Competing Friends, or In Ron's Defense

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by 1hp2

I don't recall using the requirement of 100%

That was the impression that I got from your post too though. You make it sound as though Hermione has never made any mistakes or done anything wrong. But the fact is that Hermione made a lot of mistakes herself and she did do things wrong. She never really trusted Harry's judgement - the incident with the Firebolt is only one example of Hermione not trusting Harry. Even in DH we see Hermione blowing off Harry's ideas and not trusting his judgement even though he is right.

But that is the point. The original editorial isn't about what Harry thinks. We know A LOT more about these people, what they have done, and what they are thinking than Harry does. So, it was an outside look at the trio, and a determination that one friend had been more loyal in the last few years. So, it doesn't matter what Harry thinks. Also, he said that he "knew Hermione meant well". I think that you are stretching to say that Harry's considers it "betrayal."

Since the subject here is Harry's friendship with both of them, Harry's opinion is vitally important to any analsysis of the events. However, Hermione's actions are a betrayal either way because she did not discuss her suspicions with Harry first. That is the crux of the issue and what makes her actions a betrayal. There's just no getting around that. By choosing to go behind his back without discussing her suspicions with him first, she betrayed his trust. The fact that Hermione meant well is irrelevant in regards to the actual betrayal. Her intentions were good - it was her actions that were wrong and constituted a betrayal. Harry did consider it a betrayal - that's why he didn't speak to her because of it - and he began to expect her to betray him on other occasions because of that betrayal. He was able to forgive her for that betrayal - eventually - because he knew she meant well. But that's the only significance of Hermione's intentions - that allows for forgiveness, but it doesn't change the fact that she did betray Harry.

I actually think hpboy's editorial was rational. (Although I like bein part of the "young" crowd!!) I think your blind defense of ROn is what is on the irrational side. You are one of the people who can't really defend the bad things ROn has done, so you have changed the discussion. Some of the "rational" posters are like professional politicians. Instead of discussing the topioc, you throw out a smoke screen.

Yes, everyone has flaws. abandoning a friend is not a flaw! Actions are not flaws. Being jealous and being a know it all are flaws. (Notice I took one from each.) Calling your friend a liar and refusing to listen to him or talk to him is not a flaw. Walking out on your friends in a time of need is not a flaw. SO, no one is judging ROn based on his flaws, Ron is being judged by his actions.

And we should judge people on their actions.

We shