and submitting to Mugglenet.

I think character bashing is never a good idea, as well as character worshipping isn’t a good idea. There are guidelines about it on this forum also. Of course everyone has their own opinion and everyone is a bit biased about their favourite character and the characters they don’t like. And of course it’s you’re absolute right to dislike a character that is beloved by many others. Not everyone has to love Ron (although Harry, Hermione and I have a hard time to understand how one couldn’t ;) ). However, I have the impression – please forgive me, if I’m assuming here – that you didn’t like Ron that much from the beginning, otherwise I think you might perhaps have assessed some things a bit differently.

dweaselqueen, I agree that battling inner demons is important. Harry, however, doesn't shrink back form the Dementors, but struggles to fight them. Hermione strives to excel in school, instead of deciding she's a failure. Ron, meanwhile, succumbs to his jealousy and low self-esteem almost regularly.

But that’s the vicious circle when you’re insecure. You don’t think you could do any good in the first place and when you try and something doesn’t go so well, you are prone to give up more easily.

I get the vibe that Ron's personality, as written by JKR, just doesn't suit you. You dislike it and that's just fine, but that would influence your interpretation. In other words, it seems to me you didn't sit down planning to analyse the text as to who is the better friend to Harry, it seems you had already made up your mind that Hermione is the better friend for Harry and you tried to fit several text examples with that notion. Which isn't the most elegant approach but fine also, as long as the examples really prove your point. But that isn't the case, IMO.

And what was despicable in HBP was that Ron ever hooke dup with Lavender in the firts place. He had already said he'd go to Slughorn's party with Hermione (which should have given him an inkling of her feelings), and SHE was the one who had ot go out on a limb and ask HIM to the party. And after that he just decides to hook up with Lavender bvecause Hermione kissed a guy two years ago! I know my friends would have murdered any guy who did that.

As I said in one of my previous posts, that was a very complicated issue. Ron had come to the conclusion that Hermione didn’t want him anyway and on top of that she obviously thought he could only excel at Quiddtich when he’d taken Felix Felicis. This misunderstanding led Ron to believe Hermione would never consider him as a boyfriend. But there was another girl who obviously was interested in him and Ron, feeling very low at that point in time, took that chance to boost his confidence. It wasn’t the most sensible, sensitive or mature thing to do, but Ron learnt some valuable lessons from it.

And just for the record: Ron couldn’t invite Hermione, because he was not a member of the Slug club. It had to be that way round.

beatifically, most of your points I have alreayd adressed and disagreed with. However, the poitn abotu the spoiled brat: a person doesn't have to be rich to be spoiled. When I say spoiled,, I mean he's used ot being comfortable: to having huge feasts prepared to eat, whetehr it be at Hogwarts or the Burrow, to have a comfy place to sleep, and so forth

I see your point what you mean with ‘spoiled’. However, it’s not Ron’s fault that he grew up well cared for. Yes, he was lucky to always have good meals, and Ron furthermore had been established as a good eater throughout the series. I guess that’s why the hunger was affecting him more than Harry or Hermione Additionally, he had been splinched when they disapparated from the Ministry and lost a lot of blood, which would have weakened him. And, yes, he was a git when he complained about the food or lack thereof, but Harry also notes that it mostly coincided with Ron wearing the locket.

Yes, Snape had to kill Dumbledore. But Hermioen didn't know that at the time, she saw it as the ultimate betrayal. And I didn't see anyone forcing Ron to leave. He was egged on by the locket, yes. However, he took it off, and still left. Anyway, feel free to disagree with me on this (most people do). However, I never said Ron's insecurities made him an all-around bad person. I'm saying he was a bad friend.

Harry actually asked Ron to go TWICE.

Ron was a jerk and said nasty things, and then Harry asked Ron to go. Twice. He basically more or less threw him out of the tent. And Ron went. Of course both didn’t really mean it. Harry was tetchy as well, and he was angry, because everything Ron told him were things Harry thought himself already, that they made no progress, that he had bad leadership skills. What Ron said, hit close to home for Harry and that’s why he reacted unreasonably and threw Ron out, although he deep down certainly didn’t want for Ron to go. Ron, having his own temper, had enough and went. That’s how fights sometimes go. Ron did not stand there and rationally planned to abandon Harry and leave his two best friends to die. Ron running out of the tent was developping from their fight. The important thing being that Ron wanted to come back immediately. That he was not able to come back before Boxing Day was beyond his control. Had Harry and Hermione not avoided speaking Ron’s name, he would have been back earlier also (no blame intended, just stating a fact). These were external influences and plotwise it was necessary to have someone be able to gather the information about Potterwatch and the taboo on Voldemort’s name.
That's why I didn't condemn Ron after GoF. However, if Ron merely wanted to "slam the door", as has become our metaphor of choice, he could have just simply walked a short distance away and then returned. He couldn't have known what would happen when he Disapparated, and it didn't seem like a worthwhile risk to take if he intended upon returning. Also keep in mind he doesn't particularly excel at apparating, so I see no reaosn as to why he'd try it twice for like no reason. It just doesn't add up for me.

See, that’s what I meant yesterday. You realize that it’s a canon fact that Ron wanted to return immediately, but instead of considering that as in favour for Ron, you’re trying to explain it away. :) It’s irrelevant, IMO, whether Ron had disapparated or not. He was besides himself with rage and we rarely think clearly when that is the case. Ron didn’t stop to think what to do or what risks that could bear. He reacted and disapparated. After he’d done that, which would have taken him only a few minutes, he wanted to come back immediately. Then he met the Snatchers, something he couldn't foresee since neither he nor Harry and Hermione knew about groups of Snatchers existing.

beatifically, you seem clearly determined to think I'm just bashing Ron. Some of the things I'm pointing out are flaws in Ron's character, but they heavily influence his friendship with Harry.

And why is that? Because Harry loves Ron and Ron is his best friend. People we care for are the ones that can affect us the most.

What I gather from our discussion here is that your main point against Ron is his leaving in DH. I think we’ve said everything there is to say. Ron made a mistake. He was in a bad temper and didn’t think of the possible consequences when he ran out of the tent and disapparated in a fury. When he had disapparated and cooled off, he intended to come back but was held up by snatchers. And that fact, that the Snatchers held him up led to Harry and Hermione going to Godric’s Hollow alone in the end. Yes, I agree it was the absolutely worst time to have such a fight. And yes, Harry and Hermione could have been dead in the meantime, as could have Ron when he met the Snatchers. But that’s what’s the locket was playing at. Creating discord among them to split the group. Well, good that the locket failed in the end, because Ron destroyed it. Dumbledore had known that Ron, flawed as he might be, would always want to be with his friends and so he left him the Deluminator that led him back.

If the two fights between Ron and Harry negate for you the good things, that by far outweigh the mistakes that have been made, then you certainly never will think good of Ron again. Which I personally find a pity because I think the trio friendship is such a unique wonderful thing that should be enjoyed rather than picked apart as to which is the truest friend for Harry.
I hope you still like our discussion and don't mind me giving you a hard time.

beatifically, Ron's flaws, namely disloyalty and extreme jealousy, CAUSE him to do things that make him a bad friend; namely, deserting Harry.

notasquib2, the points you bring up are all true. Yes, Ron is needed, for his humor and relaxed nature. Yes, he was Harry's first friend, and thus became his best friend. Which is I guess why Harry still considers Ron his bets friend, after all is said and done.

inkling7, you're right, Harry does indeed choose Ron since he's more relaxed aorund him. But I think it's unfair to say he feels uncomfortable aroudn Hermione. We are given no evidence to support this. All we've got is that Hermione isn't as much fun as Ron.

ronjalina, the good stuff does count for me, but in this instance it doesn't completely negate what Ron's done. You say Ron was there for all the important parts - do you consider Godric's Hollow to be unimportant? Harry visiting his parents' graves, the house he was born in and where his life changed, fighting off Voldemort and Nagini, and Ron was absent for the whole ordeal. If you see notihng in the text to indicate that Ron began to go downhill, then I wonder if we're reading the same books. His fight with Harry in GoF. His derision of Luna, his bullying of first years. His throwing knives at his family. His walking out on Harry in DH. I find that quite a bit downhill from the self-sacrificing and fear-confronting Ron we see int he first 2 books.

Okay, here's what I want in terms of smooching. I say Ron should have tried to initate a smooching session when he enters the tent and he and Hermione are sorting things out, so to speak. But, having failed that, he should focus on helping Harry, not on smnooching ermione. Follow me now? And you are assumign, incorrectly, that I didn't liek Ron form the beginnign. On the contrary, he was oen of my fave characters. When I saw his more unpleasant tendencies come out in the later books, I brushed by them, sayign nto all charcters are perfect. But DH sorta pushed me over the line. You are corretc in saying that I had made up my mind that Ron was a bad friend as soon as I read DH, and then decided to go back to the whoel series and look at how their friendship evolves. And notice that I put in supporting evidence of Ron (the chess match, *** Acromantulas), so I'm not completely twisting the text. Also, as I remember, Harry told Ron to go when Ron all-but-said he wanted to. I viewed as the type of thign, where two friends have an argument, and one says "I don't need you anyway", though they both know that's nto true. And what with tempers running high, I really don't think Ron should have taken Harry on his word.

I agree that the Ron-Hermione-Lav issue is way too complicated for this to easily explain. I personally sided with Hermione because Ron was being unreasonable in my eyes (and remember, this was back when I still liked Ron). And while Ron couldn't have asked Hermione to that party, there were plenty of other instances: the Yule Ball, and a million Hogsmeade weekends. You view me as trying to explain away Ron's wanting to go back. I view you as capitalizing on the fact Ron wanted to go back and erxplaining away his leaving with that. We cna clearly go round in circles here. You're correct, his leaving in DH was the final straw for me, and my main poiint against him. But yeah, I don't mind you giving me a hard time - especially since it's making me think, and giving me more evidence against Ron! ;)

Let's try not to take things too personally in here :). Deep breaths, and engage the idea, not the poster. For the most part everyone seems to be following this, but just popping in to remind everyone!

beatifically, Ron's flaws, namely disloyalty and extreme jealousy, CAUSE him to do things that make him a bad friend; namely, deserting Harry.

But, as I have said repeatedly before, Ron was under Tom Riddle's influence. Not many people are going to act normally when the most evil wizard of all time is causing him/her to act differently. Dumbledore even says in CoS that many adults had been hoodwinked by Voldemort.

And Ron is disloyal? I beg to differ. Everything about him screams loyal, from the line in PoA to his own Patronus form. (His Patronus is a dog, much like Sirius' is a dog. Is it a coincidence that dogs are known to be loyal and Sirius and Ron are described as loyal?) Even JKR thinks Ron is loyal.

JKR: He's always there when you need him, that's Ron Weasley!... Sean was the first of my friends to pass his driving test and he had this old Ford Anglia -- claptop Ford Anglia turquoise, some white, which is now quite famous as the car that the Weasleys drive -- I was obviously going to give the Weasleys Sean's old car. And that car was freedom to us. My heart still lifts when I see an old Ford Anglia, which is a bit sad...

inkling7, you're right, Harry does indeed choose Ron since he's more relaxed aorund him. But I think it's unfair to say he feels uncomfortable aroudn Hermione. We are given no evidence to support this. All we've got is that Hermione isn't as much fun as Ron.

Actually, we do. :)

“‘You miss him!’ Hermione said impatiently. ‘And I know he missed you-’

‘Miss him?’ said Harry. ‘I don’t miss him…’

But this was a downright lie. Harry liked Hermione very much, but she just wasn’t the same as Ron. There was much less laughter, and a lot more hanging around in the library when Hermione was your best friend.”

“‘…They wouldn’t look twice at him if he couldn’t do that Wonky Faint thing-’

‘Wronski Feint,’ said Harry, through gritted teeth. Quite apart from liking to get Quidditch terms correct, it caused him another pang to imagine Ron’s expression if he could have heard Hermione talking about Wonky Faints.”

Even in DH Harry is found unhappier without Ron!

They were spending many evenings in near silence, and Hermione took to bringing out Phineas Nigellus's portrait and propping it up in a chair, as though he might fill part of the gaping hole left by Ron's departure.

"Erm," he said, smiling for what felt like the first time in months. The muscles in his face felt oddly stiff. "I might've opened it, you know, when I bought it . . . just the once . . .

And when Ron comes back in DH, notice the change in Harry's behavior:

Hermione's sulkiness could not mar his buoyant spirits: The sudden upswing in their fortunes, the appearance of the mysterious doe, the recovery of Gryffindor's sword, and above all, Ron's return, made Harry so happy that it was quite difficult to maintain a straight face.

Ron makes Harry happier when Harry is with him than when Harry is alone with Hermione. Harry loves Hermione like a sister, as he said, but he can't relate as much with her and Hermione can't make him laugh as much. Ron held the group together, that is why Dumbledore gave him the deluminator, according to J.K. Rowling.

Sampotterish: Why did dumbledore want ron to keep his deluminator
J.K. Rowling: Because he knew that Ron might need a little more guidance than the other two.
J.K. Rowling: Dumbledore understood Ron's importance in the trio. He wasn't the most skilled, or the most intelligent, but he held them together; his humour and his good heart were essential.

^Thanks for all those quotes beatifically! They were very helpful.

originally posted by beatifically
Ron makes Harry happier when Harry is with him than when Harry is alone with Hermione. Harry loves Hermione like a sister, as he said, but he can't relate as much with her and Hermione can't make him laugh as much. Ron held the group together, that is why Dumbledore gave him the deluminator, according to J.K. Rowling.


Exactly. Ron is Harry's best friend because they relate on a level that Harry and Hermione never have. Without Ron, they spent their time in "near silence" in DH, and even in GOF there wasn't a lot of talking because they spent all of their time in the library.

originally posted by hpboy13
Okay, here's what I want in terms of smooching. I say Ron should have tried to initate a smooching session when he enters the tent and he and Hermione are sorting things out, so to speak. But, having failed that, he should focus on helping Harry, not on smnooching ermione.

Maybe it's just me, but as a girl, trying to smooch Hermione on entering the tent would not have been the way to go. Personally, I would have slapped him across the face. That is not the moment for a smooch. If Hermione had not been in a flying rage, then yes, it woud have been a good moment. But she was far too angry for that. If Ron had shouted out "I love you", Hermione would not have softened. She would have shouted, "Well, you've got a funny way of showing it." and continued with her tirade. Ron was right to let her vent off all her frustration and hurt. She had to get that all out in the open. He had to let her cool off and forgive him.

And I don't see any evidence that says Ron was more interested in snogging Hermione then helping Harry. In fact, I remember seeing a passage that says after Ron came back, he became a sort of leader. He made decisions to go check out obscure places, just in case. He gave them stuff to do, and kept morale up. So Ron calling for a vote was partly to get in Hermione's good books, and partly being a leader.

Besides, as I said before, it doesn't matter what Ron's motivations were. They weren't finding horcruxes. They had to go somewhere and figure some things out. They couldn't just sit around and be safe. Every choice they had came with danger. So I don't think it was a great fault for Ron to decide to go to Lovegood's.

originally posted by hpboy13
Also, as I remember, Harry told Ron to go when Ron all-but-said he wanted to. I viewed as the type of thign, where two friends have an argument, and one says "I don't need you anyway", though they both know that's nto true. And what with tempers running high, I really don't think Ron should have taken Harry on his word.

But tempers were running high. When I'm in a flying rage, I don't stop to think, "Oh, well, I probably shouldn't take that literally". I agree with others who have said that this argument was very much like Harry yelling, "So get out!" and Ron yells, "Fine!", storms out and slams the door. A few minutes later, he cools off and wants to come back while Harry also cools off and wishes Ron would come back in. Unfortunately, this was not Gryffindor tower, and having disappeared, Ron could not find them again. Hermione's enchantments were too good (which, of course, is a good thing, but in terms of Ron coming back...).

Actually hpboy13 I never said Harry was uncomfortable around Hermione but that he was much more comfortable with Ron and I do think the other posters are making very valid points and backing them up very well. You have also made some valid points but you conclusions aren't really correct.

However it's all in good fun and perhaps you are rather outnumbered.

It is a very well written editorial, but I have to disagree. I don't think you can judge who is his better friend based solely upon who was more helpful to him along the way. If you were to go by that wouldn't Dumbledore be his best friend? I don't know, but Ron has always been there for Harry, even though at times they got into arguments. You failed to mention how Ron defended Harry when Seamus said his mom doesn't believe his stories, which showed a lot about how Ron was not at all ashamed of Harry. Hermione's great, don't get me wrong, she's done plenty to show her friendship, and I'm not saying Ron's the better friend of the two. I think the two were equal in friendship because they both had that kind of connection with him, and that they were both willing to sacrifice for him.

originally posted by ChudleyCannon23
You failed to mention how Ron defended Harry when Seamus said his mom doesn't believe his stories, which showed a lot about how Ron was not at all ashamed of Harry. Hermione's great, don't get me wrong, she's done plenty to show her friendship, and I'm not saying Ron's the better friend of the two. I think the two were equal in friendship because they both had that kind of connection with him, and that they were both willing to sacrifice for him.

That's a good example of Ron's loyalty. He is there for Harry except for maybe 100 pages out of the 3000+ that make up the series. I still don't think it is fair to say Ron is a bad friend because he and Harry have arguments, especially when they come out of the arguments with a stronger friendship and understanding of each other then they did before.

originally posted by inkling7
However it's all in good fun and perhaps you are rather outnumbered.


Very true. We need to get someone of hpboy13's side so this debate will be less one-sided. :)

I guess to agree with you that hpboy13 (is that his age?) needs a few more allies to make it less one-sided but I think they would mainly be those that don't like Ron very much (unlike me and I suppose many of you others who have come out batting for Ron).

I just happen to agree with you that Ron is there for Harry more than 90% of the time and always came though in the end.

I guess to agree with you that hpboy13 (is that his age?) needs a few more allies to make it less one-sided but I think they would mainly be those that don't like Ron very much (unlike me and I suppose many of you others who have come out batting for Ron).

I just happen to agree with you that he there for Harry more than 90% of the time and always came though in the end.


Hi all,

I would prefer to think of it as perhaps some support, where waranted - for EVERYBODY, not just a beleaguered author (who is, I believe, 15).

But, I get the impression that our young man doesn't need support; that he is very clear about what he feels and believes in this case (and probably in others), and that in the end, we are all benefitting from this discussion, because there is so much to learn yet, and such a wonderful feeling when we can discuss the Canon, the Books, and the interpretations we each ascribe.

And, as I said in an earlier post, we ALL lean in one or another direction on this and other issues, because we all attach more or less importance to circumstances, individuals, or groups, depending upon our own experiences.

Being "biased" in that way is not a bad thing - as long as we all recognize that each of us is certainly entitled to our own opinions, and that while each of us may believe we are right, we are willing to learn, and willing to try and convince others (with respect and consideration) of the logic of OUR ways versus the error of THEIRS! ;)

I'm just glad that we all still have the opportunity to keep the magic alive and again wish to thank our young author, hpboy13, for giving us the latest opportunity. I still don't agree with you!! ;) but who cares! - it is the discussion that matters!

M.

beatifically, Ron's flaws, namely disloyalty and extreme jealousy, CAUSE him to do things that make him a bad friend; namely, deserting Harry.I personally disagree that Illoyalty is one of Ron's biggest flaws. Jealousy certainly is, but not illoyalt, IMO. I don't think that's a trait of Ron's at all. Again, I would like to point out that I think intent is very important when it comes to issues such as illoyalty. I consider a lot of what you point out as Ron's illoyal behaviour to be unintentional, stupid, immature behaviour without any malevolence.

ronjalina, the good stuff does count for me, but in this instance it doesn't completely negate what Ron's done. You say Ron was there for all the important parts - do you consider Godric's Hollow to be unimportant? Harry visiting his parents' graves, the house he was born in and where his life changed, fighting off Voldemort and Nagini, and Ron was absent for the whole ordeal. But it wasn't his intention to be absent while Harry and Hermione went to GH. Had Ron not run into Snatchers, he would've been back within minutes and would've accompanied Harry and Hermione to GH. Being absent for such a long time wasn't intentional and it wasn't in Ron's control. You might argue the fact that he ran off in the first place is unredeemable, I personally would judge Ron's intention to come back immediately as more important than his running away. If someone makes a stupid mistakes, however inconvenient the circumstances, their willingness to come back, acknowledge the mistake and apologize says more about this person than making the mistake in the first place, IMO.

If you see notihng in the text to indicate that Ron began to go downhill, then I wonder if we're reading the same books. His fight with Harry in GoF. His derision of Luna, his bullying of first years. His throwing knives at his family. His walking out on Harry in DH. I find that quite a bit downhill from the self-sacrificing and fear-confronting Ron we see int he first 2 books.Ron was immature, he made mistakes and said stupid things, he grew up and matured. That's got nothing to do with 'going downhill' as a friend. Ron was just the kind of person he had always been, only on a larger scale. He was still self-sacrificing: “No!” shouted Ron. “You can have me, keep me!” (Malfoy Manor) and he was more than willing to confront fears when he stabbed the locket, when he went with Harry to the Ministry and Gringotts, when he fought alongside him and others at Hogwarts and came up with the idea of retrieving basilisk fangs from the Chamber of Secrets to support Harry. Post-locket-destruction Ron was a more mature and more secure version of the Ron who sacrificed himself on the chessboard in first year.

Okay, here's what I want in terms of smooching. I say Ron should have tried to initate a smooching session when he enters the tent and he and Hermione are sorting things out, so to speak. But, having failed that, he should focus on helping Harry, not on smnooching ermione. Follow me now? I agree with dweaselqueen on this. To kiss Hermione right after coming back would have been inappropriate. It was a time to say sorry, not a time for confessions or snogging sessions ;), IMO. And Hermione didn't really give him much of a chance either. Later Ron tried to be back on good terms with Hermione, not only because he loves her, but also because she is one of his best friends. I don't think kissing was on his mind anyway when he agreed with her. It's necessary that the group is on good terms with each other for them to function best during the Horcrux hunt, therefore it was important to try to soften Hermione up who didn't seem to be forgiving any time soon. Ron knows Hermione and he trusts her. He knows that when she suggests something it's likely the best thing to do. Had she suggested to go to Voldemort directly to try talking him out of hunting down Harry, he would certainly have disagreed. But her suggestion was valuable and agreeing with that was a good thing to do, even if a hoped side-effect was getting back into her good book.

And what with tempers running high, I really don't think Ron should have taken Harry on his word.But when tempers run high, people rarely think clearly. And both, Ron and Harry have quite a temper sometimes. The locket's influence as well as the dismal living conditions made them tetchy anyway... voilá, there you have the biggest fight. It's not a question of considering what one should or shouldn't do. Of course Ron shouldn't have left despite what Harry told him in his anger. Of course that wasn't Ron's finest hour. But I personally prefer to value the many, many, many good things rather than concentrating on Ron's biggest mistake.

Hi hpboy13, the reason it came as a surprise to me that you are a 15-year-old boy is because I don't often mentally register the name of the author before I read an editorial, especially if it is a 'screen name'-type name like yours. Therefore I failed to notice the word 'boy' in the middle. No matter! Glad there's been a good debate here, even if it seems to have become a trifle repetitive. That can be forgiven when people haven't read the earlier posts!

Keep writing editorials! :)

Yes, beatifically, Ron is disloyal. Harry and Hermione were also under Riddle's influence. And Ron left AFTER he took off the locket. Just because Harry's Patronus is his father doesn't mean Harry is identical to James, and Ron isn't identical to is Patronus. In PoA, he was loyal. In DH, he abandoned his best friends. Nothing loyal about it. And yes, Harry is happier with Ron. I actually used some of the same quotes you are.

dweaselqueen, I didn't literally mean that Ron shoudl walk into the tent and kiss Hermione. And you say he should have let her continue with her tirade: my point is that he didn't. He fought back, and Harry sided with him. Also, between the DH and the GoF incidents, Ron's not there for like 300 pages, which is already 10% of the series.

inkling7, I am very much outnumbered, but that never stops me. I said Snape was evil. I supported Narcissa Malfoy. I will keep debating, no matter how outnumbered I am! You'll never break me! Though I like dweaselqueen's idea of getting me an ally here. And no, 13's not my age, I'm almost 16, as The_Old_One said. I was 13 when HBP came out and I finally stopped just lurking on HP fansites, plus 13's my lucky number, and I was orn on February 13th. The_Old_One, I also love this type of canon debate (which I haven't really had since I left the Leaky Lounge - long and messy story), but since I am quite "beleagered", so I could use some help, especially when school resumes on Wednesday!

ChudleyCannon23, I'm glad you at least like how the editorial was written, even if you don't agrtee (most people don't. I'm trying to bring my friend to the CoS forums for some backup). I'm nto measuring friendship based solely on what they did for Harry (though I don't see how that would make Dumbledore Harry's bets friend, Dumbledore reared him up for slaughter. Or are all of you Dumbledore fans as well?). I do agree that Ron defending Harry against Seamus was cool, though Hermione defended him against Lavender, so they're even. In OotP, Ron was still a good friend mostly, even if he took a bit of a back seat to Harry and Hermione.

ronjalina, I don't find all of Ron's behavior as simply "maturing". Honestly, my jaw kidna dropepd when he threw that knife at the twins. Suppose that hadn't been Transfigured in time? Or is that again excusable by his red-head temper? And what about hwo he bullies first years - that's something I expect from Draco! And even in the Epilogue, he's lying to Hermione (about the driving thign) - must be a very honesty-filled marriage. Yes, he's still recognizable as Ron, he's still self-sacrificing and everything, but he's developed other aspects of his character that aren't nearly as admirable. If Hermione had said to go to Voldemort, I think Ron would have agreed. But I guess we'll never know. You may prefer to concentrate on Ron's finer moments than on his mistake, but his mistake brought back to me all those other instances where I wasn't thrilled with him, but didn't think much of it.

Andromeda_T, who were you expecting? A 60-something-year-old cat lady? Sorry, I just find it amusing that my identity comes as such a shock, since I often get comments like "It's clear by your writing that you're very young" or stuff like that.

Jumping in here for a moment... I am wondering why lying to Hermione about driving is such a bad thing... how does that make their marriage dishonest? How many times have we seen Arthur lie to Molly about tinkering with Muggle items throughout the earlier books? Does that make their marriage dishonest too? It was a small white lie. Who did it hurt? And how many times throughout the series did both Ron and Harry lie to Hermione about small things like homework? I just don't feel that this is a valid argument for Ron's supposed immaturity and disloyalty.

ronjalina, I don't find all of Ron's behavior as simply "maturing". Honestly, my jaw kidna dropepd when he threw that knife at the twins. Suppose that hadn't been Transfigured in time? Or is that again excusable by his red-head temper?
I think this is something that seems bad to us Muggles, but in the wizarding world would be much different. As bad as that sounds, wizards have spells to Transfigure things, and they also have a ton of healing spells. If I picked up a knife and threw it at my sister, you could assume that I had malicious intent. But, being wizards, the intent was more to annoy than to harm.

Andromeda_T, who were you expecting? A 60-something-year-old cat lady? Sorry, I just find it amusing that my identity comes as such a shock, since I often get comments like "It's clear by your writing that you're very young" or stuff like that.
I don't think it was your age that suprised them, but the fact that you are a boy. I usually don't read the author's name so I didn't know you were a guy, and because of your defense of Hermione as Harry's friend, I assumed you were a girl. Its typically the girls who stand up for Hermione when Ron is behaving badly because many of us girls have been on the recieving end of behavior that is somewhat close to Ron's when dealing with women. It just surprised me, and probably Andromeda_T as well. :)

There's a new editorial up now, in response to this one, and it makes some valid points. Congrats hpboy13, you've got the editorials going again! Thanks! :D

ronjalina, I don't find all of Ron's behavior as simply "maturing".

Ron was at first rude to Luna and made fun of her, later he appreciates her and compliments her. That’s growing up.

Ron was at first making funny remarks about Hermione's support for the rights of House-elves, in the end he was the only one who was thinking of them when the Battle at Hogwarts began and suggested to save them. That's growing up.

When Hermione throws herself into Ron's arms in third year when they make up after the Crookshanks/Scabbers fight, he's quite awkward about it and doesn't know how to react. Later he has no problem in being affectionat and comforting Hermione. That's growing up.

I don't recall Ron ever 'bullying' anyone. He once took advantage of being older and told first years to let him have the armchairs by the fire. I remember older school mates doing that to me when I was young. That seems to be just teenage behaviour. I don't see what that has to do with being a bad friend or illoyal.

Ron let his jealousy get the best of him on a couple of occasions, but in the epilogue, when all the people on the Platform stare at Harry because he's famous, Ron makes a funny remark instead of reacting jealous. That’s growing up.

Ron complained about being poor and everything he owns being rubbish in the earlier books, but he came to accept it. I.e. when he becomes prefect in OotP and Molly is going to buy him a new broomstick as a reward, he asks for a Cleansweep because he knows his parents can’t afford a more expensive one and he’s happy with it. That's growing up.

In DH, Ron lets his jealousy and insecurity get the best of him for the last time. He faces the locket vision and instead of retreating and succumbing to it, he overcomes and destroys it. That is called growing up. JKR labelled this moment the moment when Ron became a man.

Honestly, my jaw kidna dropepd when he threw that knife at the twins. Suppose that hadn't been Transfigured in time? Or is that again excusable by his red-head temper? It seems to be a minor offense in the wizarding world though. Molly has seen it and just scolds Ron. Had it been that dangerous as it would be in the non-magical world, she would’ve gotten kittens and given him detention, house-arrest, whatever. She didn’t. Fred and George are capable wizards who could transfigure the knive with a flick of the wand. They don’t even flinch. If we go through the books, we see several instances of behaviour (from all of them including Hermione) we would have to call violent from our real word muggle standpoint. But JKR uses a lot of these instances for comic relief. I don’t think we should overestimate these instances. When Ron was a kid, the twins gave him a sweets that burnt a hole in his tounge. And it could be magicall healed. I don’t see anyone condemn the twins for that kind of behaviour though. And no one should. It's just one of the instances JKR uses this kind of behaviour humorous.

ChudleyCannon23, I'm glad you at least like how the editorial was written, even if you don't agrtee (most people don't. I'm trying to bring my friend to the CoS forums for some backup). I'm nto measuring friendship based solely on what they did for Harry (though I don't see how that would make Dumbledore Harry's bets friend, Dumbledore reared him up for slaughter. Or are all of you Dumbledore fans as well?).....

Well, now, another interesting statement. It was also made by Snape (see the pensieve revelations that Harry witnesses before heading out to face Voldemort). I must admit that crossed my mind as well, but I was willing to let the story unfold and see what the circumstances were. I was also influenced by Dumbledore's admission (more than once and repeated by Harry) that he has made huge mistakes ... so I waited. And I felt that although there was certainly a risk that Dumbledore was taking with Harry's life, it was a very calculated risk (not calculating, notice!! ;) ). Although he couldn't be absolutely sure that things would turn out as they did, he was still very sure. So the risk was not as great, from his perspective, as it appeared from ours. And he himself had taken equally horrifying risks, so the benefit of experience, combined with prodigious skill and knowledge were what Dumbledore based his actions on.

Further, he was right to take those risks and not necessarily tell harry everything, because of the greater risk that, by revealing too much, all could be lost because it would have been known. That was also, as he explained to Harry himself, the reason that he could not be more explicit about the Hallows. He needed Harry to find out for himself after delays and roadblocks, so that he would be READY for them - and would not make the same mistakes Dumbledore made when he was Harry's age.

As an interesting point, at least to me, I noted that Dumbledore was essentially comparing how he handled some similar situations as a youth versus the way Harry does. And he concludes that Harry is by far the better man. I think that is a key point. Oh, and even after finding out that Dumbledore was a FRIEND of Grindelwald's first, even though he finds out that he, Harry, was intended to allow himself to be killed (without knowing that he was protected), even after all of the venom that he was poisoned with regarding Dumbledore, and that he, in turn spewed back at others - he fogives Dumbledore.. he realizes that there is, indeed, a thing called the greater good, and even HE, Harry, had to think of that in the greater scheme of things. So it is a lot more complex that we even think it is.

Ultimately, however, I think we need to rely on the words of the "Bard" herself!! The trio is essential as a trio, each contributing their own aspects and personalities. Without everything that was done, all that transpired, the successful result might never have been achieved.

And even MORE ultimately, please remember that this is, after, a novel, the characters made up by the master writer, and their personalities developed with each having their own essential characters, and each, exactly as they are and as they evolved, essential to the whole. I think the word "synergy" is so very applicable here - collectively, the trio is substantially greater than the sum of the individual parts of the trio - each, together with the others is so much better than each is individually.

Well put Old One the trio compliment each other and work well as a team each contributing something no less important than the other and each being true friends in their own way - no more and no less than the other but I still think Harry regards Ron as his 'best friend' because he feels most comfortable in his presence - probably because they had more in common with each other.

we're all aware that Harry considers Ron his best friend, what I'm arguing is whether that's as it should be.

Excuse me, but why shouldn't Ron be Harry's friend? Because, like all people, he has faults? He gets jealous, and will have his moments of immaturity, but don't we all? I don't think any poster on this topic has never been jealous of a friend. Harry can sometimes be arrogant, short tempered, and has a tendency to lash out at others. Does that mean Ron should have stopped being friends with Harry? No one's perfect, but being perfect isn't what measures a friendship. Ron was always loyal to Harry and would never dare betray him. He took being pushed off to the side by not only his older brothers and little sister, but also by Harry, who was famous, and Hermione, who was clever and well accomplished. And I noticed that you failed to consider the locket as a reason for Ron's leaving. Try having a voice in your head magnify your insecurities for hours on end. Harry and Hermione are more self confident than Ron, so the Locket would have less to beat them up on. But Ron lacks some self confidence, and every insecurity was brutally attacked by the Locket. And yes, he took it off before leaving the tent, but it would take a minute for him to really come around. And, as a bunch of other posters have stated earlier, Ron wanted to come back as soon as he left. He could not at first. But he tried to. And the important thing is that he did come back, which says a lot. It's hard to admit that you are wrong, and Ron did so quite willingly so that he could have Harry and Hermione's friendship again.

------------------------------------------
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” - Dumbledore

Harry has every right to consider who his best friends are and are not and it just so happens he considers Ron his closest friend - he loves him warts and all so to speak - because he feels most comfortable when he's with him and enjoys his company. Harry loves Hermione most likely more like the older sister he never had but doesn't enjoy her company as much as he does Ron's simply because he has more in common with Ron. All the trio are true friends and would never betray each other. In fact they even put their lives on the line for each other but it doesn't lessen the fact that Harry still prefers Ron's company to Hermione's. However we must remember he wants to spend the rest of his life with Ginny whom he loves in a different way again so must feel very comfortable when he's with her also and I think had she been of age she would also have been on the quest with the trio.

Thanks for jumping in, WeasleyIsOurKing. Ron's lie isn't my ultimate denunciation of him, but I find it telling that Jo would include that in the epilogue. The main difference is, Arthur just keeps quiet about his tinkering, better to live in peace. Ron, meanwhile, is crowing about how Hermione had underestimated him. The nerve!

_magic_freak_, if it was simply to annoy, then Molly wouldn't have been as furious. She doesn't start yelling like that when the twins call Ron "Ickle Ronniekins". Despite healing spells, I doubt that a knife embedded in your skull is the same as slapping someone. I see, it's y gender that surprised you. Well, a lto of my friends are girls, so maybe that's styarted influencing my way of thinking. But I used ot be a nerd and I identify more with Hermione. And I saw the response, I'm very happy that I got the editorials going again!

ronjalina, Ron still derides Luna in HBP when she becomes Harry's date. It's not just the armchair incident, it's the "Oi midgets" and everything else. Also, do you really think the house-elves comment is genuine concern? The way I read it, it was a thoroughly transparent attempt to suc up to Hermione, only this time it worked. I fail to believe that all of a sudden, Ron would show such concern for house-elves.

The_Old_One, Dumbledore was nto taking a calculated risk. There si no mathermatical formula for whether Harry wqould have survved or not, as Jo points out. Yes, Harry and DD are reconciled, but I still can't see Dumbledore as the benevolent grandfatehr I used to see him as. And I think his penchant for being secretive got the best of his "greater good". Why didnt he tell Harry how to destroy Horcruxes? Why didn't he simply give him the sword? It was an absolute miracle that Harry got everything he needed. What if Bellatrix hadn't let that skip? Or if they hadn't made it out of Malfoy Manor alive? Or better yet, they never got captured? What if Ron couldn't open the Chamber? What if Crabbe didn't learn how to summon Fiendfyre? And I don't think Dumbledore banked on Hermione stealing his books in the first place. For all of Dumbledore's calculating risks, he basically gave Harry a single lottery ticket and banked on him winning.

inkling7, you're right about the Trio laying down their lives for each other. I remembar reading oen fanfic on MNFF which said "Those three are so steeped in life debts, we can't even keep track any more." Yes, the Trio is a unit, no one's disputing that. But, if you will, I'll bring back the geometry reference. The Trio is a triangle, a single 2-Dimensional entity. But it has three separate 1-Dimensional entities, the sides, which can be analyzed independently. I'm analyzing two of the sides here, not the triangle itself.

However by analysing only two people in this trio you are making the friendship seem more like a competition which friendship never should be and that is where you have fallen down in your arguments. Otherwise you could also say which is Ron's truest friend or Hermione's...... If the friendships were a competition then I'm sure competition for your friends would be a major factor in breaking up any friendships. Nobody should have to compete for friends - your friends should become friends as Ron and Harry's did - because they had things in common and felt at ease and really enjoyed each others company. When they fell out they missed each other and forgave each other for any mistakes and faults. Still loving someone and forgiving them for all their faults and mistakes and still remaining loyal to each other- that is true friendship.

Thanks for the editorial. I don't think that I agree with its conclusion or how it got there, but most of what I'd have to say has already been said in this thread, and I don't want to be repetitive. However, there is one point I had that I don't think has been mentioned.

It was mentioned that Ron lied to Hermione in the epilogue--that he didn't tell her he Confunded his driving examiner. However, Hermione has done something just like that. In book 6, she Confunded McClaggen at the keeper tryouts in order to help Ron, but she didn't tell this to Ron, and I'm willing to bet that she never told him she did that. (Of course, it is possible that she told him after they got married, but then, it's also possible that at some point in the future Ron will tell her about Confunding the driving examiner. However, that's off the point.) Anyway, my point is that when Ron kept this little secret from Hermione, it shouldn't be held against him, because Hermione has also done things just like that.

Thanks for jumping in, WeasleyIsOurKing. Ron's lie isn't my ultimate denunciation of him, but I find it telling that Jo would include that in the epilogue. The main difference is, Arthur just keeps quiet about his tinkering, better to live in peace. Ron, meanwhile, is crowing about how Hermione had underestimated him. The nerve!
I think that Ron wasn't really crowing or gloating about how Hermione had underestimated him here. It seemed that he was making more of a playful jibe at Hermione than crowing/gloating, much like how close friends would make playful jibes at each other, but all in the name of fun with no real malicious intent (your use of the word 'crowing' suggests that you see some degree of malice in Ron's words).

Also, do you really think the house-elves comment is genuine concern? The way I read it, it was a thoroughly transparent attempt to suc up to Hermione, only this time it worked. I fail to believe that all of a sudden, Ron would show such concern for house-elves.
I actually disagree with you here. I doubt that, at that point of the battle, Ron would be actively thinking along the lines of how he could best suck up to Hermione. While you may argue that Ron (and Hermione) got really distracted ;) by that kiss a short time later, I don't think that Ron made that comment with the intent to suck up to Hermione.

I personally think that the experiences with Kreacher and Dobby earlier in the book changed him somewhat. He saw a different side of House Elves and gradually became more sympathetic to Hermione's cause.

There aren't many quotes to show this because most of the book is from Harry's point of view, but here are some that I picked up:

Kreacher began to sob so hard that there were no more coherent words. Tears flowed down Hermione's cheeks as she watched Kreacher, but she did not dare touch him again. Even Ron, who was no fan of Kreacher's, looked troubled.
Here we see Ron being able to empathise somewhat with Kreacher's plight and his pitiful state.

Kreacher's thin arms trembled with the weight of the pan, still held aloft.

'Perhaps just one more, Master Harry, for luck?'

Ron laughed.
In the second quote, we see that Ron appreciates Kreacher's humourous comment. Appreciating Kreacher's sense of humour is a step towards appreciating Kreacher (and house elves) in general as a living being.

Both quotes show that Ron is learning to understand and appreciate Kreacher (and house elves) as living, sentient beings with feelings and emotions, to use Dumbledore's words, "as acute as a human's".

Harry had his retort ready for when [Dean and Ron] asked him why he had not simply created a perfect grave with his wand, but he did not need it. They jumped down into the hole he had made with spades of their own, and together they worked in silence until the hole seemed deep enough.

Harry wrapped the elf more snugly in his jacket. Ron sat on the edge of the grave and stripped off his shoes and socks, which he placed upon the elf's bare feet. Dean produced a woollen hat, which Harry placed carefully upon Dobby's head, muffling his bat-like ears.
I think these actions speak for themselves. :)

[Hermione] turned and looked expectantly at Ron, who cleared his throat and said in a thick voice, 'Yeah ... thanks Dobby.'
You could argue that Ron only said something because Hermione looked expectantly at him. However, Ron's not the best person with words and my guess is that he didn't really want to say anything. Nonetheless, when he did, he said it in a "thick voice", which suggests that his voice was full of emotion. This is another indicator that he was beginning to appreciate house elves better.


Of course, a nice side effect of his appreciation for house elves and being concerned for the house elves' welfare is gaining favour with Hermione... However, I don't think that Ron's concern for the House Elves was solely to suck up to Hermione. I believe that his experiences with house elves in DH changed his view of house elves and the concern near the end of the book is genuine.

Ron loves Hermione and wants her to know he cares about her, but I'm pretty sure he had his priorities right during the battle and wanted, first and foremost, to help Harry in the battle. Of course, he got momentarily distracted by the kiss Hermione gave him, but I don't think he even expected, much less planned for it, in the first place.

ronjalina, Ron still derides Luna in HBP when she becomes Harry's date. Actually, after Luna's Quiddtich commentary, Ron compliments her and says "she's grown on me". That was after his near death experience, which certainly has had an impact on his maturity level.
It's not just the armchair incident, it's the "Oi midgets" and everything else. How is calling someone 'midgets' bullying? Maybe that's just my sense of humour, but I can't see any harm in that. Ron wanted to be funny, not hurt first years. I would think when Hermione sent the canaries on Ron, when she made a spell on the DA parchment that ensured the cheater would grow pimples that they would have to wear for the rest of their lives and when she imprisoned Rita Skeeter in her animagus form in a glass jar, that was borderline violent. Of course I know she did it for all noble reasons, but she is far from being a fluffy bunny. Point being: They all have flaws and I object to holding it only against Ron and not against the others also. Basically, I object to holding it against any of them. They were in an extreme situation and they were still growing up.


Also, do you really think the house-elves comment is genuine concern? The way I read it, it was a thoroughly transparent attempt to suc up to Hermione, only this time it worked. I fail to believe that all of a sudden, Ron would show such concern for house-elves.Yes. I do think his concern for the House-elves was genuine. I see it, and all people I've discussed with on the forums so far see it. It was intended as being genuine as JKR's post-DH comments support. Why would you question that? Questioning Ron's honesty here is just like principally thinking the worst of Ron. We have no reason to think the worst of Ron. JKR has created the trio and their friendship and she thinks highly of all of them. And his concern hardly came suddenly. Ron generally had shown on various occasions that he had matured. And he had shown a lot of sympathy for Dobby, helping dig his grave and giving him his socks so he wouldn't be naked in his grave.

originally posted by hpboy13
dweaselqueen, I didn't literally mean that Ron shoudl walk into the tent and kiss Hermione. And you say he should have let her continue with her tirade: my point is that he didn't. He fought back, and Harry sided with him.

You misunderstood me. My point was that had he tried to confess his love, Hermione would not have responded, she would have continued it. I think he was right to fight back. Hermione needed to vent, but Ron had to fight back. He couldn't let her words sink in and lower his self-esteem again. Ron had finally realized that he was worth something, and he fought for himself. He didn't try to excuse his behavior, but he did need to explain himself. All of the tension needed to get out in the open or it would have created more arguments.

Also, between the DH and the GoF incidents, Ron's not there for like 300 pages, which is already 10% of the series.


Still, that means for 90% of the time, Ron is there for Harry. 10% is pretty trivial in my book.

Also, do you really think the house-elves comment is genuine concern? The way I read it, it was a thoroughly transparent attempt to suc up to Hermione, only this time it worked. I fail to believe that all of a sudden, Ron would show such concern for house-elves.


Yes. I believe it was absolutely genuine. After destroying the horcrux, Ron was vastly more mature and secure in himself. I do not believe for a second that he would have been actively thinking about how to kiss Hermione in the middle of a battle. His reaction to the kiss is far too shocked for him to have been anticipating Hermione jumping him. Now, if Hermione had suggested the house-elves and Ron had agreed, I think that could have been considered transparent. But Hermione herself wasn't even thinking on those lines. I think this shows valid concern on Ron's part.

And as others have pointed out, his growing appreciation of the house-elves has been coming on for most of the book. I think Dobby's death in particular made Ron realize that they needed to help the house-elves. And he mentions Dobby too. "We don't want any more Dobbys". If Ron were faking that concern, that would be truly despicable, but at a moment like that, everyone's feelings are genuine. If you know you could die at any second, why fake anything and put that on your record?

originally posted by hpboy13
And as for Hermione not reconciling with Ron - in her defense, he really hurt her. Perhaps the teenage girls here can back me up on this: how fast do you usually forgive a guy who broke your heart after realizing your affection for him?[/

may i remind you that ron had been in love with hermione for several years, including when she was going out with krum. so why does she have the right to be upset when he breaks her heart, yet ron doesn't back in book 4 and again in 6 when the krum thing resurfaced. i understand that ron dated lavender to get back at hermione, not because he liked lavender, however, if my memory serves me correctly, hermione dated krum because krum was the first guy who had been interested in her romantically. not because she loved him. Also, i think she did this to make ron see her as something other than a friend. she was trying to get him to see her as a girl who could date people, not just as one of the gang. So, IMO i think that both of the dated other people to make the other jealous etc. i understand that hermione's attempt wasnt intended to hurt ron, whilst rons was. But in ron's defence i would like to point out that he didnt know he was breaking her heart, he didnt know that she loved him. so i think that this comment by hpboy13 isnt relevant.

If the question is--who's Harry's truest friend--I think a two-word answer should suffice. Hermione Granger. End of sentence. End of discussion. No contest. Ron is Harry's oldest friend and he is quite loyal--but he is quite susceptible to--well, they seem like selfish gaffes but how should I really describe them?

Ron's appreciation for Hermine's stand on house elves is genuine--as far as it goes, I suppose. But their relationship doesn't seem triumphant, the way that Harry's relationship with Ginny does. It's the uncertain resolution of a problem. Peace and understanding are there--but they don't look permanent. They look like they could disappear with the next crisis/like it's a repetition of the same cycle they have had in every book since Prisoner of Azkaban. Except, luckily, there is no serious villain around to shake the ground under their feet.

Ron, even at his very best seems like he has to painstakingly learn to do what comes to Harry naturally. Harry is naturally caring and supportive, so his responses are genuine as a matter of instinct while Ron has to learn from models (even some cheap literature) how and when to do the things he wants to do...perhaps wishes he could do, but has no instinct to do.

Truest friend?? Let's ask Harry..... he might beg to differ as Ron has been a little less critical of Harry than Hermione - who comes across as an older sister looking out for he younger brother. There are different kinds of loyalty (read truerism - I know - there's no such word) but as Ron's compatibility with Harry is much stronger I think he would think Ron is a truer frilend than Hermione and isn't Harry's opinion more to the point???

Ron's appreciation for Hermine's stand on house elves is genuine--as far as it goes, I suppose. But their relationship doesn't seem triumphant, the way that Harry's relationship with Ginny does. It's the uncertain resolution of a problem. Peace and understanding are there--but they don't look permanent. They look like they could disappear with the next crisis/like it's a repetition of the same cycle they have had in every book since Prisoner of Azkaban. Except, luckily, there is no serious villain around to shake the ground under their feet.Harry/Ginny and Ron/Hermione have different dynamics. In that regard they are not really comparable. But both kinds of relationships can work just fine. We have no indication from the epilogue that Ron and Hermione's marriage isn't stable or happy. There will be no repetition of the crises, because the prerequisite that made these happen, isn't given anymore. Ron has overcome his insecurities. Ron/Hermione are different from Harry/Ginny, they are certainly less subtle, but it works. JKR's post-DH comments corroborate that.

"Ron and Hermione, however, are drawn to each other because they balance each other out. Hermione's got the sensitivity and maturity that's been left out of Ron, and Ron loosens up Hermione a bit, gets her to have some fun. They love each other and they bicker a bit, but they enjoy bickering, so we shouldn't worry about it."

Which brings me to another point. All our personal preferences aside, we are dealing with literature and fictional characters. In that context, I think authorial intent is something we should take into consideration. As I see it, JKR clearly intended for all of the trio to be good, likable characters, she intended for them to be best friends with each other and she obviously intended Ron and Hermione to be together. In another interview she said "they were meant to be." And she had meant for Ron to grow up, to grow up as the last of the trio, but to grow up. And besides the mistakes Ron made while growing up, he still managed to do some extraordinary things. Which should not be glossed over, IMO.

Who would you rather have as a son, Harry or Ron?
"I'll take them both! I adore Ron. Ron is the most immature of the three main characters, but in part seven he grows up. He was never strong footed , people see him mostly as Harry's friend; his mother had actually wanted a girl and in the last book he finally has to acknowledge his weaknesses. But it's exactly that which makes Ron a man

Ron, even at his very best seems like he has to painstakingly learn to do what comes to Harry naturally. Harry is naturally caring and supportive, so his responses are genuine as a matter of instinct while Ron has to learn from models (even some cheap literature) how and when to do the things he wants to do...perhaps wishes he could do, but has no instinct to do. Different people learn things differently. Ron learnt things differently and later than Harry, who had extraordinary life circumstances. But Ron learnt, and that's the important thing. To some extent I think we all had our models, our parents, grandparents, teachers and heck the shelves in the bookstores are full of life coaching books on various aspects on our lives, when someone decides to consult something like that, what's wrong with it? The main thing is we learn something. How we do that is secondary.


Truest friend?? Let's ask Harry..... he might beg to differ as Ron has been a little less critical of Harry than Hermione - who comes across as an older sister looking out for he younger brother. There are different kinds of loyalty (read truerism - I know - there's no such word) but as Ron's compatibility with Harry is much stronger I think he would think Ron is a truer frilend than Hermione and isn't Harry's opinion more to the point???I don't think Harry would even think in these categories. I doubt he assesses his friends as to who is the more true friend, or the more loyal friend, and I even doubt he judges on who is the more useful. Ron is Harry's best buddy, which whom he can relax and have fun, but who also was willing to lay down his life for Harry time and again in the books. Just as Hermione, who is the moral guide and more the bigger sister type. Two different types of friendship, but I think Harry loves them both equally.

originally posted by jordmundt6
If the question is--who's Harry's truest friend--I think a two-word answer should suffice. Hermione Granger. End of sentence. End of discussion. No contest. Ron is Harry's oldest friend and he is quite loyal--but he is quite susceptible to--well, they seem like selfish gaffes but how should I


This whole argument says that Ron can not be a great friend because he has faults. True friends forgive each other for they're faults. It is true that Ron gives in to his insecurities (and I do not think it is selfish to give in to your worst fears), but he always comes back. He swallows his pride and he asks for forgiveness. And Harry, being a true friend, forgives Ron. He understands that Ron is insecure and he doesn't hold it against Ron. Ron likewise doesn't hold Harry's faults against him. We don't seem Ron stop wanting to be friends with Harry during OotP when he is jumping down Ron and Hermione's throats. Ron understands that Harry is going through a rough time and he is there for him. That is a true friend.

Ron's appreciation for Hermine's stand on house elves is genuine--as far as it goes, I suppose. But their relationship doesn't seem triumphant, the way that Harry's relationship with Ginny does. It's the uncertain resolution of a problem. Peace and understanding are there--but they don't look permanent. They look like they could disappear with the next crisis/like it's a repetition of the same cycle they have had in every book since Prisoner of Azkaban. Except, luckily, there is no serious villain around to shake the ground under their feet.


They weren't permanent before because Ron and Hermione had to get over their insecurities. By the end of DH, they are on the same level of maturity. They are finally ready to be together. As we learned in psych, you aren't truly ready to be intimate with someone until you understand yourself. By the final battle, both Ron and Hermione had a stable identity and they were ready to share themselves with each other.

originally posted by ronjalina
Harry/Ginny and Ron/Hermione have different dynamics. In that regard they are not really comparable. But both kinds of relationships can work just fine. We have no indication from the epilogue that Ron and Hermione's marriage isn't stable or happy. There will be no repetition of the crises, because the prerequisite that made these happen, isn't given anymore. Ron has overcome his insecurities. Ron/Hermione are different from Harry/Ginny, they are certainly less subtle, but it works. JKR's post-DH comments corroborate that.


:agree:

originally posted by ronjalina
Different people learn things differently. Ron learnt things differently and later than Harry, who had extraordinary life circumstances. But Ron learnt, and that's the important thing. To some extent I think we all had our models, our parents, grandparents, teachers and heck the shelves in the bookstores are full of life coaching books on various aspects on our lives, when someone decides to consult something like that, what's wrong with it? The main thing is we learn something. How we do that is secondary.

Again, I definitely agree. Ron may not learn as fast as Harry and Hermione, but the point is that he learns. Every one learns from models, this was also discussed in my general psych class. Who we're friends with, our parents, our teachers, what we read all has an effect on us and how we behave. The most important model for teenagers is our friends. Luckily for Ron, he had two great friends in Harry and Hermione to show him how to be more sensitive.

Friendship is not a large game of whats in it for me!!! That is almost Voldemort like. To him people are only as good as whatever they can do for him at that given moment.


I agree with samlindude. What hpboy13 keeps saying is that Hermione was more useful than Ron, and thus a better friend. Don't say that you haven't said this because on several occassions you have mentioned things like Hermione was the one who made the DA etc. Your saying that these should be points in her favour, just because she was useful. samlindude was right, what your suggesting sounds a lot like Voldemort. Someone who is friends with someone because of how useful they are to them. Think about it, how many times have we seen Voldemort use people to get what he wants?

I don't think Harry would ever have a friend just because they are useful to him. He likes his friends - warts and all - because he likes being with them and he likes being with Ron more than anyone else - even Hermione - who I think is more like the big sister he never had. She looks out for both Ron and Harry but she likes Ron in a different way than Harry - and the same goes for Ron. It makes the friendships no less true - just different. It just so happens than when Harry was informed that the thing he would miss most in the 2nd task in GOF it was Ron and not Hermione. This makes Ron his best friend I suppose and being true doesn't come into it - it's all about feelings. All three were true to each other in their own ways.

Essentia, Hermione's Confunding McClaggen was for Ron's benefit: she didn't tell him because it would destroy his self-esteem. Also, that was done when they were 16, in the epilogue they're well into their thirties. There should hopefulyl be some difference.

nat089, I don't think Ron was being amlicous in the epilogue, but it still seemed liek he was lording it over Hermione. And Like I argued previously in my editorial, sucking up to Hermione is very high on Ron's list of priorities, I think he'd grab the chance when he got it. Ron is troubled by Kreacher's story: well, duh, anmyone would be. Ron appreciated Kreacher's humor: well, duh, anyone would laugh at that (except Dung). Yes, he appreciated Dobby, I'll give him that - you'd think he would after Dobby saved them from Malfoy Manor. But I believe that house-elves are still low on his list of concerns, and that the comment was for Hermione's benefit. ronjalina, you and other peole on this board may think it was genuine, but most people I've talked to don't. But I guess we'll never know. As for the Luna-growing-on-him thing, I remember he was still mocking Luna afterwards, asking her if she would do the commentary again.

dweaselqueen, if oyu want to get into mathematics, then let's by all means. You speak as if Ron was there durign the books the entire time except the two fights. However, a large part of the books happens at the Dursleys, doesn't even involve Harry, etc. After all that, you're left with considerably less that 3000 pages as an overall opportunity for Ron to be there for Harry, which significantly increases the percentage. You speak of nto wanting to fake emotion at the battle - one coudl argue Ron wanted to kiss Hermione before he died. It's impossible to know what anyone except Harry is thinking at that time.

bigbirdbanana, in GoF, how is Hermione at fault for what happened? Ron considered her one of the guys, so when a celebrity asked her to the Ball, of course she said yes. And if I remember, Ron was actually quite upset at that whole incident. As for why Ron should be upset in GoF over something that happened two years ago is beyond me. How on earth does that make sense? Even Harry doesn't think so ("how could he tell Hermione that Ron was mad over something she had done two years ago" or something along those lines).

jordmundt6, thanks for at least the partial support. I personally think that Ron and Hermione's relationship is a bit of a triumph, since it signifies both of them learning to live with someone who's almost the complete opposite. But I do agree that their relationship will forever be on rocky ground, waiting for the next fight. It's just the type of people they are.

ronjalina, I do agree that Harry probably wouldn't begin assessing hs friends like we are. However, he also wouldn't spend endless hours going over his life to find out what happens next ;)

hpboy13 if people didn't feel they could disagree on anything - ie speak their minds then they aren't showing their true colors. At least Ron and Hermione weren't afraid to speak their minds to each other in the end and this jeopardise any relationship they had. I disagree quite a bit with my hot blooded latino partner but this strengthens our relationship because we don't bottle up any gripes we may have - we get them out in the open like Harry and Ron do ultimately and this makes for true and open friendships. I don't think Harry or Ron open up to Hermione with quite the same frankness as they don't have the same closeness that Harry and Ron do together at this stage of their lives - ie as teenagers in GOF, HBP and DH eras.

But I believe that house-elves are still low on his list of concerns, and that the comment was for Hermione's benefit. ronjalina, you and other peole on this board may think it was genuine, but most people I've talked to don't. But I guess we'll never know. But we do know:

Fomy: What did you feel when you finally wrote the kiss, awaited so much by the fans, of Ron and Hermione

J.K. Rowling: I loved writing it, and I loved the fact that Hermione took the initiative! Ron had finally got SPEW and earned himself a snog!

As for the Luna-growing-on-him thing, I remember he was still mocking Luna afterwards, asking her if she would do the commentary again.That wasn't mocking. He found it refreshingly different and funny, and for Ron that is a good thing. So it's a compliment and Luna got that.

ronjalina, I do agree that Harry probably wouldn't begin assessing hs friends like we are. However, he also wouldn't spend endless hours going over his life to find out what happens next ;) Sure, but, unlike us, Harry has to live with them and he depends on them.

2a. The goal of CoS Forums is to make sure everyone has a good time and can make friends. Obviously not everyone will agree with one another and we ask that you respect the opinions of others. Making sarcastic, or rude remarks directed at another member, or attacking others for holding views different to your own will not be tolerated. If you see this taking place, please report it to an Unspeakable.

Keep it friendly please everyone.

originally posted by hpboy13
dweaselqueen, if oyu want to get into mathematics, then let's by all means. You speak as if Ron was there durign the books the entire time except the two fights. However, a large part of the books happens at the Dursleys, doesn't even involve Harry, etc. After all that, you're left with considerably less that 3000 pages as an overall opportunity for Ron to be there for Harry, which significantly increases the percentage.

I don't see how Ron not being with Harry at the Dursleys has anything to do with him not being a good friend. Hermione isn't there either. Yet you're not bashing her. During the times when the trio is together, Ron is there for Harry 90% of the time. We can't bash Ron or Hermione for not being with Harry when circumstances don't allow (such as the graveyard scene, or confronting Quirrel). That is a literary device.

When Harry is with the Dursleys, Ron and Hermione do all they can for him. They send him letters, food, Ron rescues Harry from the Dursleys, Ron and Hermione go to Privet Dr. to help him escape. Ron even tried to call Harry on the phone. Unfortunately, Ron didn't know how the phone worked, and that ended in disaster, but that's not the point. He was as there for Harry as he could be under those circumstances.

You speak of nto wanting to fake emotion at the battle - one coudl argue Ron wanted to kiss Hermione before he died. It's impossible to know what anyone except Harry is thinking at that time.


True. Ron could've been thinking along those lines. However, looking at his reaction to the kiss, I would say that he was not expecting Hermione to kiss him. Besides, if he had been thinking that, why didn't he just kiss Hermione himself? You said before that Ron should've been confessing his love when he came back to the tent. Why not confess it here if he's thinking he needs to get it all out.

As ronjalina's quote pointed out, JKR herself said that Ron really understood SPEW at last. It was not just a move to impress Hermione, and I'm shocked that you think so lowly of Ron that you would think it was. Post-locket Ron was far more mature then he had been at any other point in the series. I see no evidence to suggest that he was faking it.

Besides, since when as Ron been a good liar?

originally posted by inkling7
hpboy13 if people didn't feel they could disagree on anything - ie speak their minds then they aren't showing their true colors. At least Ron and Hermione weren't afraid to speak their minds to each other in the end and this jeopardise any relationship they had. I disagree quite a bit with my hot blooded latino partner but this strengthens our relationship because we don't bottle up any gripes we may have - we get them out in the open like Harry and Ron do ultimately and this makes for true and open friendships. I don't think Harry or Ron open up to Hermione with quite the same frankness as they don't have the same closeness that Harry and Ron do together at this stage of their lives - ie as teenagers in GOF, HBP and DH eras.

Great point. My best friend and I have had plenty of fights over the years, but we always come out of it stronger. Being open and honest strengthens Ron and Harry's bond after it's come so close to breaking. If Ron was lying about anything said after he came back, then these issues are just going to keep coming back and there will never be resolution.

Hence, I believe Ron was genuine. Lying to get on people's good side never ends well. That would not be a resolution to his character arc at all. Instead, we see Ron finally become a man and be honest and mature. He starts thinking about serious issues and he finally has a stable identity.

dweaselqueen, is me thinking lowly of Ron such a surprise to you after foru page sof debating? Anyway, I never said Ron had ot be there durign the Dursleys and whatever. I was merely pointing out that Ron was not there the entire 2700 pages except the two fights, which would thus increase the percentage of significant time that Ron is MIA. You ask why Ron didn't kiss Hermione himself? Because she would have hexed him into next week! And since when has Ron been a bad liar? He was the one sent to head off Umbridge during the OotP climax, and I doubt he woudl have been sent if he couldn't lie convincingly. Obviously, he's not as good as Hermione or Ginny, but he's a decent liar.

Not necessarily a decent liar but a convincing actor. I still can't fathom why you dislike Ron so much - it almost seems like you are jealous he got Hermione or something. Were/are you a Harry/Hermione shipper or something.

originally posted by hpboy13
dweaselqueen, is me thinking lowly of Ron such a surprise to you after foru page sof debating?

I'm not shocked that you're not impressed by him. I am shocked that you think that lowly of him since you claim he was once one of your favorite characters. To go from beloved character to thinking that lowly of him is a drastic change in my opinion.

Anyway, I never said Ron had ot be there durign the Dursleys and whatever. I was merely pointing out that Ron was not there the entire 2700 pages except the two fights, which would thus increase the percentage of significant time that Ron is MIA.

But as I said, Ron is not MIA. He and Hermione are sending Harry letters and trying to help him as best they can from a distance. It's not like Harry goes the entire time at the Dursleys without any mention of Ron or Hermione. Ron is not present, but he is not gone either. He and Hermione are always there, if not physically, then through a letter or birthday cake.

You ask why Ron didn't kiss Hermione himself? Because she would have hexed him into next week!

I did not say that Ron should have done it himself. I said if he had been thinking, "well, how can I kiss Hermione?", he would have just done it. No, Ron was not thinking along those lines. We have the word of the author that Ron genuinely understood SPEW, and that is why Hermione kissed him.


And since when has Ron been a bad liar? He was the one sent to head off Umbridge during the OotP climax, and I doubt he woudl have been sent if he couldn't lie convincingly. Obviously, he's not as good as Hermione or Ginny, but he's a decent liar.

There is a difference between lying to your best friend (and love of your life) and lying to a hated authority figure. Umbridge does not know Ron well at all, if she hadn't already known where Peeves was, she likely would have gone running to the Transfiguration department. Lying to Hermione is very different. She knows him extremely well, and would probably be able to tell that he was lying. We see that Harry is extrememly uncomfortable when lying to Ron and Hermione, partly because of guilt, and partly because he's sure they are suspicious. Hermione and Harry would have been able to tell if Ron was faking concern for the elves.

And as I have said before, in the heat of battle, who is going to be thinking of a plan to kiss someone? Having a lie on your belt right before you die does not seem like a good way to go.

inkling7, I dislike Ron so much because I value loyalty to friends. No, I was never a Harmony shipper, I was always R/Hr all the way (how obvious can it get?)

dweaselqueen, Ron has probably been thinking along the lines of kissing Hermione for some time now, but hasn't done it. He wouldn't just do it out of the blue, and as evidenced by the books, he's too much of a chicken to make the first move (who asks whom out first?).

Maybe Harry's uncomfortable lying to R&Hr, but he still does it, and often as not gets away with it (think Occlumency and the Worst Memory). Even if Ron was uncomfortable lying (and it wans't so much lying as faking concern), I'm sure he could have done it. Harry and Hermione wouldn't look too far into it, they're "in the moment", and they both want to believe him.

hpboy13 you have yet to back up Ron's disloyalty to Harry yet with concrete arguments and that's why I wondered why you are so anti-Ron. You are yet to convince me that Hermione is more loyal. Each are loyal in their own ways to each other - none less than the other. What Ron has in his favor is that he is Harry's preferred companion and not Hermione. Perhaps you should be looking at your views of all the trio with more impartiality and then you might see where most of us are coming from. However good these posts are going back and forth they are getting a little repetitious so I suppose we should all agree to disagree in the end. The trio are all true and not one of them is less true than the other really - but as several people keep pointing out that is not the only basis of a friendship - it's also about who's company you enjoy the most and it so happens at that stage Harry preferred Ron's to Hermione's and most likely in the end preferred Ginny's to both of them. Remember Harry had a different type of friendship with Ron, Hermione and Ginny but they were all true to him and no one was more true than the other one.

originally posted by hpboy13
dweaselqueen, Ron has probably been thinking along the lines of kissing Hermione for some time now, but hasn't done it. He wouldn't just do it out of the blue, and as evidenced by the books, he's too much of a chicken to make the first move (who asks whom out first?).

True. Hermione does ask Ron out first. But then again, it would have been presumptuous of Ron to ask Hermione out to her party. :) And yes, we do see Ron being to afraid to make a move, but that was mostly linked to his insecurities. In DH, we see him much more confident around Hermione (comforting her, holding her hand while asleep, all the compliments, etc). Post-locket Ron had overcome these insecurities.

I am sure that he wanted to kiss Hermione, but we have the word of the author which says that he truly understood SPEW and earned a snog, not that he wanted a snog and tricked her into it.

Maybe Harry's uncomfortable lying to R&Hr, but he still does it, and often as not gets away with it (think Occlumency and the Worst Memory). Even if Ron was uncomfortable lying (and it wans't so much lying as faking concern), I'm sure he could have done it. Harry and Hermione wouldn't look too far into it, they're "in the moment", and they both want to believe him.

Again, word of the author that he was genuinely concerned.

inkling7, I believe you've yet to defend Ron with concrete arguments. You are yet to convince me that Hermione ISN'T more loyal. I think the truth is this: we are both far too stubborn for our opinions to be changed at this point. You say it's about preferred company, I say that takes a backseat to whose company is actually always available as opposed to whose company is often missing due to jealousy. Oh, and as a lovely grammar book once said, people never "agree to disagree", they just get tired of arguing! I'm not tired yet, but if you are, feel free to bow out! I still enjoy these debates!

dweaselqueen, Ron had a zillion opportunities to ask Hermione out before her party! I didn't hold it against him that he didn't, but I couldn't believe that Ron ditched Hermione after SHE finally worked up the guts to ask HIM out. If a guy did that to one of my friends, I'd never hear the end of it over the phone over what an ******* the guy is, and the guy would never hear the end of it either. Also, Jo merely says that Ron got SPEW, never said that he genuinely believed in it. For example, I get what you guys are saying abotu Ron being a good friend, but I don't believe it.

I never said Hermione wasn't more or less loyal than Ron. My point is they were both equally loyal in their own ways. However that isn't what true friendship is about ultimately. It should never be a competition and ultimately never is. Friendship is about whose company you like the most and who you miss the most when they aren't there (probably because of what you have in common) and it just so happens Ron is the one Harry would miss the most and whose company he prefers - simply because it is a different kind of friendship he has with him to the one he has with Hermione.

I am also pointing out that the arguments are becoming a little circular and repetitious and is most likely boring the pants off many others in the forum - which is why only the same very few posters are left making posts. this is the reason I have said we should all agree to disagree and three females who seem to be for Ron and two males who are agin him are the only ones left arguing in circles - so it seems......

originally posted by hpboy13
dweaselqueen, Ron had a zillion opportunities to ask Hermione out before her party! I didn't hold it against him that he didn't, but I couldn't believe that Ron ditched Hermione after SHE finally worked up the guts to ask HIM out. If a guy did that to one of my friends, I'd never hear the end of it over the phone over what an ******* the guy is, and the guy would never hear the end of it either

Yes, Ron did have many opportunities. My point was that Hermione had the best opportunity and seized it. And Ron did have a point, they had never defined whether they were going as friends or on a date. Both assumed it was a date, but it was never said one way or the other. Then Ron learns that Hermione had kissed Krum and has been writing to him since. It would seem to insecure Ron that Hermione still has feelings for Krum and that she doesn't like him that way. Then she appears to think Ron could have been such a fabulous Quidditch player on his own, and for Ron, it's official that she doesn't like him. So he figures it won't be a big deal if he dates Lavender because Hermione doesn't like him. When he walks in and sees Hermione, he realizes he goofed BIG time and thinks it's too late to fix it.

But another thing we've got to realize is that this is literature. It's drama. It's heightened reality. While some people would never forgive Ron, Hermione has to. Harry and Hermione are unhappy without Ron, and Ron and Harry would never survive without Hermione. They needed all of this to happen to force them to mature emotionally in a way that hadn't happened in the previous books, and they needed to come back together in the end.

originally posted by hpboy13
Also, Jo merely says that Ron got SPEW, never said that he genuinely believed in it. For example, I get what you guys are saying abotu Ron being a good friend, but I don't believe it.

Her exact words were "he finally got SPEW and earned himself a snog". Ron understood SPEW at last. He understood why Hermione stood up for them, and he understood that she was right. That's why Hermione kissed him. He earned it by understanding and accepting her point.

From what you're saying, he earned a snog by getting SPEW but not believing it. That does not deserve a kiss at all, especially not from someone who believes in SPEW.

Besides, ronjalina posted several quotes involving Ron's growing understanding of SPEW and his concern for the elves in DH. Ron was horrified by Dobby's death, and he took an active part in Dobby's burial (helping to dig the grave, providing socks for Dobby's feet, etc). Not wanting "anymore Dobbies" was a genuine concern of Ron's because it affected him deeply. He understood that asking the house-elves to do something that might kill them was not acceptable. Or that not allowing them to leave because they are bound to the castle and killing them that way was not acceptable either. That's why Hermione kissed him. Because Ron got it.

Everyone please keep the language family friendly.

OOOH dont be too hard on Ron,he was a very good friend ,he waswjust only Human,I think both of them were really great,thats what made them a trio...Hermione was great ,and she was a bit more strong than Ron ,but that doesnt make her better...does it...Ron did pretty much for him too,and even thoug he did abonadon him at a moment ,he was there when harry needed him the most,both of them,and thats what makes boht of them so very great.Each one in there own special way.

Welcome to the debate Montse! Well, as I've been saying for the last five pages, I am hard on Ron because I value loyalty. dweaselqueen, so what if Ron and Hermione "technically" never said it was a date? When you're going to a party together, unless other stated, it's assumed it's a date. And you don't go to a party with someone usually when you're in a relationship. Harry went with Luna as friends because he was a single agent. Ron and Hermione quite clearly set up a date. I doubt Ron needed that clarified - he didn't need clarification when Hemrine kissed ihm that it wasn't just a kiss between friends. And maybe Hermione did still like Viktor, but she asked him out after all, and if anything he could have always confronted her (doubtlessly very rudely) about it. Do you honestly believe that Ron only realized he'd goofed when he saw Hermione crying? That he just HAPPENED to finally hook up with Lavenxder when he was mad at Hermione? Ron's nto that stupid! He did it purposely to get under Hermione's skin, and he sure as hell did. As for the SPEW thing, I interpreted that quote as Jo saying that in Hermione's view, he'd earned a snog - whether he actually earned it or not is a whole other matter.

What's all this obsession about snogging and dating? Does this make them more or more more less friends of Harry's? Anyway wouldn't the most important thing about these friendships be how Harry feels about his friends and the way he values them and who he likes being with? This has all been made quite clear in the books so who are we to judge who are the best people to be his friends and who is the BEST friend. I certainly wouldn't like being told who are my best friends by outsiders - I want to make up my own mind and not have it made up for me. I hope you don't do this in real life hpboy13 and that this is just you stirring up a discussion for the forum. However methinks you doth protest too much and I'm now wondering why you dislike Ron so much.

originally posted by hpboy13
dweaselqueen, so what if Ron and Hermione "technically" never said it was a date? When you're going to a party together, unless other stated, it's assumed it's a date. And you don't go to a party with someone usually when you're in a relationship. Harry went with Luna as friends because he was a single agent. Ron and Hermione quite clearly set up a date. I doubt Ron needed that clarified - he didn't need clarification when Hemrine kissed ihm that it wasn't just a kiss between friends. And maybe Hermione did still like Viktor, but she asked him out after all, and if anything he could have always confronted her (doubtlessly very rudely) about it.

To understand why Ron acted the way he did, you have to understand his motivations. Yes, at first, he would have assumed it was a date. Then he learns that Hermione as snogged Krum and he already knows that she writes "novels" to him all the time. Being insecure, he decides that Hermione and Krum must be an item and Hermione is only inviting him to the party as a friend. She never said it was a date, and she's clearly more interested in fabulous Krum then unfabulous Ron. She must have invited him because Krum wasn't around and she felt bd that Ron was left out.

As for the kiss, of course he didn't need clarification on that. But by then, his insecurities were out of the way. He felt more worthy of her and that kiss can hardly be interpreted any other way.

originally posted by hpboy13
Do you honestly believe that Ron only realized he'd goofed when he saw Hermione crying? That he just HAPPENED to finally hook up with Lavenxder when he was mad at Hermione? Ron's nto that stupid! He did it purposely to get under Hermione's skin, and he sure as hell did.

Yes. I honestly believe that. The description of Ron's reaction to seeing Harry and Hermione in the room says it all. He hadn't seen Hermione up until that point, and he just realized how badly he had screwed it up.

As for hooking up with Lavender, she had been very openly into him all year long. Here was a girl who liked him and who Ron probably thought was fairly pretty. She liked him, but Hermione obviously didn't. Lavender thought he was a fantastic Quidditch player, Hermione obviously didn't. So Ron decides to hook up with her. He didn't realize how it would affect Hermione because he thought she was interested in Krum!

As for the SPEW thing, I interpreted that quote as Jo saying that in Hermione's view, he'd earned a snog - whether he actually earned it or not is a whole other matter.


Well, it's up to you as to how you interpret that. If you want to believe that Ron faked it, that's up to you. I will maintain that Ron earned that kiss and absolutely believed in SPEW.

hpboy13, you seem determined to hold every minor thing Ron did wrong in the books against him, yet you seem to glaze over a fair few of Hermione's mistakes. I feel that no matter what we say, you will not be swayed. You must remember that when Ron walked out, for the past few hours he'd been hearing that his 2 companions hated him, and that Hermione loved Harry not him, among many others. If the idea that your 2 best friends hated you had been pounded into your brain for a few hours, you would begin to believe its true and nobody likes being around people who dont like them.

You're comparing how loyal Ron and Hermione have been to Harry, but think about it; has he really been that loyal to them? Friendship is a two-way street; you cant just look at one end of it. Think about it. How much has Harry really done for Ron?


PS. I think that dweaselqueens post directly above this one is very well thought out. Good Work!!

I just had a chance to read your editorial and the thread that accompanies it. I'm making my way backwards. The discussion appears to be over at this point, but having thought about it for a couple of days, I can't help adding my own thoughts.

The editorial was better written than I thought it would be given the conclusions I gathered you drew by reading the rebuttal. You actually do mention some of the sacrifices Ron made. But the argument is that they don't count, because Ron became progressively a lesser friend.

There were many quotes to back up your points, which I liked. The only problem is that the editorial created a "perspective of quotes," choosing those that support its conclusions and, perhaps unintentionally, leaving out those that don't.

I also saw from the discussion on the thread that the author is not willing to back down an inch on any point... even Ron's obviously genuine concern for elves at Hogwarts! The author must be so disilussioned with Ron, he has lost all faith in his intentions.

I think the editorial has merits in that it addresses Ron's betrayal. I don't think any of us expected Ron to walk out on Harry and Hermione. That was a huge shock, reminiscent of Pettigrew, although there are big differences. I think if the editorial had simply tried to trace Ron's development as a character, and understand HOW COULD HE, it might have addressed questions that probably every reader had.

Because asking questions about Ron's betrayal is important. I just got my dad to read Harry Potter, and he's halfway throught he 7th book. He was so shocked Ron would leave that he simply didn't believe it was Ron. He thought it was a polyjuiced spy, the only way he could accept Ron's walking out.

I think there is plenty of material to work with in this incident, without going places where it's obvious Ron's behavior is either harmless or genuinely good or acceptable, given his maturity level, insecurities, etc.

After I finished the 7th book, there were a few things I simply could not believe were realistic, and Ron's walking out on his friends was one of them.

But I'll only say a couple more things before my post becomes novel length.

I want to address the sacrifice Ron and Hermione made by leaving with Harry: first, they shouldn't be compared, since they each gave everything that they could in this instance, by choosing to go with Harry. As someone else said, it is like comparing a rich and a poor person. But if we were to compare, we need to realize that Hermione's parents are out of the way in Australia under a different identity and don't remember they have her as a daughter. Ron has not only parents, but numerous siblings to worry about, and they are all known blood traitors (except Percy maybe for a while?) and tracked and easily targetted by the Death Eaters. I don't see how anyone can undermine Ron's sacrifice here, and say it is less than Hermione's.

And it is important to understand this sacrifice to understand what happened the night Ron left. They had just heard two things that worried Ron. One was that Ginny had been caught stealing the sword from Snape. Ron knows Snape killed Dumbledore. Death Eaters are in control of the school. And his memories of the Dark Forest are horrible. He doesn't think as quickly as Harry does about Hagrid being a protective presence. He also hears that enough of the Weasley kids have been hurt and he imagines someone else has been injured as well. He was also wearing the locket.

As he becomes obsessed by this, Harry and Hermione don't even seem phased by his worries. They are excited and talk about the sword. Ron finally explodes about it.
Perhaps it sounds stupid and immature. Like Harry said, what did he expect, to find a Horcrux every other day? But you'll notice at this point that Ron does not once say he plans to leave. It is Harry who tells him to GO. And he goads him on repeatedly. See how many times Harry repeated to Ron to go. Finally Ron walks out. Of course, having been dismissed by Harry, and having been under the influence of the locket, he still has paranoid ideas about Hermione, and asks her to come with him. But as soon as he left, he decided to come back, only he was held behind.

If Ron had been able to walk back in after 5 minutes, we and Harry and Hermione may never have even treated him as if he had left at all. But Rowling created circumstances that made clear what Ron had done. At the same time, Ron did not betray Harry and Hermione in the sense of telling Voldemort their secrets. It wasn't even a Mundungus that he pulled.

I think Rowling does an interesting psychology of betrayal in the books through Pettrigrew, Snape, Mundungus, Ron, Percy... and from that angle, I think a study of Ron's behavior would definitely be necessary.

Well put MagicLantern but Ron didn't betray them the way Pettigrew did. Walking out is hardly betrayal - we've all walked out on an argument to cool off and come back and that is what Ron would have done had the Snatchers not caught him. This walking out act is hardly betrayal especially given the circumstances surrounding it. Harry was just as nasty telling him to go and all this probably wouldn't have happened if the locket wasn't affecting any of them. I notice Hermione was probably the least affected by the locket than Harry or Ron. Ron had the most to lose family-wise and his insecurities made the locket affect him the most. He was still a very true friend though despite all this.

I agree with MagicLantern's post. You've captured the essence of what we'd been arguing while this discussion was going on. Ron's sacrifices shouldn't be compared to Hermione's because they had different circumstances. They both did the best they could.

And saying that Ron walking out made him disloyal isn't true. His loyalty to Harry never wavered. He never sold Harry out or anything. They fought yes, but Ron's loyatly to the Order and Harry's cause never wavered. Ron walked out to cool off, this does not make him disloyal. It makes him a friend who got angry and "slammed the door".

Hi inkling7 and dweaselqueen. I do think Rowling wants us to think about Ron's leaving, although I realize I used words that are too strong. Ron's "betrayal" is the weakest form in the series (and when I first read the comparison with slamming a door I agreed) but the situation is more serious and the momentary intention a bit different. Although Ron didn't really "betray," he did "abandon" temporarily, even if only for one minute. The reason that act is a shock coming from Ron is that we have extremely high expectations for his loyalty. If there is a blink of hesitation, it seems like he has fallen completely from grace. As someone else said earlier, there is no more or less loyal, there is yes or no, you are or you are not. Perhaps loyal is not the word here, but I can't think what other word to use.

I think Rowling kept him away, made him run into snatchers, for a reason: so that he couldn't get away with his seemingly innocuous act, so that she could show that at such a time as that even the briefest moment of doubt and separation could prove almost fatal. It was not Ron's intention, but he was lucky nothing more serious happened to Harry and Hermione during his absence, or he would have been doomed: he would never have been able to forgive himself. I do think Ron's decision and vulnerability to the locket, even if it is the lightest shade of "betrayal," is supposed to help us try to understand someone like Pettigrew, who was obviously a lot worse than Ron, but also suffered from insecurities. Pettrigrew's betrayal is of course about as bad as it gets. But notice how Rowling brings those two together: Pettrigrew was Ron's pet for three years, and in the end, Ron disarms Pettigrew, and wins his wand. I know that is a most unpleasant comparison... I don't like to make it, but I can't help it. Ron is, of course, compared to Pettigrew, and to better characters as well, 100% loyal. In fact, Rowling shows us with Ron perhaps that Pettigrew didn't have to be such a traitor, even though he was insecure. He could have made a mistake like Ron did, an action that was potentially harmless, not an action that was clearly harmful.

I think Rowling kept him away, made him run into snatchers, for a reason: so that he couldn't get away with his seemingly innocuous act, so that she could show that at such a time as that even the briefest moment of doubt and separation could prove almost fatal. It was not Ron's intention, but he was lucky nothing more serious happened to Harry and Hermione during his absence, or he would have been doomed: he would never have been able to forgive himself. I do think Ron's decision and vulnerability to the locket, even if it is the lightest shade of "betrayal," is supposed to help us try to understand someone like Pettigrew, who was obviously a lot worse than Ron, but also suffered from insecurities. Pettrigrew's betrayal is of course about as bad as it gets. But notice how Rowling brings those two together: Pettrigrew was Ron's pet for three years, and in the end, Ron disarms Pettigrew, and wins his wand. I know that is a most unpleasant comparison... I don't like to make it, but I can't help it. Ron is, of course, compared to Pettigrew, and to better characters as well, 100% loyal. In fact, Rowling shows us with Ron perhaps that Pettigrew didn't have to be such a traitor, even though he was insecure. He could have made a mistake like Ron did, an action that was potentially harmless, not an action that was clearly harmful.I don't think Ron can be compared to Pettigrew at all and I also don't think that was JKR's intention. It was a nice touch, so to speak, that it was Ron, whose traitorous pet Pettigrew had been, to disarm him in the end. That is a kind of poetic justice. But, as I said, I really don't hink there are any parallels. Pettigrew was a tag along of the Marauders, he wasn't really accepted, especially by James and Sirius. Ron is an integral part of the trio and - although he himself didn't see it like that for a long time - is considered equal by his friends. Pettigrew deliberately and with full intention betrayed his friends to the very man who wanted to kill them, Ron just lost his head and ran out. He would never, never, ever have sold Harry out to DEs. So I personally see too many blatant differences to draw a kind of comparison.

Yes, Ron and Pettigrew are light years away from each other, but it can't be denied that their situation is similar in this respect: both are highly insecure, no matter how they belong to the group, and both, because of their insecurity, walked out on their friends. Yes, there are many differences, and even the nature of their insecurities is different. And obviously Ron only walked out, with many extenuating circumstances, and would never have betrayed Harry and Ron in any manner, to anyone, not just to Voldemort... Whereas Pettrigrew betrayed his friends in the worst way possible, gave them to Voldemort to murder.

But I do think Rowling wanted us to see similarities in the two situations, as well as differences, and compare the choices of the two characters. I do think she believes that insecurity is perhaps the most important cause of betrayal.

Ron's disarming of Pettigrew may show symbolically that he was able to win in the same battle that Pettigrew failed. But I do believe they had a similar battle.

originally posted by MagicLantern
I think Rowling kept him away, made him run into snatchers, for a reason: so that he couldn't get away with his seemingly innocuous act, so that she could show that at such a time as that even the briefest moment of doubt and separation could prove almost fatal. It was not Ron's intention, but he was lucky nothing more serious happened to Harry and Hermione during his absence, or he would have been doomed: he would never have been able to forgive himself.

This, I do agree with. I think it was very important that Ron was kept away for so long. It wasn't a lack of loyalty that kept him away, it was extenuating circumstances, but it showed what any misstep the trio made would do to the quest. There was no room for error.

originally posted by MagicLantern
Yes, Ron and Pettigrew are light years away from each other, but it can't be denied that their situation is similar in this respect: both are highly insecure, no matter how they belong to the group, and both, because of their insecurity, walked out on their friends. Yes, there are many differences, and even the nature of their insecurities is different. And obviously Ron only walked out, with many extenuating circumstances, and would never have betrayed Harry and Ron in any manner, to anyone, not just to Voldemort... Whereas Pettrigrew betrayed his friends in the worst way possible, gave them to Voldemort to murder.

But I do think Rowling wanted us to see similarities in the two situations, as well as differences, and compare the choices of the two characters. I do think she believes that insecurity is perhaps the most important cause of betrayal.

Ron's disarming of Pettigrew may show symbolically that he was able to win in the same battle that Pettigrew failed. But I do believe they had a similar battle.

This is a possibility. There is a bit of a parallel. Peter deals with his insecurities by seeking powerful friends. Ron deals with his by confronting them and defeating them. There, I feel the parallels end. By the time Peter betrays James and Lily, Peter is seeking power. He is self-seeking, cowardly, and ambitious. Peter becomes a model Slytherin. Ron never does this.

If anything, I feel Peter is the parallel to Snape. I believe when Dumbledore commented on sorting to early, he was referring to Pettigrew and Snape, both of whom turned out to the opposite of where they started.

And as for Ron disarming Pettigrew, it may show the difference in the choices they made, but I lean more towards it being poetic justice. Ron never got revenge on Peter for being his rat. This was the moment where he got it.

Peter deals with his insecurities by seeking powerful friends. Ron deals with his by confronting them and defeating them. There, I feel the parallels end. By the time Peter betrays James and Lily, Peter is seeking power. He is self-seeking, cowardly, and ambitious. Peter becomes a model Slytherin. Ron never does this. Yes, I agree.

There is something I just thought of though. Sorry to prolong the parallel. But this time it is more of a counterpoint comparison between Peter and Ron. I remember I kept wondering what act of gratitude would Peter perform for Harry to seal that magic contract, and I had to do a double take at how minimal it was. It was the merest hesitation while in the process of strangling him, that's all. But Voldemort's magic hand could sense even the slightest hesitation and blew it to big proportions by killing him. That is how much was good in Peter: the merest, slightest little hesitation when Harry forcefully told him that he owed him. In counterpoint to that is Ron's leaving for the merest minute, only because he was upset and pushed, only to blow off steam, (and because he was tortured by the locket, in a way the others couldn't be: after all, neither Harry nor Hermione could suffer any jealousy in that trio situation as Ron could) and yet his slightest misstep also ended up being blown to bigger proportions by circumstances, leaving Harry and Hermione alone at Godric's Hollow.

So in a sense, there is about as much good in Pettigrew as there is bad in Ron, which makes them virtual opposites, but with the merest trace of overlap. But I tend to think that overlap is intentional, for comparison.

I do wonder if a comparison can be made between Pettigrew and Kreacher. I need to think about Snape and Pettrigrew. I do think they can be compared. But I didn't quite like Dumbledore's comment, to tell you the truth. Snape looked "stricken" which made me feel he was hurt, becase Dumbledore seemed to be touting his own house as the best... I think it was done in all innocence, but it reveals a prejudice in Dumbledore that Snape must have been hurt to learn.

i think that it has to be hermione because ron walked out on harry in deathly hallows but hermione stuck by him and if it wasn't for hermione harry would of lived to see his 14 birthday but then again if it wasn't for ron harry would of been killed in the ice pool when he went to get the sword. but i think that hermione has stood by harry all the time and ron walk away from him twice.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but when I read this article it seemed to me that everything was rather far fetched and forced, like someone was determined to make a case against Ron. Certainly Ron has his flaws, but I don't really think that his flaws make him less of a friend to Harry.

I don't think you've offended anyone as many people seem to agree with you.

I've looked over the editorial. I know I'm late, but I felt that I'd give my two cents.

For the most part, the article is well-written, I just don't agree with the majority of it. To me, the author hasn't shown me how Ron is a bad friend or how Hermione is a better one. To me, Ron and Hermione are on the same level to Harry, and that's all that should truly matter anyway. Both are important to Harry, just in different ways.

I also don't feel that Ron has ever "betrayed" Harry. Having an argument and leaving to "cool off" doesn't count, imo, and as I've been saying for practically forever, this is exactly how I saw the incident in DH. Things just finally got out of control and tempers were flying between the boys.

Besides that, I'm pretty sure that before that particular incident, it was noted that everyone had some type of a negative reaction when wearing the locket, and the longer that each one wore it, the longer it took for them to get back to their right minds after taking it off. You know, like one could be more short-patient than usual, or complained more than usual.

To me, Ron had a stronger reaction to the locket, because the Horcrux had more to feed off of compared to Harry or Hermione. Ron's always been an insecure character (like Neville), they weren't making any progress, Ron was terribly worried about his family, at the time right before the argument, Harry and Hermione were unintentionally excluding him, etc., Ron just finally lost it. After he took off the locket and left after Harry told him too, he said he wanted to come right back. In other words, he came to his senses after removing the locket.

I personally felt that Ron's being so susceptible to the Locket was forshadowed much earlier in the series, as he has a time throwing off curses and charms. Look at how he reacted to Fleur later on in the series, and how her beauty had no affect on Harry what-so-ever. Anyway, the locket played off of Ron's insecurities, fears, and doubts in a big way, just like the diary did with Ginny in CoS.

I also felt that another reason JKR had Ron leave, as opposed to Hermione, was so that Ron could bring back information to Harry and Hermione. He's the only one of the three that has an actual connection to the wizarding world outside of Hogwarts. Harry and Hermione are the "foreigners" there.

Sorry for rambling. Overall, I don't see Ron's leaving in DH as a betrayal. To me, for it to have been a betrayal, he would have had to have planned leaving, imo.

Sorry about my super-long absence, but I am now back! I am glad you liked the editorial, MagicLantern - I tried nto to make it about every horrible thing I think of Ron, and saved that for the thread. Indeed, I am nto willing to budge an inch, since I am firmly convicted in my opinions. With that said, your points about Ron's concern over Ginny and the Forest. He was concerned, we all get, and already in a foul mood. But that was not a pretext for leaving Ron and Hermione. A lot of yelling, maybe a Stinging Hex, that I coudl have understood. But walking out on them is a bit too drastic for my taste, especially sicne that didn't help anyone in any way except maybe put Ron in a safer position.

bigbirdbanana, Harry's loyalty to Ron and Hermione is a whole 'nother ball game, but I'll tackle it. I'd say he most certainly has been loyal to them. He went down to the Chamber of Secrets to save Ron's baby sister, seems fairly loyal to me. He stuck by Ron no matter what, and stuck by Hermione no matter what after PoA (and before that too, most of the time). He sticks up for Hermione in GoF against Snape (to great personal peril). He stands up for Ron and Hermione against Mrs. Weasley at the beginning of OotP even though in his eyes they haven't been very fair in resepct to him. He's always trying to get them to stay away from his adventures out of concern, though he knows it'll make his own life that much more difficult. So yeah, I'd say Harry's loyal.

inkling7, this talk is so much about snogging and dating because we've somehow moved far past just the friendships are are now discussing them as characters. dweaselqueen, I just don't see how Ron could have assumed Hermione and Krum were dating in HBP when he hasn't seen nor heard hide nor hair of Krum sicne GoF, and his only evidence is one novel-length letter (which Hermione says is just for Viktor as a pen pal) and one kiss two years ago. I give Ron more credit than that, he's not that dumb.

inkling7, I'm not equating Ron's betrayal with Pettigrew's. However, walking out would have been just that: wlaking out. Disapparating is a whole other deal. How could he have known what would happen? Maybe he hasn't noticed while he's been running for his life, but the world isn't a safe place at the moment.

MagicLantern, I think you're absolutely right in this case. Perhaps I ahve been using the wrong word here, I think "abandoned" is more fitting. People in this thread have tried to downplay Ron's walking out, and I think that if it was that harmless, it wouldn't have been included. We were supposed to be shocked, we all loved Ron so much, and this was a huge letdown. Apparently some got over it, I didn't. Let me ask you this: if Harry and Hermione HAD been killed in Godric's Hollow, what would you think of Ron? He just got INCREDIBLY lucky that Dumbledore had foreseen this and given him a way back, and that Hermione's quick thinking saved herself and Harry.

Gryffindor_heir, I'm glad you agree! Thanks for joining in the debate, even if it was short, sweet, and simple!

It's okay, pumpkinheadRon, no offense taken - I've been hearing it for 6 pages in a much less timid way (like from inkling7). I didn't go out of my way to make a case against Ron because in my opinion the case was already there when I started writing and I just put it together.

SSJ_Jup81, great of you to jump in - better late than never (which is my excuse at the moment, I've neglected this thread for a month!). I'm glad you at leats liek the writing, sicne that's the only positive comment I can get at the moemnt it seems! (I'm finishing up an editorial for the March Burrow, maybe that one will be more popular). You do bring up an interesting point about Fleur. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Harry wasn't at all affected by veela (he sure was affected by the veela at the World Cup), and I saw Ron as just falling for her looks like so many other guys - otherwise, it makes no sense for Harry to go ga-ga at the Cup but not react to Fleur. Ron's infatuation with Fleur was the smae as Harry's infatuation with Cho - nothing more than a first schoolboy crush.

Once again, terribly sorry for my absence (I had a February you wouldn't believe), and I'm back now!

originally posted by hpboy13
dweaselqueen, I just don't see how Ron could have assumed Hermione and Krum were dating in HBP when he hasn't seen nor heard hide nor hair of Krum sicne GoF, and his only evidence is one novel-length letter (which Hermione says is just for Viktor as a pen pal) and one kiss two years ago. I give Ron more credit than that, he's not that dumb.

I'm not saying Ron is dumb. I was arguing that he thought Hermione should like Krum. Hermione had been writing letters to Krum, just because we only saw one doesn't mean Ron can't suspect there were more. What does she do up in her room? For all he knows, Hermione has written hundreds of such letters. Add the kiss, and he assumes that the reason Hermione is still talking to Krum is because she still likes him as more then a friend. Plus, if I remember correctly, Ginny said Hermione kissed Krum. For most of us, that implies a chaste kiss, a little peck. But horrified Ron starts imagining some serious snogging action. After all, Ginny was likening herself to Hermione and Ron had just walked in on Ginny in a very passionate embrace. What else would his mind jump to?

originally posted by hpboy13
Let me ask you this: if Harry and Hermione HAD been killed in Godric's Hollow, what would you think of Ron? He just got INCREDIBLY lucky that Dumbledore had foreseen this and given him a way back, and that Hermione's quick thinking saved herself and Harry

What if Hermione or Harry had said Ron's name right away and he had been able to come back within hours? Would you be so mad at him. It really would be like he had just stepped out for a tantrum. The only reason Ron wasn't back by Christmas was because Harry and Hermione refused to even say his name. He could have been there in time. Would you be so mad if he had?

In this case, a lot of the fault does lie with Ron for walking out. His ability to come back, however, was entirely up to Hermione and Harry. All they had to do was mention him, even if Hermione had just whispered his name while on guard duty or collecting food, and Ron would have been back.

Canon states that he would have come back instantly anyways, were it not for the Snatchers. I think the main point here was to show that any mistake was fatal to the trio. Ron left in anger. Disapparating is no different to wizards then taking a drive would be for us muggles. If not for the Snatchers, it would have been just like one of us driving around the block, and then deciding that this had been a stupid idea and we needed to go back. This is what Ron did. Is it his fault that he "drove" into gang territory at the end of the block? Is it his fault that Harry and Hermione moved away so quickly?

Really, that was rather stupid of them. Ron wanted to come back, and they didn't give him the chance to come back. They should've stayed the night, just to see if he would come back.

I'm going to remind you all again about rule 2A.

2a. The goal of CoS Forums is to make sure everyone has a good time and can make friends. Obviously not everyone will agree with one another and we ask that you respect the opinions of others. Making sarcastic, or rude remarks directed at another member, or attacking others for holding views different to your own will not be tolerated.

Please keep things friendly, the author of this article obviously holds a view that a lot of you don't agree with but it's no reason to get personal.

SSJ_Jup81, great of you to jump in - better late than never (which is my excuse at the moment, I've neglected this thread for a month!). I'm glad you at leats liek the writing, sicne that's the only positive comment I can get at the moemnt it seems! It is well written, no denying that, just don't fully agree with the outcome, I suppose. ^^(I'm finishing up an editorial for the March Burrow, maybe that one will be more popular).What's it going to be about?You do bring up an interesting point about Fleur. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Harry wasn't at all affected by veela (he sure was affected by the veela at the World Cup), and I saw Ron as just falling for her looks like so many other guys - otherwise, it makes no sense for Harry to go ga-ga at the Cup but not react to Fleur. Ron's infatuation with Fleur was the smae as Harry's infatuation with Cho - nothing more than a first schoolboy crush.That's not exactly what I meant, though. After the first time with Harry that was pretty much it. Harry also has a gift, imo, of being able to throw off charms and curses. Ron on the other hand doesn't seem to be so lucky in this regard. We see in the text that he is susceptible to charms, and, imo, the way he reacts with Fleur kind of shows this, especially when he went on to say in HBP, I think it was, that he has to make sure he's prepared whenever greeting her. It's like Fleur is giving off her Veela charms and effects without even trying and Ron just has a strong reaction to it.

I also don't feel that Ron was ever infatuated with Fleur. To me, he never seemed to want a relationship with her, not like how Harry wanted a relationship with Cho, but of course, the books are from Harry's POV, so I can only go by observation.

To me, I do feel that Ron, like most guys, found Fleur attractive, but the way he acted around her and "preparing himself" when bumping into her in HBP doesn't really seem like infatuation or even an actual innocent crush to me. The way he was where Madame Rosemerta (wasn't it?) was concerned seemed more innocent boyish crush to me in comparison, which is why I feel that Fleur was always pouring on her Veela charm without fully realizing it.

dweaselqueen, can you really blame Harry and Hermione for not saying Ron's name? Their best friend (and the boy Hermione loved) had just abandoned them after basically saying that Harry was a miserable failure, I don't particularly blame them for not wanting to bring it up. And they waited as long as they possibly coudl, even delaying their departure the following day as long as they could. But in the end, they had to move so they wouldn't be sitting ducks for Voldemort.

SSJ_Jup81, I don't think Harry's spell-resistance is what's keepign him away from Fleur - notice that none of the other Weasley boys, except Bill, are that crazy about her either. I'd say Ron does have an infatuation with her - and it seems he wants to pursue something because he does ask her to the Yule Ball. Also, Harry doesn't seem to be spell-resistant, he just seems to be very strong-willed, which allows him to block stuff like the Imperius Curse

Also, whatever Ron likened Hermione's kissing to, it's time to understand that even if she had a crush on Viktor, he was off in Bulgaria and she was obviously entertaining notions of Ron and Hemrione together. He also has a crush on Madam Rosmerta and makes an idiot of himself in front of Fleur, yet that doesn't cause Hermione to start making out with random guys.

Oh, and as for the editorial - it's about each characters choice of Hallow reveals stuff abotu them, it's submitted, but 3 days past the deadline, so I dunno if it'll get accepted (I have hopes though, cuz this Burrow topic doesn't seem that popular). I guess now I'll try to cook up something for the April issue.

originally posted by hpboy13
dweaselqueen, can you really blame Harry and Hermione for not saying Ron's name? Their best friend (and the boy Hermione loved) had just abandoned them after basically saying that Harry was a miserable failure, I don't particularly blame them for not wanting to bring it up. And they waited as long as they possibly coudl, even delaying their departure the following day as long as they could. But in the end, they had to move so they wouldn't be sitting ducks for Voldemort.


No, I don't blame them for not bringing up Ron's name. I was simply saying that if they said something about him, whether to each other, or to themselves, Ron would have been back. It's not his fault how long he was gone, he wanted to return immediately. The Snatchers, and Harry and Hermione's determination not to talk about him kept Ron away. I don't blame them for that, they were disappointed and it was certainly a hard topic to discuss.

originally posted by hpboy13
Also, whatever Ron likened Hermione's kissing to, it's time to understand that even if she had a crush on Viktor, he was off in Bulgaria and she was obviously entertaining notions of Ron and Hemrione together. He also has a crush on Madam Rosmerta and makes an idiot of himself in front of Fleur, yet that doesn't cause Hermione to start making out with random guys.

Yes, but his crush on Rosmerta is just a school boy crush. It causes him to blush and stammer, but he doesn't actually desire a relationship with her. He just wants to impress her. With Fleur, Ron is simply more susceptible to charms that affect the mind. We have seen this with the veela, the Imperius charm, and with the locket. Ron wears his heart on his sleeve and has always been more susceptible to these types of charms then Harry. Harry was overwhelmed by the presence of so many Veela at the Quidditch World Cup, but with only Fleur, it wasn't a problem for him, much like he was able to throw off the Imperius curse.

Hermione laughes at Ron's silly crush on Rosmerta, because she knows nothing can come of it. She's annoyed with Fleur, because Fleur is gorgeous and seemingly vapid, and she sees it as proof that Ron only likes the beautiful girls, the girl she will never be. But, when Ron dates Lavender, the first real threat, Hermione goes off the deep end and invites McLaggen to Slughorn's party to make Ron jealous. So it's not really fair to say Hermione never tried snogging a guy for revenge. Ron kissed Lavender because he thought he'd lost Hermione and settled for a girl who obviously liked him, Hermione retaliated by inviting the one guy she was sure would make Ron furious.

We have to remember that Ron was thinking about Krum and started treating Hermione coolly as he collected his thoughts about it. He didn't kiss Lavender until Hermione said he couldn't have played that fabulous Quidditch game on his own. In his mind, that was proof that he would never be good enough for her. Then there was Lavender, gushing over how great he was and he figured that this was a girl who appreciated him, she was pretty, and Hermione must have only invited him as a friend because he wasn't good enough for her. At that point, it wasn't about Krum, it was about believing Hermione thought he was second-rate and wasn't interested in him like that. Krum became a rationalization when he realized that he goofed.

SSJ_Jup81, I don't think Harry's spell-resistance is what's keepign him away from Fleur - notice that none of the other Weasley boys, except Bill, are that crazy about her either.But Ron says that he has to keep himself prepared whenever going around her. In my opinion, he's always been weak where Fleur's been concerned.I'd say Ron does have an infatuation with her - and it seems he wants to pursue something because he does ask her to the Yule Ball.But Ron didn't ask Fleur voluntarily. She was trying to get Cedric Diggory's attention, iirc, at the time. Ron wasn't paying her any mind until he suddenly, and randomly, asked Fleur to the ball when he and Harry were walking past her. That's how Harry explained it anyway, that Ron got the full effect of Fleur's Veela charms.Also, Harry doesn't seem to be spell-resistant, he just seems to be very strong-willed, which allows him to block stuff like the Imperius CurseBut why would JKR write him this way, same with Ron. Ron can't even throw off basic charms, which must means that he's susceptible to them and other spells.He also has a crush on Madam RosmertaIMO, in the same way Hermione had a crush on Lockhart. Nice and innocent.and makes an idiot of himself in front of Fleur,I still feel that her being part Veela has a whole lot to do with it.yet that doesn't cause Hermione to start making out with random guys.Ron started up with Lavandar because Lavendar was doing something that Hermione wasn't...giving him attention in a romantic sense. He took her up on her offer, and from early one, Lavendar was flirting with Ron, even before Ron and Hermione had their falling out. To Ron, Hermione would never like a guy like him and would prefer guys like Viktor. In other words, Ron gave up and felt he'd "lost the battle", why bother fighting the war?

SSJ_Jup81 - i completely agree with your post above this one.
hpboy13 - for this to have been a good editorial you would have had to have explored all of hermione's flaws, not just ron's. You can't prove that he is any less of a friend, by only looking at what he's done wrong. Also, as somebody else said, Hermione and Ron's circumstances were completely different, therefore incomparable.
Hermione was a rational, even-tempered person with great skill and intellect. She also knew that her family was safe, so she didn't have to worry about them.
Ron was insecure, short-tempered, however he had useful connections. He was always on edge about whether his family was still alive, as he was best friends with 'Undesirable No. 1', therefore they were obvious targets. His sister was at a school swarming with Death Eaters and anybody causing them trouble was punished severely.

With Ron's situation with Lavendar, I'm sure some people have hooked up with a person because that person was being affectionate and loving towards you and found the person attractive, especially someone who's terribly inexperienced, which Ron was. Thinking about it, I can honestly say I've done it. I was with a guy, but, after a while, I didn't want to be with him anymore since I realized there was no emotional connection (not on my side, anyway). It took me the longest time before I could finally break it off. I went out of my way to get him to the point where he'd be willing to ditch me. I guess you could say I was a wimp since I didn't want to hurt his feelings. I felt Ron was doing the same with Lavendar after a while.

That OT stuff aside, that's why I feel you can't really fault Ron for being with Lavendar. As it was pointed out, why keep chasing a girl who seemingly doesn't want you? Those were the type of signals Hermione was giving out to Ron. She shielded her emotions much too well.

Maybe you should rewrite this and include Hermione's flaws too, as bigbirdbanana suggested, as we'd have more even ground with both characters.

I'm not rewriting anything, I like the editorial as is. Besides, I believe ten pages of debating has provided more than enough ground for both characters.

Ron seemed to just be looking for an excuse to find fault with Hermione. Only with the broadest stretch of imagination can one translate Hermione's ocncern over Felix Felicis into her not liking him. And Hermione hooked up with McClaggen as revenge once Ron actively ditched her in favor of Lavender witht he sheer purpose of hurting her - which is quite different form getting revenge for her kissing a guy two years ago.

Maybe you should rewrite this and include Hermione's flaws too, as bigbirdbanana suggested, as we'd have more even ground with both characters.

Or have a totally different editorial or a second parter dealing with Hermione's flaws. I'm sure we'd all welcome and enjoy the debate :)

Ron seemed to just be looking for an excuse to find fault with Hermione. Only with the broadest stretch of imagination can one translate Hermione's ocncern over Felix Felicis into her not liking him.She came across as doubting Ron's Quidditch abilities. Instead of congratulating him, she pretty much put him down, even if she didn't actually mean to do so. And Hermione hooked up with McClaggen as revenge once Ron actively ditched her in favor of Lavender witht he sheer purpose of hurting her - which is quite different form getting revenge for her kissing a guy two years ago.But you seem to ignore the fact that Hermione hurt him first, though, unintentional, which ran him off in the first place. Remember, Hermione has always said and maintained that she liked Viktor only as a friend. Ron believed her, apparently, but when he found out that they supposedly kissed (I'm one of those who don't believe they did, but that's for another discussion), that there was more to it and of course, the doubts started to go throughout his mind, like, "Why would Hermione like a guy like me when she can have a great guy like Viktor?" In a way, Hermione wasn't honest with him. In comparison, Ron is definitely a more honest character than both Harry and Hermione, since, when you think about it, he's the most open of the three.

Or have a totally different editorial or a second parter dealing with Hermione's flaws. I'm sure we'd all welcome and enjoy the debate :)That works even better.:tu::cool:

Sorry to jump into the discussion at this late stage, seems there are strong opinions on both sides. Having read the original editorial, no offence intended, but I really don't think it is exactly fair to take Ron's mistake in Deathly Hallows as a starting point to condemn Ron and view him throughout the series in a negative light. Yes, leaving Harry and Hermione was a mistake, but the circumstances were extreme and he was worried about his family, a concern Hermione didn't have weighing on her to the same extent. Disapparating was not a good idea, but Ron would have come back straight away had he not run into the Snatchers. As has already been mentioned, it was more or less the equivalent of getting into the car and driving off while angry instead of giving each other space in the house/tent. Not a good idea, but it happens. Ron made a mistake, no denying it, but that doesn't mean that his actions throughout the series should be reconsidered with this in mind.

FurryDice, welcome! You say we shouldn't reconsider his actions. Tell me, are you nto going to reconsider Snape's actions after learning all that we did about him in DH? There's actually a great editorial recently posted that does just that. Are you not going to reconsider all that Dumbledore says to Harry knowing that he's being reared up for slaughter. Whenever we come across new information, we apply it to the old, and that's just what I did.

SSJ_Jup81, how did she come across as doubting his abilties? She saw Harry slip something in Ron's drink and then saw a ridiculously lucky game played - I don't see how the logical conclusion of it being Felix is doubting Ron's abilities, espeically when he himself suspected the same thing! As for Ron finding otu they kissed - that was 2 years ago, when it was pretty clear that they were more than friends. As I like to say sometimes, he needs to build a bridge and GET OVER IT, since it's pretty clear they aren't a couple when he's hundreds of kilometers away. As for why Hermione would choose a guy like Ron, I'll admit that one is beytond me, btu the fact remains that she did. But how is Hermione dishonest? She just wanted to keep something personal. Harry wasn't gonna kiss-and-tell in OotP, yet Hermione guessed it. Ron obviously isn't that sophisticated, so when he finally started kissing it was for the world to see, but some people actually like to keep romantic relations private (though that's totally not my style, I'm the resident gossiper)

originally posted by hpboy13
how did she come across as doubting his abilties? She saw Harry slip something in Ron's drink and then saw a ridiculously lucky game played - I don't see how the logical conclusion of it being Felix is doubting Ron's abilities, espeically when he himself suspected the same thing!

Yes, Ron suspected it too. But the way Hermione says it, it sounds as though she believes there was no way any of it could have happened if it had not been for the lucky potion. Ron was working through the placebo effect, but Hermione makes it sound as though he couldn't have ever done it with out the potion. To come out of the game, realize he did it all on his own, and then hear Hermione imply that he couldn't have done it without magical help convinces Ron that Hermione can't possibly really like him.

originally posted by hpboy13
As for Ron finding otu they kissed - that was 2 years ago, when it was pretty clear that they were more than friends. As I like to say sometimes, he needs to build a bridge and GET OVER IT, since it's pretty clear they aren't a couple when he's hundreds of kilometers away

As I said before, it wasn't so much that he believed they were a couple, as that they should be. Ron's insecurities led him to believe that Hermione should prefer someone like Viktor. What Ginny was implying with that argument was that Ron was romantically unworthy of Hermione. She was throwing his inexperience in his face. Ron thought he could never follow suave, older, experienced Krum. Hermione would expect more from him because she was more experienced then him.

originally posted by hpboy13
As for why Hermione would choose a guy like Ron, I'll admit that one is beytond me, btu the fact remains that she did

That's exactly how Ron was thinking though (sans the but she did part). He couldn't fathom why Hermione would choose someone like him over Harry or Krum, and so concluded that she didn't, and that she must have asked him to the party as a friend only because she thought it would be fun, or there was no one better to ask.

As to why Hermione liked Ron, I completely understand that (being a Hermione-ish personality myself). Hermione needs someone who balances her out. Hermione is a perfectionist and Ron teaches her to loosen up. Left to her own devices, Hermione was a loner, but Ron understands her and helps her to interact with people, like Harry, better. They are both insecure, stubborn, and loyal. Hermione forces Ron to focus. I could go on and on, but the fact is that they complement each other very well.

originally posted by hpboy13
But how is Hermione dishonest? She just wanted to keep something personal. Harry wasn't gonna kiss-and-tell in OotP, yet Hermione guessed it. Ron obviously isn't that sophisticated, so when he finally started kissing it was for the world to see, but some people actually like to keep romantic relations private (though that's totally not my style, I'm the resident gossiper)

But Hermione isn't truly honest with Ron. I'm not saying she should have just gone up to him and said, "Yeah last night was fun. I kissed Viktor". That would be awkward. But she did hide away her feelings. She was so scared of Ron not returning her feelings for him that she guarded her feelings, except for a few rare instances. Even when she asked him out, she was still very guarded with her feelings. If Hermione had been a little less reserved, it would have given Ron less to second guess later.

Now this isn't truly dishonest, but in a way it is. She unitentionally lied to Ron by keeping her true feelings hidden from everyone. She snapped at him, while she praised Harry. Who could blame Ron for second guessing all those anvils?

You say we shouldn't reconsider his actions. Tell me, are you nto going to reconsider Snape's actions after learning all that we did about him in DH? There's actually a great editorial recently posted that does just that. Are you not going to reconsider all that Dumbledore says to Harry knowing that he's being reared up for slaughter. Whenever we come across new information, we apply it to the old, and that's just what I did.

hpboy13, Snape and Dumbledores circumstances are different as they were intentionally doing these things, knowing what lay ahead having a reason for their actions. For Ron, this was a separate action to everything else he does. With Snape and Dumbledore, we learned knew information, their actions were based on this information. Whereas, Ron walked out in the heat of the moment, evrything he did in the past, was not done because he knew that he was going to walk out.

[QUOTE=hpboy13;4958633]FurryDice, welcome! You say we shouldn't reconsider his actions. Tell me, are you nto going to reconsider Snape's actions after learning all that we did about him in DH? There's actually a great editorial recently posted that does just that. Are you not going to reconsider all that Dumbledore says to Harry knowing that he's being reared up for slaughter. Whenever we come across new information, we apply it to the old, and that's just what I did.

QUOTE]

As bigbirdbanana has already pointed out, the situations are completely different, Snape knew from shortly after Lily died that he was going to do whatever it took to keep her son safe and also, to bring down the man? who killed her, should he ever return. Dumbledore knew Harry would have to die probably as soon as he knew Harry was an almost-Horcrux. In both cases, they knew years in advance what they were doing and why. Ron, on the other hand, knew about five seconds before he did that he was going to storm out of the tent and disapparate.

As for the placebo Felix and getting together with Lavender, Ron had clearly seen that Hermione didn't believe him capable of succeeding on his own merit, from his perspective anyway. I think Hermione knew that Ron could succeed, just that he lacked confidence, but arguing with Harry about Felix Felicis in front of Ron was the wrong way to go about it. Ron took this as a sign that the girl he had liked for so long considered him unworthy of her and responded by getting off with someone who had been throwing herself at him. I think perhaps it would have been a better idea on Hermione's part to confront Harry quietly about the Felix Felicis rather than in front of a euphoric Ron. Talk about bursting his bubble.

Come one hpboy - tell us why you REALLY dislike Ron so much and really like Hermione so much. After all you've read the counter-arguments so please put me out of my misery and tell me why you didn't point out Hermione's faults while emphasising Ron's. There has to be some reason as it isn't like you not to examine both sides of the story. Please put us out of our misery and explain.

Okay, this is an interesting discussion. HPBOY, it seems to me your basic argument is that Ron is disloyal to Harry in his darkest hour, whereas Hermione is there for him.

The counter argument seems to be that Ron had a weak moment, but then got over it and righted the ship.

The reason people are getting testy with each other is that each feels the other side (in this case, HPBOY vs. the world) has already made up their mind and is only looking to support their position with the book passages they find most apt. This makes people frustrated, especially in a chat where things like body language, ton, and immediacy of response are all missing.

The facts are this: Ron left Harry, Ron wanted to come back but physically couldn't, and then Ron was there. Meanwhile, Hermione was there the whole time.

Conclusion: in this instance, Hermione did better by Harry than Ron did.

Faulty conclusion: on the whole, Hermione did better by Harry than Ron did.

You cannot take one example and extrapolate it to the whole body of a person's life. We all have episodes we are not proud of, times when the people we are counting on let us down. But is that the moment that defines them? I submit that there is no definitive moment, rather a series of moments that make up the whole of a life, which is hard to judge with our limited ability to understand one another.

I'm not saying Hermione wasn't a better friend to Harry throughout the books. I'm saying that the episode of the horcrux does not make the case for it. As for your other examples, they also fall short.

You cannot take one example and extrapolate it to the whole body of a person's life. We all have episodes we are not proud of, times when the people we are counting on let us down. But is that the moment that defines them? I submit that there is no definitive moment, rather a series of moments that make up the whole of a life, which is hard to judge with our limited ability to understand one another. I agree with this, personally. Just look at Dumbledore's character. As a youth, he had a purist mentality, but changed that view over time. Of course we don't judge him for that dark time in his life, right? We judge him as a whole, and overall, for the most part, he was a decent, and nice character, though a bit odd at times.

well summed up by seasnake and ssj_jup81

dweaselqueen, maybe Ron was thinking that he was unworthy - but how exactly would hooking up with Lavender make him any MORE worthy of Hermione? Hermione didn't come across as doubting his abilities, she came across as logically concluding that Felix was involved - Ron was just desperate to make a case against her because she dared to kiss another guy two years ago when he didn't have the guts to ask her out. And if Ron thought he couldn't follow Krum's kissing technique because of inexperience, I'm sure Hermione would gladly have taught him (one of my best friends is in that situation right now, but the guy's - whose name is Ron - kissing inexperience didn't turn her away!)

bigbirdbanana and FurryDice, maybe the situations are different, but for readers it's the same - we read things differently in retrospect. I had been under the impression that Ron was merely envious of Harry's material goods before HBP, after HBP I saw that Ron was desperately jealous of any guy Hermione could have a relationship with, and in DH I saw that he succumbed to those insecurities at the worst possible moment. And that got me mentally going back through the books, and I relaized Ron wasn't so great after all.

inkling7, I'll put you out of your misery: I DON'T LIKE RON BECAUSE HE BETRAYED HIS FRIENDS. For Merlin's sake, I've been saying that for 7 pages in this thread alone, one'd think it would sink in by now. I like Hermione because she's the loyal friend who has done everything and more for Harry.

seasnake, you've hit the nail on the head as to why this argument is going nowhere: we've all already made up our minds, and no one's gonna give an inch. It was the absolutely same thing with Snape's loyalties before DH - how many times did anyone convince a person of the opposite view? This isn't an abstract thing no one's thought about like a Pettigrew/Petunia romance (that one drew a few what-ifs?), it's just like when a friend of mine wrote an essay in Bellatrix's defense a year back, and the thread on Leaky grew to 27 pages but no one was convinced.

Anyway, you say that we can't judge a person by one event - but that event causes us to go through others and then we make judgment. In DD's case, once we found out he was purist, we went back to all the other stuff he's done, and concluded that on the whole he's still a protector of the weak. In Ron's case, going back through the books I find his whole track record on the whole to be rather negative. If you think my other examples fall short, that's fine (msot people think all of my exampels do), but I stand by what I said.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion, however i think that saying that ron betrayed his friends is wrong. he was helping harry voluntarily and he, unlike the others, had his family to worry about. him being with harry made them an obvious target, however he stayed with harry until he left in the heat of the moment. For harry, this search was his life, there was nothing outside of it. For hermione, she had nowhere to go either as she was a muggle-born and would have been sent to azkaban. Ron was the only one who really had a choice about being there, and he was the only one who endangered his family to do it.
Remember that Ron could have stayed with Fleur and bill, but he decided to go back, away from safety. He was the only one with a real choice whether or not to be there. And he chose to come back.

Ear! Ear! As George said. hpboy it seems you are in a minority when you "shouted" at me in a written sense that Ron betrayed his friends. He didn't but you don't seem to want to listen to those trying to explain why. Do you really despise Ron that much and if so why? It can't be only because you think he betrayed his friends since if they thought so why did Hermione end up marrying him? I certainly couldn't marry anyone who betrayed me by potting my life in danger and Harry still preferred his companionship to Hermione's so obviously they didn't think he betrayed them.

dweaselqueen, maybe Ron was thinking that he was unworthyYeah, pretty much.but how exactly would hooking up with Lavender make him any MORE worthy of Hermione?This has already been explained. He felt that Hermione was a lost cause. She would never like a guy like him since she's better suited with great guys like Viktor or Harry. If she wants a guy like Viktor, then let her have one. He went with Lavendar because she was genuinely showing a romantic interest in him. She was throwing herself at him. As I've mentioned before, why go after a girl who doesn't want you, or comes across as not wanting you? Hermione was extremely ambiguous and came across as such, since she shielded her feelings so much and so often where Ron was concerned.Hermione didn't come across as doubting his abilities, she came across as logically concluding that Felix was involvedThat's doubting his abilities, even if she didn't mean to come across that way. Hermione should've talked to Harry about Felix without Ron's being there, imo. In other words, to Ron, Hermione didn't feel that he could play a good game on his own merit.

That's like a child coming home with an excellent mark on a school assignment, and then someone the child cares about, like say a parent, saying that you had to have cheated, or that there has to be some other reason for the mark outside of the child genuinely earning it. This is how Hermione came across by insisting that Felix had something do with Ron's victory. Harry was trying give Ron confidence, but, in a way, Hermione stripped him of it, in this incidence.Ron was just desperate to make a case against her because she dared to kiss another guy two years ago when he didn't have the guts to ask her out. And if Ron thought he couldn't follow Krum's kissing technique because of inexperience, I'm sure Hermione would gladly have taught him (one of my best friends is in that situation right now, but the guy's - whose name is Ron - kissing inexperience didn't turn her away!)I don't think it was that. Hermione always said that nothing happened between she and Viktor and said that she never had a romantic interest in him. To Ron, it seemed like a betrayal since Hermione said one thing and did another. The main thing to note though is the timing and manner that he found out about it. That probably contributed a lot. I will admit this, this is the main thing I did dislike where Ron was concerned. He should've talked to Hermione, but given the fact that he berated and chastised by his baby sister, that probably just put him in an overall bad mood.inkling7, I'll put you out of your misery: I DON'T LIKE RON BECAUSE HE BETRAYED HIS FRIENDS. For Merlin's sake, I've been saying that for 7 pages in this thread alone, one'd think it would sink in by now. I like Hermione because she's the loyal friend who has done everything and more for Harry.The problem is that a lot of people don't see how Ron's actions count as a "betrayal". Leaving in the heat of an argument doesn't count as a betrayal, and, imo, seems you're grasping straws with saying so. It seems you don't want to agree with that, at least. In DH, Ron left after an argument. This is completely normal. My mother's even done that before, ironically. She and my father had a disagreement this one time that comes to mind. In the heat of the argument, she got in the car and drove off to cool her head since she was so upset with my father for whatever the reason. She came back a short time later, cooled off, and she and dad discussed whatever the problem was. My father had the time to cool down too since my mother went out. This is exactly what Ron did...or would have done, if he would've been able to. The text supports this very well through context and dialogue. It's also been pointed out that, that one of them would've ended up leaving at some point. Harry wouldn't have worked, and Hermione definitely wouldn't since she has no connections to the Wizarding World. Ron's the only one who had a real connection outside of Hogwarts.

That aside, to say that Hermione's never betrayed Harry, from Harry's point of view, is kind of wrong. Look at PoA and Hermione's reporting the broom to McGonagall. Harry refused to speak to her for weeks because of it, even though she was just genuinely concerned about his safety, but going behind his back and "tattling", I guess you could call it, just didn't sit well with Harry. Even in GoF, after he'd cooled off after the argument with Ron, the next morning he was planning on talking to him. In PoA, Harry didn't think twice about talking to Herrmione, even though she was just worried about him.

How can you call a spontaneous reaction (during a time where one is being manipulated) a betrayal, but not when someone does something intentional not?

We must also remember that Ron felt he was ignored by his 'loving' mother - she was aware he hated maroon as a color but persisted in knotting him jumpers of that color. She was aware he hated corned-beef sandwiches but gave them to him to eat on the train. No wonder he felt ignored and unimportant. I have the feeling that all his siblings got jumpers in the colors they liked and even Harry probably liked the color of the jumper she made for him. Molly loved Ron but he just got lost in the confusion of having so many siblings and being the youngest male.

Now tell me who would not feel just a little insecure if that happened to them? This however doesn't make him a lessor friend IMO. It makes me understand why he acted that way and I think Harry (especially) and Hermione understood this too.

I DON'T LIKE RON BECAUSE HE BETRAYED HIS FRIENDS.No, he didn't. And Harry and Hermione, as well as the author of the books, don't see it that way either. If Ron had betrayed his friends, then Harry would have quit the friendship and Hermione certainly hadn't married Ron later. What you're basically saying by your insistence on Ron being a traitor is that Harry and Hermione must be stupid, because they are actually friends with this awful person for years and forgive him for leaving.


Ron did never betray anyone. He never betrayed any of the causes Harry was fighting for. He never went to the DEs or to Voldemort himself to convey Harry’s mission. Ron never talked bad about Harry or Hermione against their backs. Ron never intentionally and actively did something AGAINST Harry or Hermione. He just lost his head, under an evil influence moreover, let his temper get the best of him and made a stupid mistake and was then prevented from righting this mistake by external circumstances (the Snatchers). If you have a problem with Ron’s personality, his temper and his insecurities, then it’s your good right to hate this character, but it’s indeed a faulty conclusion to say he is bad, illoyal friend.

bigbirdbanana, Hermione actually had just as much of a choice as Ron - she coudl have simply fled to Australia with her parents and been perfectly safe. Instead, she chooses to make her family forget her to stand by Harry. SHe makes the choice to stand by Harry and actually sees it through all the way.

inkling7, maybe I am in the minority, but I stand by what I said. He did betray them, he abandoned them in their darkest hour, and that constitutes betrayal. And that is why I despise Ron, though it's fairly obvious you don't intend to believe me.

SSJ_Jup81, how was Hermione a lost cause when she just asked Ron otu on a date? If he had hooke dup with Lavender before that, then I could see where he was coming from. But as it stands, he hooked up with Lavender just when Hermione finally asked him out. If you want to use that child analogy, okay. In your instance, you'd eb right. But this situation is mroe analagous to the parent seeing the child glance at his enighbor's paper, and knowing that the child usually does much worse than that, and then concluding the child must have cheated - is that "doubting his abiltiies"?

I don't recall Hermione ever syaing that nothing happened between her and Viktor. In OotP, she said there was nothing going on between her and Viktor, which was true at that moment. I think it's fairly obvious she had a romantic interest in Viktor in GoF, she wouldn't have been dumb enough to deny it.

I personally think you're grasping at straws when you're trying to defend Ron's actions here. All of your analogies don't take into accoutn the circumstances they were in. If, in the example you provided, your parents had been on the run for their lives I don't think your mom's driving off would have been taken to as kindly. If the Trio had been out for a stroll around the Burrow and Ron Disapparated, I wouldn't hold that against him. But as the circumstances stood, he couldn't afford to Disapparate, and I don't see why he couldn't have just walked away from the campsite to brood for a bit.

I don't see Hermione's act as betrayal because she was doing it with Harry's best interests in mind, and because she turned otu to be right in the end. If Ron's leaving would have helped Harry in any way, or at leats been done with the intent of making Harry safe, that would have been another story. And Ron wasn't being manipulated, he was being egged on by the locket. He left AFTER he took off the locket, so he can't use htat as an excuse (and he never tries to, actually)

inkling7, what gives you the idea that all the othyer Weasleys got the sweaters they wanted (Percy, for one, didn't seem too eager to wear his)? If Molly confused Ron's tastes a few times, I fail to see hwo that coems across as ignoring him. Hell, I'm an only child, and my mom still gets me stuff I don't like sometimes - mothers can't memorize all of your tastes, espeically when there are seven kids.

ronjalina, I never said that Hermione and Harry should never forgive Ron. I think Hermione did the right thing by giving Ron a piece of her mind and not letting him off the hook, but eventually of course she'd forgive him. As for Haryr, he was probably influenced by the fact that Ron had just saved his life. Maybe Ron never went against the Order (as if he could - I'm sure the DEs wouldn't welcome him with open arms), but he still abandoned Haryr and Hermione in their darkest hour.

SSJ_Jup81, how was Hermione a lost cause when she just asked Ron otu on a date?She asked him to a party, she didn't indicate that they were going as anything other than friends. Ron even told Harry that. Hermione didn't say anything. We could tell that it meant more, though, because we're the objective readers.If he had hooke dup with Lavender before that, then I could see where he was coming from. But as it stands, he hooked up with Lavender just when Hermione finally asked him out.But they're friends; there's nothing wrong with asking a friend to a party. As it's been pointed out, Hermione didn't indicate openly or directly that she wanted to go as more than that.If you want to use that child analogy, okay. In your instance, you'd eb right. But this situation is mroe analagous to the parent seeing the child glance at his enighbor's paper, and knowing that the child usually does much worse than that, and then concluding the child must have cheated - is that "doubting his abiltiies"?But it's wrong to make assumptions. Hermione came across as doubtful of Ron's abilities, and that's the bottom line here. She pretty much crushed his ego there. I'm surprised she didn't use more tact here and just talk to Harry in private about it.I don't recall Hermione ever syaing that nothing happened between her and Viktor. In OotP, she said there was nothing going on between her and Viktor, which was true at that moment. I think it's fairly obvious she had a romantic interest in Viktor in GoF, she wouldn't have been dumb enough to deny it.Sorry, I have to deny it since, to me, she never seemed fond of Viktor in a romantic sense. Taken with him for noticing her yes, but not romantically interested in him. To me, she ignored him way too much and seemed to get annoyed after the second task when she was the thing that Viktor would miss most, but that's for another discussion.

hpboy13 - remember that Ron had just taken the locket off and had had bad thoughts racing through his brain for several hours and he was probably starting to believe it. He also had left his family in danger and was worried about them, adding to his stress. Hermione and Harry weren't nearly as badly affected by the locket as Ron and neither had to worry about their families. We spent the first few pages of this thread repeating these facts over and over, now you seem to have forgotten them. I suggest that you reread them.

hpboy I said that because of his mother making those mistakes and probably the fact that he was most likely compared to brilliant, clever older siblings quite a bit and didn't have a twin or anyone to back him up that it helped lead to his insecurities. Ginny was OK because she was the first girl and treated differently but poor old Ron - loved though he was came be be overlooked quite a bit.

Sure Hermione could have fled to Australia but that would be considered desertion no doubt by you - or would it? Ron deserted them momentarily and wanted to come back straight away and you call that betrayal?????

hpboy
- i was saying that Hermione was being looked for because she was a muggle-born.
-I agree with you (skipping back a bit) that it wasn't Harry and Hermione's fault that Ron couldn't come back sooner (they didn't know about that Deluminator's powers), however, it wasn't Ron's fault either (he tried to go back but couldn't).
-I still do not see how you can call what Ron did betrayal. He had no bad intentions behind leaving. He was just acting in the moment. The dictionary definition of betray is: to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to - to betray one's friends.
However, to disappoint Harry's expectations of him, Harry must first have expectations of him, which you certainly should not have of a friend. There is no way that you can say that Harry should have expected Ron to stay. Ron was there voluntarily. He was risking more than either of the other 2 to be there. Harry could not possibly have expected this of Ron, and if he did, he isn't a very good friend. This brings us back to the 'Hermione has done more for Harry ' arguement. A friendship is not based on expectations or usefulness. This is the definition of friend:
a person you know well and regard with affection and trust
-Now that we've established that friendship is not about usefulness. I would like to point out that Ron leaving, actually helped them partly. When he came back, it was with new info and with a new enthusiasm. As Hermione and Harry weren't really trying anymore, they were only avoiding capture. His enthusiasm, meant that they actually did things. I think that without Ron, Hermione wouldn't have suggested going to Xeno's house for quite some time. And she would have had a much more difficult time convincing him to go. With Ron there, she felt more confident with the idea, and felt more pro-active.

sorry to ramble on. hopefully that made sense and i wasn't backtracking too much. =)

Well put bigbirdbanana. I was going include these definitions at one point but was too lazy to transpose them. However I doubt whether hpboy will believe you unless he goes and looks them up in a dictionary himself. i wonder if he will? Anyway you are spot on and have backed up what most of the rest of us have been saying all along.

hpboy
However, to disappoint Harry's expectations of him, Harry must first have expectations of him, which you certainly should not have of a friend. There is no way that you can say that Harry should have expected Ron to stay. Ron was there voluntarily. He was risking more than either of the other 2 to be there. Harry could not possibly have expected this of Ron, and if he did, he isn't a very good friend. On the contrary. I had the impression that Harry expected his friends to leave eventually. He had tried to talk them out of accompanying him at the beginning. He was unsatisfied and frustrated with the lack of progress himself (and the locket did have an influence on his mood also). Each time he saw Ron and Hermione talking to each other he was expecting them to eventually step up and call him on his lack of a plan, to say exactly the things Ron actually did during their fight that night. Harry was full of self-doubts and he felt somewhat guilty for not having a better plan. I think that was why he so quickly told Ron to leave. Twice.


-Now that we've established that friendship is not about usefulness. I would like to point out that Ron leaving, actually helped them partly. When he came back, it was with new info and with a new enthusiasm. As Hermione and Harry weren't really trying anymore, they were only avoiding capture. His enthusiasm, meant that they actually did things. I think that without Ron, Hermione wouldn't have suggested going to Xeno's house for quite some time. And she would have had a much more difficult time convincing him to go. With Ron there, she felt more confident with the idea, and felt more pro-active.Ron returned with the very important information about the taboo on Voldemort's name and about the radio program Potterwatch. Plus, Ron helped Hermione convince Harry to go to Xeno's. Plus, Ron knew where the Lovegoods lived. Plus Ron disarmed Wormtail and Bellatrix at Malfoy Manor. Plus Ron had the idea of going into the Chamber of Secrets to retrieve Basilisk Fangs as a means to destroy Horcruxes. Plus, he opened the Chamber remembering Harry speaking 'open' in Parselmouth using his talent for imitation. Dispensable? Useless? Not contributing? I don't think so. :)

Okay, normally when one is asked to go to a party, it's in a romantic sense unless implied otherwise. Even Luna was aware of this, being hesitant until Harry clarified they were going as friends! Ron was just clutching at straws to make a case against Hermione, and failed miserably inb my opinion.

bigbirdbanana, I'm perfectly aware of what's been said in this thread. Ron had just taken the locket off, yes, but he still left AFTER taking it off. And then there's the fact that the locket can't create emotions or anything, it was just augtmenting what Ron was alreayd feeling.

inkling7, I admit I wouldn't think much of Hermione fleeing to Autralia, especially if it was after promising to go with Harry. However, I wouldn't condemn it in this way, because it was done at the beginning while they were still mostly safe. If in the middle of the book Hermione had up and announced that she was fleeing to Australia, I would condemn her as much as I do Ron.

bigbirdbanana, it was Ron's fault for leaving in the first place. And he did disappoitn expectations - after Harry and Ron were on the run together for months and Ron told him numerous times (depsite being told to stay home) that he would stick by Harry. SO yes, expectations were definitely disappointed.
Maybe Ron's leaving helped them out in the long run, btu that doesn't make it excusable. And if Hemrione convinced Harry to go a bit later, what would have come of it? So the plot would have been carried over several weeks. All Ron's presence does is arguably speed the process up a bit.

inkling7, I do believe those definitions, and no I won't bother looking them up. Just because I firmly stand by my opinions, do you assume that I refuse to listen to what anyone says about anything?

ronjalina, how did Potterwatch help Harry? The taboo was broken anyway. They could have easily found out where Xeno lived (they should know it's near the Burrow, it's been mentioned before). If Ron hadn't gone into the Chamber, the Cup would've been destroyed by Fiendfyre. So while things are infinitely better with Ron around, in the end Harry and Hermione would have accomplished the same things without him.

hpboy - i didn't mean to come across rudely when i suggested that you reread part of the thread, i was saying that because you were bringing up a point that had amply been talked about and for want of a better word 'resolved'. Ron had just taken the locket off. That means for several hours preceding the arguement, he was being told that he was worthless, that his long time crush and his best friend loved each other and neither liked him. So these thoughts would still be firmly in his brain. And he still had it on when they started arguing.
Who wants to be around people that don't like them?
No, the locket does not create emotions, however, it can evoke them. Which is exactly what it did with Ron. Yes it was just showing Ron what he was already fearing, however, it made it 100x worse. When they were just insecurities, he could fight them off. But when someone else is telling you these things, over and over for hours at a time, you start believing it.

- When you say they could have found Xeno's house because it had been mentioned before, are you talking about in GoF when Cedric's Dad says the Lovegood's aren't coming (obviously making them in the area) ? If so, I think that it is a silly point, as this was before they even meet Luna so they are not going to remember this tiny scrap of info from 3 1/2 years earlier.

- If Ron hadn't gone into the Chamber, the Cup would've been destroyed by Fiendfyre.
this is the same thing as when Hermione told McGonagall about the broom in PoA. If she hadn't nothing would have happened to Harry. However, you say that this is looking out for Harry, and that this makes her a wonderful person.
But in Ron's case you say that if he hadn't it would have been destroyed anyway, therefore making the action pointless. But Ron was also looking out for Harry. He used great initiative remembering the basilisk venom and Harry's parseltongue.
You say that in Ron's case, it was a dispensible action therefore you don't give Ron any brownie points for it. However, in Hermione's case, you say that this is one of the actions that makes her so wonderful.

Remember that you need to treat every situation in the book with an objective mind.

Okay, normally when one is asked to go to a party, it's in a romantic sense unless implied otherwise. Even Luna was aware of this, being hesitant until Harry clarified they were going as friends! Ron was just clutching at straws to make a case against Hermione, and failed miserably inb my opinion.And my being a female who have had males as best friends, I can understand the misinterpretation on Ron's part. Hermione didn't say so. Hermione was very ambiguous anyway. In my opinion, Hermione probably had other things intended, but was hoping that things would unfold by going to the party together, but at no point did Hermione come out or give the impression that she was going to the party with the intention of its being romantic with him.bigbirdbanana, I'm perfectly aware of what's been said in this thread. Ron had just taken the locket off, yes, but he still left AFTER taking it off. And then there's the fact that the locket can't create emotions or anything, it was just augtmenting what Ron was alreayd feeling.But in the text, I'm quite certain that it was pointed out that Ron's attitude was bad when wearing the locket, like all of them, but the more exposure they all had to it, the longer it took them to "get their heads" after taking it off. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this was mentioned.

Also after Ron left the other two wore the locket a lot more often. The fact that Ron wasn't there made them depressed but I think the wearing of the locket made even more so and they got stuck in rut until that almost fateful visit to Godric's Hollow. I wonder what would have happened if Ron had been there with them?

IMO, even if Ron had been there, I really feel that something would've happened to temporarily drive the three apart because of the locket.

I meant that I wonder what would have happened if Ron had been there with them at Godric's Hollow? Or are you saying that they might have been temporarily driven apart at Godric's Hollow? Anyway I suppose that question is irrelevant as he wasn't there.

Okay, normally when one is asked to go to a party, it's in a romantic sense unless implied otherwise. Even Luna was aware of this, being hesitant until Harry clarified they were going as friends! Ron was just clutching at straws to make a case against Hermione, and failed miserably inb my opinion.But it's different with Harry and Luna, IMO, because they weren't that close friends to begin with. Ron and Hermione had been best friends for years, when Hermione invited him to the party. They weren't just school mates or loose acquaintances. So there was room for doubt whether it was really a date or actually an invitation just as friends. Hermione never clearly said it was meant as a date. And why should she? She was unsure about the true nature of Ron's feelings towards her, so if things wouldn't have turned out the way she hoped, she could always have fallen back on the 'we just went as friends' excuse. I don't blame her for acting like that, but it left room for doubt. And Ron was a very insecure person who was at odds with himself at that point in time anyway. Slughorn completely ignored him while inviting his friends and his little sister to his exclusive club; he had doubts in his abilities as a keeper and was under the pressure from his team-mates. And Hermione - unintentionally - provided enough instances for him to doubt her feelings also, such as gushing over Harry being so fanciable while brushing Ron off. Hermione's feelings were unreadable, even for some readers who thought she had feelings for someone else, so what was someone unexperienced and insecure like Ron to think? He didn't know how exactly she felt about him. And then Ginny dealt him the 'Hermione snogged Krum' blow. Was it unreasonable to flip out over something that, if it even happened, happened two years ago? Yes. But Ron was insecure and unhappy and didn't think clearly.

ronjalina, how did Potterwatch help Harry? Never underestimate the morale of the troops. It was important for them to hear news from the outside wizarding world. To be assuered that everyone they cared for was still fine. And to know that Voldemort still didn't have an idea of what Harry and Co. were on about and where they were. You personally might find that unimportant, I find it important and I have the impression the author found it important too.

The taboo was broken anyway. No, the taboo got broken accidentally by Harry months later. They would have been found much earlier had they not known about the taboo and avoided to mention Voldemort by name. It was pure luck they didn't do that while Ron was away, before they knew about the taboo.

They could have easily found out where Xeno lived (they should know it's near the Burrow, it's been mentioned before). I doubt Hermione and Harry would have recalled that it had been mentioned where the Lovegoods lived three years ago. Sure, they might have found the place eventually, but it would have taken them a considerable amount of time longe and they would have lost precious time. Again, you might find the 'speeind up' things aspect to be irrelevant, but that's clearly just a personal opinion. :)

If Ron hadn't gone into the Chamber, the Cup would've been destroyed by Fiendfyre. So while things are infinitely better with Ron around, in the end Harry and Hermione would have accomplished the same things without him.It's arguable Hermione would have remembered to throw the cup into the fire while they were busy to save their own skins and get out of the RoR. I had the impression she remembered the fiendfyre only after they were out of the room anyway. Of course Neville later could have used Gryffindor's sword to not only kill Nagini but to destroy the cup too. But if we're arguing like this, Harry would eventually have accomplished everything alone. It just would have taken him half his life. Ron and Hermione - both - were important for Harry in various ways and only a small amount of that has something to do with being useful really.

originally posted by hpboy13
Maybe Ron's leaving helped them out in the long run, btu that doesn't make it excusable. And if Hemrione convinced Harry to go a bit later, what would have come of it? So the plot would have been carried over several weeks. All Ron's presence does is arguably speed the process up a bit.


But speed was needed. There was no guarantee of how long they had before Voldemort decided to check on one of his hidden horcruxes. Besides, Harry would never have been able to carry out the complicated plans needed to sneak into the Ministry and Gringotts without Hermione's logic and Ron's stragetic mind. He needed both of them just to get to the horcruxes.

originally posted by ronjalina
And Hermione - unintentionally - provided enough instances for him to doubt her feelings also, such as gushing over Harry being so fanciable while brushing Ron off. Hermione's feelings were unreadable, even for some readers who thought she had feelings for someone else, so what was someone unexperienced and insecure like Ron to think? He didn't know how exactly she felt about him. And then Ginny dealt him the 'Hermione snogged Krum' blow. Was it unreasonable to flip out over something that, if it even happened, happened two years ago? Yes. But Ron was insecure and unhappy and didn't think clearly.

Exactly. Hermione was always very ambiguous with her feelings. She gushed over Harry, but never praised Ron even half as much. She hid her feelings too well, so who can blame Ron for misinterpreting her intentions.

As it is, Hermione did not define the date. She was probably intentionally ambiguous there, because she did not want to give up too many feelings at once. Ron and Hermione didn't even begin acting like a couple after Hermione asked Ron to the party. They were polite and oddly formal around each other because they were both unsure what was happening. They hadn't defined what the date was, and they were trying to see where it was going. That left Ron plenty of room to doubt that Hermione liked him later.

Since not to many people have been, I need to speak up on hpboy's side. I really like the editiorial, and found it insightful. It put into words thoughts that I had about Ron as well.

dweaselqueen....how did Ron's "stragetic mind" help at the MOM? He was off trying to stop the rain in the office (unsuccessfully) while Harry and Hermione had to do all the dangerous work.

I agree with hpboy. the defining moment of who is the truer friend comes when Ron chooses to leave. Hermione risks losing everything. It breaks her heart that she lost Ron, but she stays anyway. She was willing to sacrifice. Ron was used to being pampered and taken care of. He was so ashamed of himself, he couldn't go home.

Add this to his jealousy in GOF, and I don't see how people can doubt that Hermione is a better freind. Hermione believed Harry when he said he didn't enter his name. Ron thought he was a liar. A best friend should give a guy the benefit of the doubt. Harry had never given Ron any reason to distrust him.

Maybe not as much fun to hang out with but she is certainly more loyal and can be counted on more than Ron.

Also, many people have pointed out that Ron had the added stress of worrying about his family. They point out that Hermione knew her family was safe.

First, she thought she had done a good enough job to ensure their safety.....but that is not to say they were 100% safe. But to be honest, yes they were much safer than Ron's family.

But how about the level of sacrifice Hermione displayed. She believed she may never see her family again. She hoped that they would one day be reunited, but she certainly wasn't assured of this. Ron wasn't cut off from his family. Ron didn't have to risk "giving them up".

I also agree that this editorial does NOT need to be re-written. Editorial are opinion peices. The word opinion is in the definition of editorial.

1hp2 - Hermione had even said that once they killed Voldemort she could lft the charm she had placed upon them. Of course they were safe. Voldemort's not going to go to Australia just to get to Hermione's family, and she knows that. Ron had risked givng them up. He was a known close friend of Harry's and he wasn't at school. It was only a matter of time before the ministry realised that he didn't have spattergroit. Then they could seriously harm or even kill his family. He was placing his family in a lot more danger than Hermione was. I admit that I was a bit disappointed in Ron when he left. But his circumstance was very different to Harry or Hermione's.

And you have to admit that Harry wasn't really helping Ron out much. Friendship is a 2-way street, however, Ron (and Hermione) seem to be doing a lot more for Harry than Harry does for him/them.

Hermione might have thought that she would never see her family - parents again but that was a possibility for Ron too. Voldemort could have wiped out his family too.

You also seem to forget that Ron was more affected by the locket than the others due to his insecurities. Hermione was an only child and her parents let her more or else do what she wanted it seems - I mean they didn't make here go on holidays with them if she didn't want to. They let her go to a strange unknown to muggles school - Hogwarts - without any fuss and they wouldn't have known anything about the wizarding world at all until she got her 'letter'.

I'd say Hermione was quite a confident little miss without too many insecurities whereas poor Ron - youngest boy in the family who didn't bother having anymore children after they go a girl. He got all the hand me downs in the form of clothes, pets and wands and most likely books from school so no wonder his self esteem was quite low.

Hermione didn't think to ask Harry to think about the firebolt being dangerous before she tattled on him so IMO that's the same as Ron not believing Harry about not putting his name in the GOF and I didn't notice Harry refuse point blank to participate in the competition as I certainly would have done. They couldn't force him physically to take part and if he'd refused to I bet Minerva would have supported him at least.

So those arguments don't really hold up and as has said repeatedly before friendship isn't a competition and there are different kinds of friendships all of which are valuable in their ways. Next you'll be saying that Ginny wasn't a true friend because of this and that but in reality she was Harry's soulmate - the one he chose to spend the rest of his life with,

Just read through most of the thread and never saw this mentioned. Why doesn't Harrys own opinion matter in this discussion? There are many quotes already provided that show that Harry valued Rons company more than Hermione's. I havent seen any quotes (in this thread) that show how much Harry values Hermiones friendship, only inferences.

Hermione didn't think to ask Harry to think about the firebolt being dangerous before she tattled on him so IMO that's the same as Ron not believing Harry about not putting his name in the GOF and I didn't notice Harry refuse point blank to participate in the competition as I certainly would have done. They couldn't force him physically to take part and if he'd refused to I bet Minerva would have supported him at least.


Ummmm. Hermione did raise objections about the firebolt being dangerous before she went to McGonigle. Plus, come on. You don't see the difference between doing something out of concern and being jealous??? It is like being mad at some one for getting a promotion and saying that is the same as taking the keys from a friend who has been drinking.

And as far as Harry's opinoin, many people have already conceded he likes ROn better. But, just because someone is more fun doesn't mean they are a better friend.

And as far as Harry's opinoin, many people have already conceded he likes ROn better. But, just because someone is more fun doesn't mean they are a better friend.

I meant that Harry considers Ron to be a better friend than Hermione. Why does it matter why he comes to that decision? Perhaps Harry values humor more than the particular traits that Hermione has.

However Hermione didn't give Harry the option of taking the broom himself or even tell Harry she was going to McGonagall and she should have. If one of my 'friends' did that to me I'd be pretty annoyed.

Ron was jealous because of his insecurities remember.

We aren't saying one friend is better than the other - that's a point many of us are TRYING to make. We are saying there are different kinds of friendships and Ron and Hermione had a different kind of friendship with Harry none of less value than the other.

I meant that Harry considers Ron to be a better friend than Hermione. Why does it matter why he comes to that decision? Perhaps Harry values humor more than the particular traits that Hermione has.

Where in the books does Harry state Ron is a better friend?

Ummmm. Hermione did raise objections about the firebolt being dangerous before she went to McGonigle. Plus, come on. You don't see the difference between doing something out of concern and being jealous??? It is like being mad at some one for getting a promotion and saying that is the same as taking the keys from a friend who has been drinking.IMO, they aren't all that comparable. In GoF, if I recall correctly, whenever Ron went on about the tournament, he seemed to refer to the both of them. To Ron, seems that Harry went behind his back and put his name in, even though we know he didn't. Even when Ron confronted Harry after his name was called, when they were alone, and was asking Harry how he put his name (which is typical since Harry does do stuff like this) during that entire conversation, like Ron usually does, he was putting his feelings aside and was trying to be happy for Harry. The main reason why most probably thought Harry did it is because he straight out said that if he were to put his name in, he'd do it when no one was around.

As for the broom thing with Hermione, she might have raised objections about the broom (just like she did the Triward Tournament), but she still kind of tattled on Harry. She should've shared her feelings first and let Harry do it himself instead of just telling on him. I guess, to Harry that's lack of trust.And as far as Harry's opinoin, many people have already conceded he likes ROn better. But, just because someone is more fun doesn't mean they are a better friend.That's not really it. IMO, Ron understands Harry a whole lot better than Hermione does, and ironically, seems Ginny does too (but maybe that's because she's a Leo like Harry). And, also, Ron isn't better than Hermione and vice-versa. Harry loves them both. He considers both his best friends. He probably gets along better with Ron because they're both guys, but I doubt he prefers one over the other, unless a certain situation comes up, like basic Wizarding World knowledge (street smarts), he'd probably go to Ron and theories and stuff learned in school, Hermione.

IMO, Ron understands Harry a whole lot better than Hermione does

If Ron understood him better, he would have known Harry didn't put his name into the goblet. Since when has Harry ever done anyting like that, and then not only didn't tell Ron, but lie to ROn about it? Hermione knew that Harry didn't put his name in it because she saw the expression on his face. Now that is "knowing" someone.

Also, there is the whole Cho thing in OOTP. Ron had no clue that Harry had any interest in Cho, but Hermione knew that Harry had liked her for "ages".

Harry and Ron are more alike, but that doesn't mean Ron "understands" him more.


Also, I doubt Ron is the guy anyone would go to for "street smarts"

If Ron understood him better, he would have known Harry didn't put his name into the goblet. Since when has Harry ever done anyting like that, and then not only didn't tell Ron, but lie to ROn about it? Hermione knew that Harry didn't put his name in it because she saw the expression on his face. Now that is "knowing" someone. What I was referring to was that Harry could have put his name into the Goblet, acted surprised in front of everyone else, and then tell him what was up later. This has been done all throughout the books. Like how Harry might find out something, and then share it with Ron and Hermione in secret and confidence. Seems that's what Ron was expecting. He also came across as having celebrated the victory too before bumping into Ron so that didn't help Harry's case either.Also, there is the whole Cho thing in OOTP. Ron had no clue that Harry had any interest in Cho, but Hermione knew that Harry had liked her for "ages".Girls seem to notice these things more than guys in general. A stereotype that guys are clueless about romance. It doesn't surprise me in the least that Ron didn't pick up on Harry's liking Cho, especially since Harry and Cho rarely interacted for Harry to be obvious about it.Harry and Ron are more alike, but that doesn't mean Ron "understands" him more.I feel that he does. A good example is in HBP after Harry used that attack on Draco and was feeling bad about it. Ron told Hermione to lay off, but she kept going on and on about it. He knew that Harry already felt bad, why chastise him more and more over it? Ginny stepped in and shut Hermione up though.Also, I doubt Ron is the guy anyone would go to for "street smarts"Of course Ron has "street smarts". He was the main source of information for basic Wizarding World knowledge in some way or form throughout all the books, even though it was more prominent in the beginning, like how he had to explain what a mudblood was, why people were prejudiced against giants and werewolves, etc. Ron is the only one who was born and raised there. Of course he'll know how things go on and such there compared to Hermione who can only read it in theory.

Street Smarts indicates that you have learned from experience, learned from doing. Ron in most instances was only repeating things he had been told as a child. The most recent proof would be from Deathly Hallows when Ron knows who Beetle and Bard are.

But when they were in the cafe, he didn't understand why Harry wanted to clean up the mess. A guy with "street smarts" would get that you wouldn't want to broadcast that something strange had happened there.

Also, Hermione was ready to go at a moments notice and had packed everything they needed in a little clutch purse. This is learning from experience, I doubt she read in a book that if you are going to hunt down Voldemorts Horcruxes make sure you have your suitcases on you at all times.

Street Smarts indicates that you have learned from experience, learned from doing. Ron in most instances was only repeating things he had been told as a child. The most recent proof would be from Deathly Hallows when Ron knows who Beetle and Bard are. I guess "street smarts" wasn't the right term. Basic Wizarding World knowlege works, though. That's something that Ron would have more of than Hermione.Also, Hermione was ready to go at a moments notice and had packed everything they needed in a little clutch purse. This is learning from experience, I doubt she read in a book that if you are going to hunt down Voldemorts Horcruxes make sure you have your suitcases on you at all times.But that's her character. She always "thinks ahead". Ron and Harry are more spontaneous and instinctive. It would've been boring if all three would've been like Hermione's character. Hermione is an extreme planner. She seems to plan out everything. This is more so a character trait, and it was shown that she was this type when we were first introduced to her in the series. She went on about how she'd read all of her text books before the school year had even started. Or better yet, look at the present she got Harry for OoTP. A planner. :lol:

originally posted by 1hp2
Street Smarts indicates that you have learned from experience, learned from doing. Ron in most instances was only repeating things he had been told as a child. The most recent proof would be from Deathly Hallows when Ron knows who Beetle and Bard are.

But when they were in the cafe, he didn't understand why Harry wanted to clean up the mess. A guy with "street smarts" would get that you wouldn't want to broadcast that something strange had happened there.


Street smarts does apply to Ron though. Street smarts means the ability to survive. Ron provides an ability to survive in the wizarding world, especially for Harry, because he understands the wizarding world. But that's not all Ron does. Street smarts is not all about knowing to clean up after yourself. Being able to survive means being able to keep one's head in a crisis. Where we see Hermione freeze up over and over in battle throughout the years, we never see Ron inactive. Even when he is panicking over Hermione, when it comes to the battle in Malfoy Manor, Ron has the presence of mind to disapparate safely with Hermione.

originally posted by 1hp2
Also, Hermione was ready to go at a moments notice and had packed everything they needed in a little clutch purse. This is learning from experience, I doubt she read in a book that if you are going to hunt down Voldemorts Horcruxes make sure you have your suitcases on you at all times.

This is just another kind of street smart. Hermione is naturally an organized person. She is not the kind of person who would plunge into the hunt with nothing packed and planned. She did the best she could by reading up on horcruxes, and having supplies ready to go at a moment's notice. Besides, the charms she used to do that sounded really advanced, and not something Harry or Ron would have been up to doing, had they thought about it.

I guess "street smarts" wasn't the right term. Basic Wizarding World knowlege works, though. That's something that Ron would have more of than Hermione.

I have to agree on that point.

when it comes to the battle in Malfoy Manor, Ron has the presence of mind to disapparate safely with Hermione.



Harry told him to. So, basically he had the presence of mind to do what Harry told him to do.

I don't that was what was meant the fact he did it and Hermione could have been too upset to do it herself - after all she had been tortured and never was the best in battle situations.

The fact remains most of us don't think one was a better friend than the other or more or less true than the other. That is the point we are trying to make plus point out other things that could have been put into the editorial but were omitted making the argument rather one-sided.

We were balancing things out so to speak.

I don't that was what was meant the fact he did it and Hermione could have been too upset to do it herself .

She used that as an example of Ron's proven street smarts. I just don't think that proves anything. It certainly isn't a testament to Ron's ability to think in a crisis (not saying he doesn't have that ability though) becasue he was just basically follwoing orders Also, I agree that Hermione is not the best in battle situations, but in this instance, in her defense, she was unconscious and unable to do anything. But, you will notice that at the wedding reception she is the one thinking quickly and gets all three of them out of there safely!

This is just another kind of street smart. Hermione is naturally an organized person. She is not the kind of person who would plunge into the hunt with nothing packed and planned. She did the best she could by reading up on horcruxes, and having supplies ready to go at a moment's notice. Besides, the charms she used to do that sounded really advanced, and not something Harry or Ron would have been up to doing, had they thought about it.

I disagree, Harry has proven that he can accomplish a lot of really advanced magic. I can't really attest to Ron. We never see him perform extraordinary magic, but that doesn't mean he isn't capable of it. The only time we see him with sub par magic though is when his wand is broken, and I don't think that really counts. Hermione memorizes books, but I don't think that makes her better at actually performing magic.

Going back a little bit. In GoF when Ron isn't talking to Ron, i don't think that after Harry told him that he didn't put his name in, that he still believed it. I think he was just angry that Harry always gets everything, and that he always gets left out. He's the youngest male in the family; the unwanted child. He was always outshone by all his siblings and Harry and Hermione. He would have been feeling as though he didn't get anything, and that Harry had it all. You may argue that Ron knew that Harry had a troubled life, however, when you're upset, your perspective can be clouded.

Moving onto the "street smarts" debate, i think that Ron was indeed very helpful there. He was the one who knew the most about the MoM and without him, they would probably have not been able to pull off the plan. (i know that they were found anyway, but that was Harry's fault).

I would like to point out that Ron and Hermione have done so much for Harry, but he really hasn't done all that much for them. Focusing on Ron here, how many hours has Ron sat in the library helping Harry look for clues, when it didn't really involve him (Ron). And how many times have Ron's generous deeds been reciprocated. Harry really doesn't do that much for Ron, yet he seems to expect a heck of a lot from Ron.

When you think about it, having only 2 fights in 7 years is a very good record.

I think you meant to say when Ron wasn't talking to Harry in your first line.

Two fights in all those years of friendship is indeed a very good record.

I think that Harry really appreciated their friendship and help but had only his friendship to offer them back and neither Ron or Hermione really expected anything else. Although Harry did help Ron achieve his Quidditch dream. Harry was also trying to go on the quest alone as he feared for their safety and both Ron and Hermione insisted on not letting Harry do it all by himself - that's true friendship too.

PS bigbirdbanana where abouts in Oz are you? I myself am in Sydney.

He's the youngest male in the family; the unwanted child.

Wow! I think this is taking a lot of liberties with the material. Unwanted! I don't recall reading anything about that.

What I think bigbirdbanana really meant was that it was a girl they were after not another boy and so tried again - got Ginny so had no more children. If Ron had been a girl then they would have stopped there. They were probably trying for a girl form Percy on and kept getting boys.

That fact has not helped Ron or given him the confidence he needed.

thankyou inkling7 that was what i meant about ron. and im also from sydney. how weird is that!

Wow! I think this is taking a lot of liberties with the material. Unwanted! I don't recall reading anything about that.Even though we know he isn't unwanted, Ron seemed to actually feel that way and came across as such. Just look at his first introduction into the series.

Where in the books does Harry state Ron is a better friend?

“‘You miss him!’ Hermione said impatiently. ‘And I know he missed you-’

‘Miss him?’ said Harry. ‘I don’t miss him…’

But this was a downright lie. Harry liked Hermione very much, but she just wasn’t the same as Ron. There was much less laughter, and a lot more hanging around in the library when Hermione was your best friend.”
“‘…They wouldn’t look twice at him if he couldn’t do that Wonky Faint thing-’

‘Wronski Feint,’ said Harry, through gritted teeth. Quite apart from liking to get Quidditch terms correct, it caused him another pang to imagine Ron’s expression if he could have heard Hermione talking about Wonky Faints.”
They were spending many evenings in near silence, and Hermione took to bringing out Phineas Nigellus's portrait and propping it up in a chair, as though he might fill part of the gaping hole left by Ron's departure.
"Erm," he said, smiling for what felt like the first time in months. The muscles in his face felt oddly stiff. "I might've opened it, you know, when I bought it . . . just the once . . .
Hermione's sulkiness could not mar his buoyant spirits: The sudden upswing in their fortunes, the appearance of the mysterious doe, the recovery of Gryffindor's sword, and above all, Ron's return, made Harry so happy that it was quite difficult to maintain a straight face.

All of these quotes seem to point to Ron being the best friend rather than Hermione. He even indicates that Ron is normally his best friend in the first quote. I have not even seen any quotes that are as concrete as these that describe Hermione's friendship with Harry. I am sure they exist, but I have not seen any of them. Harry was even hoping that Ron was there to make fun of Hermione when she got quidditch terms incorrect.

And props to beatifically who found these quotes. :tu:

The first one does. The rest don't. But the first quote is from GOF. I think part of the point the editiorial author was making is that by the end of the series Hermione was a truer friend. No one argued that Ron wasn't more fun. But a the "truest" friend doesn't necessarily mean the one who is the most fun.

The last three quote don't prove anything but that Ron was missed. I don't think anyone could argue that, I certainly am not trying. But are you sayin that if Hermione had left they wouldn't have missed her? Especially if she left in a similar fashion as Ron. I think the real proof is the fact that she didn't leave. She risked losing everything (mainly Ron) to stay a true friend to Harry. I think that proves the editorial author's point.

What I think bigbirdbanana really meant was that it was a girl they were after not another boy and so tried again - got Ginny so had no more children. If Ron had been a girl then they would have stopped there. They were probably trying for a girl form Percy on and kept getting boys.

That fact has not helped Ron or given him the confidence he needed.

You could be right, but I can't for the life of me find that in the books. I'm not saying it isn't there, I don't have it memorized. And, based on the logic you just presented, wouldn't that make Percy and the twins unwanted as well since they weren't girls?

The first one does. The rest don't. But the first quote is from GOF. I think part of the point the editiorial author was making is that by the end of the series Hermione was a truer friend. No one argued that Ron wasn't more fun. But a the "truest" friend doesn't necessarily mean the one who is the most fun. See, and that's the problem. There's no such thing as a "truest" friend if the main character doesn't seem to think so. He loves both about the same, but, to me, he's never put one over the other, unless it was something specific. The last time I looked, friendship wasn't a competition.The last three quote don't prove anything but that Ron was missed. I don't think anyone could argue that, I certainly am not trying. But are you sayin that if Hermione had left they wouldn't have missed her? Especially if she left in a similar fashion as Ron. I think the real proof is the fact that she didn't leave. She risked losing everything (mainly Ron) to stay a true friend to Harry. I think that proves the editorial author's point.Of course they would've missed her, but still, there's the fact that Harry does seem to prefer Ron's company to Hermione's at times. Look at PoA. He didn't speak to Hermione for weeks because of the Firebolt incident, and, to me, he didn't seem to care at all that he wasn't speaking to her, and yet, in the very next book, he was miserable because of his falling out with Ron. At least Ron had a valid reason in PoA to be upset with Hermione, but not Harry.

Even though we know he isn't unwanted, Ron seemed to actually feel that way and came across as such. Just look at his first introduction into the series.

I reread the beginning. I still don't see the "unwanted" part. Maybe that would is just a little too strong. I get the idea of feeling lost in the shuffle (his mom forgetting he doesn't like corned beef), or maybe not feeling special (when he talks about his brothers). But I disagree with "unwanted". Plus, a lot of the not feeling special is he gets hand me downs. This points to a big part of Ron's problems in the beginning stem from him being ashamed of being poor.

But, back to the editorials point, I don't think it excuses Ron from abandoning his friends when they need him the most. Which is how this discussion got started. Someone is using this idea that Ron was ignored/neglected (which I disagree with, but that isn't the point) and that makes it understandable and OK for him to abandon his friends when they are in the midst of a dangerous mission.

You could be right, but I can't for the life of me find that in the books. I'm not saying it isn't there, I don't have it memorized. And, based on the logic you just presented, wouldn't that make Percy and the twins unwanted as well since they weren't girls?But neither acted like that. The twins had each other, so no problems there. Percy was an odd one out, though, since he never seemed to fit in with his siblings, but, was constantly praised by Mrs. Weasley. With Ron, who have pretty much no acomplishments compared to his siblings seemed to feel that he had no place in his family. As he said, if he did something, it wouldn't matter because one of his other brothers probably already did it first. He seems to pity himself and wanted a way to stand out. As I said before, we can see that he's not unwanted, but to Ron he doesn't see it.

But, back to the editorials point, I don't think it excuses Ron from abandoning his friends when they need him the most. Which is how this discussion got started. Someone is using this idea that Ron was ignored/neglected (which I disagree with, but that isn't the point) and that makes it understandable and OK for him to abandon his friends when they are in the midst of a dangerous mission.But Ron's never abandoned his friends on his own accord. With DH, he was definitely being possessed by the locket. It was having the same effect on him just like the diary did with Ginny. It's noted that the longer either of them wore the locket, the more irritable one would become. And it was noted that the longer Ron wore the locket, the longer it would take for him to "get his head" after removing it.

How can he be blamed for something he had no control over? If Ron had upped and left with no outside interventions, then I'd consider that an abandonment. The boy was possessed, and after getting away from the locket's influence, he came back to his senses and wanted to come right back since he knew that was where he was supposed to be.

Please explain to me how leaving to "cool off" counts as an abandonment when the person wanted to come back, but wasn't due to other circumstances.

At least Ron had a valid reason in PoA to be upset with Hermione, but not Harry.

What was Ron's valid reason? Scabbers. I think in the end it proved that Crookshanks was right, and most of the characters in the book thought Ron was being unreasonable in the way he acted towards her.

I also think the firebolt helps to prove the editorials point. Hermione did what she thought was in Harry's best interest, even though he may hate her for it. That is the mark of a true friend! Often times, throughout the book Ron keeps quiet or changes the subject, cause he doesn't want to make Harry mad. Sometimes it takes a true friend to tell you what you don't want to hear. There is an old saying, that a true friend will tell you to your face what others say behind your back. Throughout the series, it has always been Hermione who has had to bring up the potentially difficult subjects with Harry. Harry admits this in GOF after the first task.

But neither acted like that. The twins had each other, so no problems there. Percy was an odd one out, though, since he never seemed to fit in with his siblings, but, was constantly praised by Mrs. Weasley. With Ron, who have pretty much no acomplishments compared to his siblings seemed to feel that he had no place in his family. As he said, if he did something, it wouldn't matter because one of his other brothers probably already did it first. He seems to pity himself and wanted a way to stand out. As I said before, we can see that he's not unwanted, but to Ron he doesn't see it.

Yes, but that theory and idea diminishes as the series goes on. In OOTP how could anyone argue that Ron isn't celebrated by his mother that he was made prefect. She bought him a new broom and threw him a party. She even forgot George and Fred existed by then. So, by the time DH comes along I think this aguement gets a little thinner. Now if Ron had abandonned his friends in books 1, 2 or 3 I could understand, but by this point I don't think Ron as poor, unwanted, or forgotten holds much water.

What was Ron's valid reason? Scabbers. I think in the end it proved that Crookshanks was right, and most of the characters in the book thought ROn was being unreasonable in the way he acted towards her.No he wasn't, because Ron was right. Ron kept telling Hermione that Crookshanks was after Scabbers, but she never took him seriously, and that was right; Crookshanks was after Scabbers. Then, it looked as if Crookshanks had eaten Scabbers. There was even his hairs there. The evidence pointed to Crookshanks eating Scabbers, even though we learned differently. Hermione didn't even acknowledge or show any sympathy towards Ron, which Ron said he just wished she'd do that or just acknowledge that her cat could've possibly eaten his rat.I also think the firebolt helps to prove the editorials point. Hermione did what she thought was in Harry's best interest, even though he may hate her for it.Instead of acting as a friend, she acted more like a parent to him. She should've given him the choice of whether or not he should turn the broom in. I know she did it for his best interest, but she should've approached the situation differently.That is the mark of a true friend! Often times, throughout the book Ron keeps quiet or changes the subject, cause he doesn't want to make Harry mad.I need proof of this one. The two rarely argue because they usually agree. Aside from OotP, where both were hesitant because they didn't want to face "CAPS LOCK HARRY" again, I can't think of anything.Sometimes it takes a true friend to tell you what you don't want to hear. There is an old saying, that a true friend will tell you to your face what others say behind your back. Throughout the series, it has always been Hermione who has had to bring up the potentially difficult subjects with Harry.I guess it's because Hermione is supposed to be the "mother figure" to Harry, aka the "nagger".

Yes, but that theory and idea diminishes as the series goes on. In OOTP how could anyone argue that Ron isn't celebrated by his mother that he was made prefect. She bought him a new broom and threw him a party. She even forgot George and Fred existed by then. So, by the time DH comes along I think this aguement gets a little thinner. Now if Ron had abandonned his friends in books 1, 2 or 3 I could understand, but by this point I don't think Ron as poor, unwanted, or forgotten holds much water.True, because as the books go on, he's getting a bit more confident in himself. It's called character development.

That aside, as it's been pointed out, Ron has never abandoned his friends, and DH is a weak argument, and to a certain extent, so is GoF. For DH, it was much too spontaneous. For GoF, Harry was just as much to blame for the fight as Ron was since you can't have a one-sided argument.

With DH, he was definitely being possessed by the locket. It was having the same effect on him just like the diary did with Ginny.

I missed the part where he lost track of time and seemed to do things without remembering he did them?? While I can't argue the horcrux had an effect, it was nothing like Ginny's possesion.

I maintain Ron was not possessed. They were all affected I agree, but possession seems like a slight reach. Ginny describes possession in OOTP when they are worried Harry might be possessed by VOldemort. Nothing in her description even remotely resembles what is going on with Ron in DH. Also, Ron was crabby and irritable befor he ever put the locket on once. When Harry was unable to get food becasue of dementors Ron threw a fit like a 8 year old kicking the furniture and whining. So, while some of ROn's attitude problem can be blamed o nthe horcurx, all of it can not!

The evidence pointed to Crookshanks eating Scabbers, even though we learned differently. Hermione didn't even acknowledge or show any sympathy towards Ron,


But, since it didn't actually happen, Ron wasn't actually right, which is what you said.

That aside, as it's been pointed out, Ron has never abandoned his friends, and DH is a weak argument, and to a certain extent, so is GoF. For DH, it was much too spontaneous. For GoF, Harry was just as much to blame for the fight as Ron was since you can't have a one-sided argument.

How is Harry as much to blame. Ron called him a liar and an attention seeker. While previous arguements about ROn feeling lost in a big faily can explain this, I don't think it excuses it. Harry tried to reasonably explain to Ron what happened, ROn chose to call him a liar....how can you give harry an equal share of the blame?

I need proof of this one. The two rarely argue because they usually agree. Aside from OotP, where both were hesitant because they didn't want to face "CAPS LOCK HARRY" again, I can't think of anything.


In OOTP Ron would only talk about Harry teaching the DADA after Hermione brought it up and he could see how Harry was going to react. Then, he was all for it . When Hermione said it was her and Ron's idea he glared at her. In his defense, it was just her idea, but when he realized Harry wasn't mad about it he was OK with it being part his idea.

Also, in GOF after the first task, Ron was being all cheerleadery and Harry himself said ROn was only doing it to make up for the fact he hadbeen a jerk before.

She should've given him the choice of whether or not he should turn the broom in. I know she did it for his best interest, but she should've approached the situation differently.

Should you give a friend who has drank too much the choice to drive? OR do you take their keys? Often times, being a true friend is difficult becasue it means doing things that may not be popular. Hermione put herself out there and risked being hated and ignored...which she was for a short time. She did this becasue she thought she was doing the right thing. She put her own personal happiness and well being at risk to protect Harry. What is that if not true friendship?

I am suprised however, that no one has brought up Ron's defense of Harry at the beginning of OOTP with regards to Seamus. I do think that show as a testmanet to ROn and Harry's friendship. Although, Ron wasn't really risking anyting to the extent that Hermine did in the previous example.

I missed the part where he lost track of time and seemed to do things without remembering he did them?? While I can't argue the horcrux had an effect, it was nothing like Ginny's possesion.Each Horcrux affects people differently. I'd consider it a possession because, imo, Ron would've never left if the locket hadn't been manipulating him to that point.I maintain Ron was not possess. They were all affected I agree, but possession seems like a slight reach. Also, Ron was crabby and irritable befor he ever put the locket on once. When Harry was unable to get food becasue of dementors Ron threw a fit like a 8 year kick the furniture and whining. SO, while some of ROn's attitude problem can be blamed o nthe horcurx, all of it can not!But he was worse with it and seemed to do more complaining when he was wearing it. All of their attitudes were bad. Why single Ron out?But, since it didn't actually happen, Ron wasn't actually right, which is what you said.No, at the time, Ron was. That was the cause of the falling out. If Hermione had shown sympathy or even empathy towards Ron's situation here, it wouldn't have escalated to the point that it did, and even though the two weren't on speaking terms, Ron was still keeping tabs on her and noticing her oddities.How is Harry as much to blame. Ron called him a liar and an attention seeker.And Harry called him stupid and didn't fully explain himself. It led to the misinterpretation that he was seeking attention, especially when he walked into the room draped in party streamers and such and banners, like he had been celebrating. IMO, based on how Ron's character is, if Harry would've told Ron a bit more, Ron would've put his ill feelings aside (which he usually does anyone) and would've sided with him, since not even Ron would take something like Harry's being put into the competition as a way to kill him as a joke.Harry tried to reasonably explain to Ron what happened, ROn chose to call him a liar....how can you give harry an equal share of the blame?Because he could've been clearer. I don't think Ron would've thought he was lying if Harry would've said, "Oh, by the way, Dumbledore and the others think someone put my name in as a way to kill me." Now if Ron would've acted in the same fashion after that, then I would've been upset with his character. To me,the entire conversation was a big deal of misinterpretation and miscommunication.In OOTP Ron would only talk about Harry teaching the DADA after Hermione brought it up and he could see how Harry was going to react. Then, he was all for it . When Hermione said it was her and Ron's idea he glared at her. In his defense, it was just her idea, but when he realized Harry wasn't mad about it he was OK with it being part his idea.But that goes with what I said earlier. Both were weary when it came to Harry since they didn't want him to go into "CAPS LOCK MODE" again.Also, in GOF after the first task, Ron was being all cheerleadery and Harry himself said ROn was only doing it to make up for the fact he hadbeen a jerk before.Ron just knew he was wrong. I wouldn't say he was being a jerk. He never seemed to go against Harry, was never characterized as ridiculing him, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if Ron acted the same way he did in PoA with Hermione. Mad at her, but didn't stop caring about her.

"Oh, by the way, Dumbledore and the others think someone put my name in as a way to kill me." Now if Ron would've acted in the same fashion after that, then I would've been upset with his character. To me,the entire conversation was a big deal of misinterpretation and miscommunication.But that goes with what I said earlier.

But doesn't say something about Hermione that she didn't need that. Doesn't it stand as a testament to her friendship with Harry that she chose to believe immediately. TO summarize what you said, Ron needed detailed explanations and when he didn't get it he thought of Harry as a liar and an attention seeker. I think that proves my point, not yours. Hermione believed harry immediately. Ron didn't.

Both were weary when it came to Harry since they didn't want him to go into "CAPS LOCK MODE" again.

But Hermione was willing to risk it....which proves my point. She does what her heart says is right, even if she gets hurt in the process. Ron is less willing to take risks for what he thinks.

But doesn't say something about Hermione that she didn't need that. Doesn't it stand as a testament to her friendship with Harry that she chose to believe immediately. TO summarize what you said, Ron needed detailed explanations and when he didn't get it he thought of Harry as a liar and an attention seeker. I think that proves my point, not yours. Hermione believed harry immediately. Ron didn't.But Hermione wasn't around Harry as much as Ron and the others were. As I pointed out, Harry came in looking as if he had celebrated his victory. Harry said that he would put in his name when no one was around, if entering. As a matter of fact, seems that Ron was questioning him to get a logical answer for how his name got in there, but Harry held back.

Each Horcrux affects people differently. I'd consider it a possession because, imo, Ron would've never left if the locket hadn't been manipulating him to that point.

They all became short and irritable...different? And, nothing written suggests a possession....you can't just invent what you want to believe.

But Hermione wasn't around Harry as much as Ron and the others were. As I pointed out, Harry came in looking as if he had celebrated his victory. Harry said that he would put in his name when no one was around, if entering. As a matter of fact, seems that Ron was questioning him to get a logical answer for how his name got in there, but Harry held back.

But in the end he chose not to believe Harry. Harry told him he didn't do it. For best friends that should be enough. When has Harry ever lied to Ron?

But Hermione was willing to risk it....which proves my point. She does what her heart says is right, even if she gets hurt in the process. Ron is less willing to take risks for what he thinks.Nah, her character is just more opinionated. Hermione says things (not only to Harry) that most wouldn't, imo.

Ron was still keeping tabs on her and noticing her oddities.

And doing nothing about it.

They all became short and irritable...different? And, nothing written suggests a possession....you can't just invent what you want to believe.How else would you describe it? He was manipulated and did something he wouldn't usually do because of the locket.But in the end he chose not to believe Harry. Harry told him he didn't do it. For best friends that should be enough.Yeah, it should've been, but the evidence seemed to stand out more than his word this time. For once, Ron was questioning Harry, something Ron had never done before. When has Harry ever lied to Ron?Knowingly, don't know, but he has lied to his friends before. Normal for humans.

And doing nothing about it.What could he do? She was acting out of the ordinary. At least Ron noticed it, Harry didn't at all until Ron mentioned it.

He was manipulated and did something he wouldn't usually do because of the locket.

He has done it before (albeit symbolically) in GOF. Dumbledore knew he would leave. That is why he left Ron what he did. (although it meant he knew Ron would also come back)

the evidence seemed to stand out more than his word this time. For once, Ron was questioning Harry, something Ron had never done before.Knowingly, don't know, but he has lied to his friends before. Normal for humans.

But when has Harry point blank lied to Ron? He hasn't. That should count for more than just "evidence." It is one thing to questions Harry. Both Ron and Hermione did in HBP about Malfoy. Harry ended up being right, but they both disagreed with him. But they disagreed about their opinoins (kind of like what we are dong now). But to call your best friend a liar when he has never lied to you before.......

He has done it before (albeit symbolically) in GOF. Dumbledore knew he would leave. That is why he left Ron what he did. (although it meant he knew Ron would alsocome back)But GoF isn't comparable to DH. Ron knew what he was doing was important there. In GoF, it was a case of miscommunication and misinterpretation and an argument that got out of control. For DH, Ron left to "cool off", this is not abandonment. Time he got out of range of the locket, he wanted to come right back. If this was purposely done, he wouldn't have tried to come back as soon as he said he did.

But when has Harry point blank lied to Ron? He hasn't. That should count for more than just "evidence." It is one thing to questions Harry. Both Ron and Hermione did in HBP about Malfoy. Harry ended up being right, but they both disagreed with him. But they disagreed about their opinoins (kind of like what we are dong now). But to call your best friend a liar when he has never lied to you before.......But Ron just thought Harry was holding back. I don't think he would've questioned him the way he did either. It was like he was fishing for a logical explanation, and Harry just wasn't doing it. It was like...

Okay, Harry wanted to be in the tournament.
He said that if he did enter, he'd do it with no one around.
Dumbledore and the others are letting him participate in it.
There's no logical reason why anyone would put Harry's name in, unless he did it himself.

But GoF isn't comparable to DH. Ron knew what he was doing was important there. In GoF, it was a case of miscommunication and misinterpretation and an argument that got out of control. For DH, Ron left to "cool off", this is not abandonment. Time he got out of range of the locket, he wanted to come right back. If this was purposely done, he wouldn't have tried to come back as soon as he said he did.

Ron's original purpse was not to cool down. It just so happens that after he cooled down he felt bad and tried to come back. I guess we just have to agree to disagree about GOF. I don't think it is miscommunication. Harry clearly told ROn the truth, Ron chose not to believe him.


There's no logical reason why anyone would put Harry's name in, unless he did it himself.

Given what had happened earlier at the World Cup, you would think that Harry being in danger would have occurred to Ron. It occurred to everyone else.

But doesn't say something about Hermione that she didn't need that. Doesn't it stand as a testament to her friendship with Harry that she chose to believe immediately. TO summarize what you said, Ron needed detailed explanations and when he didn't get it he thought of Harry as a liar and an attention seeker. I think that proves my point, not yours. Hermione believed harry immediately. Ron didn't.

The difference is that Hermione never dreamt of participating in the TWT. Ron and Harry however - especially Ron, who always talked about 'we' - have excessively talked about how cool it would be to be a TWT champion. That's why Hermione could evaluate the situation coolly without any personal interest involved.

Okay, I repeat it, because I think it has gone unnoticed or is being ignored in favour or the ‚Ron is a bad friend’ hypothesis:

1. Ron wanted to come back immediately after he’d disapparated. That would have been minutes later. Being apart from Harry and Hermione for weeks was beyond his control. Had he not run into Snatchers, he had been back that night and no one would talk about it anymore. No one would come to the conclusion Ron was an illoyal bad friend. The only difference between the two situations is the Snatchers appeared. But Snatchers don't make Ron a less true friend. They are just responsible for the involuntarily long separation of the trio.

2. Harry told him to leave TWICE during their fight. Ron did not come up with that idea of his own. But the fight was heated, emotions ran high, Ron had the locket around his neck that made him think he was useless, he thought Harry and Hermione didn’t need and want him there anyway, so when Harry told him to leave he temporarily must have thought that would be the wisest course of action.

3. He did come back. Not knowing if his friends would even want him back, not knowing if they would throw him out of the tent, tell him to leave them forever again, he came back nonetheless.

On another note: I have a problem with the idea that you are only a true friend (or a ‘truer’ friend) when you risk your friendship by telling your friend when they are wrong. I personally have never had to risk my friendships by opposing my best friends because we ususally agree. Agreeing with each other is not unusual for best friends and thus I don't wonder that Ron and Harry agreed most of the time. Now, my two very best friends are both female like me, so maybe that makes us must more comfortable around each other than with friends of the other gender. I guess that was to a degree the point with Ron and Harry also. They connected on a very special level, a level Hermione could not reach because she was a girl. But that doesn’t make either of them a lesser friend to Harry, IMO.

originally posted by 1hp2
Ron's original purpse was not to cool down. It just so happens that after he cooled down he felt bad and tried to come back. I guess we just have to agree to disagree about GOF. I don't think it is miscommunication. Harry clearly told ROn the truth, Ron chose not to believe him.


I think we can agree that Ron did not leave to cool down. The locket had exploited his feelings and insecurities until he believed they were absolutely true. He felt unwanted and useless, and then Harry yelled at him to leave, twice. Ron finally decides that Harry and Hermione don't really want him there (evidenced by Hermione choice to stay by Harry in his mind) and storms out "for good". That is fact.

It is also fact that the second he disapparates and is far beyond the reach of the locket, he realizes that was a mistake and decides to go back, but is detained. In leaving under the locket's influence, I don't think Ron meant to return, but out of the locket's range, he immediately knew he had to go back to Harry and Hermione. This is why I don't believe it was truly abandonment. Ron made a decision to leave, under the influence and bad feelings the locket exploited within him, but it wasn't a premediated decision, nor one he would have made on his own without it. Away from the locket, Ron was able to clearly see his worries were groundless, and that regardless of how whether or not they were true, he should never have left.

As for GoF, I believe it is miscommunication. Harry did not tell Ron the whole truth. Ron was trying to understand what had happened. When Ron asked Harry why anyone else would put the his name in the goblet, Harry replies, "I dunno". To Ron, this sounds like a bad lie. Harry is trying to claim he didn't do it, so he won't get in trouble, but he doesn't even have a reason why anyone would put his name in. Remember, before the names came out, both Harry and Ron saw the tournament for the glory only. They didn't think about the danger. Therefore, why would Ron immediately assume that Harry's name came out because someone wants to kill him? It's more likely that Harry simply wanted more fame. After all, that's what the rest of the school believes as well.


originally posted by 1hp2
Given what had happened earlier at the World Cup, you would think that Harry being in danger would have occurred to Ron. It occurred to everyone else.

It occured to Dumbledore and Moody (obviously, because he did it). Even Harry thought the "someone wants to kill me" theory was farfetched at first. Besides, the World Cup was not aimed at Harry. Crouch never knew he had stolen Harry's wand, it was just someone's wand to him. The DE did not try to endanger Harry, and both Harry and Ron agreed that Hermione was in more danger then either of them. No one believed Voldemort was behind it.

Therefore, why would Ron immediately assume that Harry's name came out because someone wants to kill him? It's more likely that Harry simply wanted more fame. After all, that's what the rest of the school believes as well.

It occured to Dumbledore and Moody (obviously, because he did it). Even Harry thought the "someone wants to kill me" theory was farfetched at first. Besides, the World Cup was not aimed at Harry. Crouch never knew he had stolen Harry's wand, it was just someone's wand to him. The DE did not try to endanger Harry, and both Harry and Ron agreed that Hermione was in more danger then either of them. No one believed Voldemort was behind it.

Ron is not the rest of the school. He should have known Harry better. You are right, nothing was directed at Harry at the World Cup, but it made most everyone else think something could be up. Hermone believed Harry at his word. Ron should have too.

Friendship isnt something that you can compare. Each person is an individual and their personality reflects on what kind of person they are and their actions. Hermione and Ron are two very different people who have to very different personalities, but both are very good friends with Harry. They are both true friends to him to the best of their abilities. Sure many can argue that Ron left during DH, or that he wasnt supportive of Harry at the beginning of GoF, etc, but this doesnt mean that he isnt just as true a friend as Hermione. Rons actions only essentially made Harry a better person. And there were times when Hermione wasnt that supportive of Harry or his actions (when he received the Firebolt, etc.) but she was just concerned about Harry's safety and well-being.

Anyway, my point being, I dont compare my friends and decided that so and so is more of a true friend than another person. Each friend has helped me to the best of their ability when a need has arisen, and the same thing goes for Ron and Hermione's actions toward Harry.

Friendship isnt something that you can compare. Each person is an individual and their personality reflects on what kind of person they are and their actions. Hermione and Ron are two very different people who have to very different personalities, but both are very good friends with Harry. They are both true friends to him to the best of their abilities. Sure many can argue that Ron left during DH, or that he wasnt supportive of Harry at the beginning of GoF, etc, but this doesnt mean that he isnt just as true a friend as Hermione. Rons actions only essentially made Harry a better person. And there were times when Hermione wasnt that supportive of Harry or his actions (when he received the Firebolt, etc.) but she was just concerned about Harry's safety and well-being.

Anyway, my point being, I dont compare my friends and decided that so and so is more of a true friend than another person. Each friend has helped me to the best of their ability when a need has arisen, and the same thing goes for Ron and Hermione's actions toward Harry.A lot of people have been saying this for the duration of the thread. Some just disagree with this assesment, seemingly, even though I definitely agree with it. There's no such thing as the "truer friend".

1hp2 Hermione was more detatched from the GOF competition as had no interest in entering or competing in it whereas Ron and Harry did. If I had been Ron I would probably have questioned Harry's reaction to being in the competition too and have felt betrayed in a way just like Ron did. After all they confided in each other a lot before and Harry just said 'I dunno' when Ron asked him how his name got into the GOF and then looked liked he was celebrating the fact that he got in. It came across that Harry had betrayed Ron in a way by not letting him know the full story. I would have got the same impression ad Ron did I think and been a cranky redhead like Ron.

However the whole point many of us have been making is that friendship isn't a competition it's about who you like - even if you don't know why you like them. It's a feeling that comes from within and true friends will have the occasional falling out but making up for these arguments and staying friends no matter what make for a 'true' friendship. What I'm trying to say is that 'true' friendship is overcoming any obstacles and differences and just loving each other for all each others faults - no matter what or should I say - in spite of everything. Damn I'm not expressing myself very well here. Come on ronjalina and dweaselqueen et al help me out here and put what I'm trying to say into better words.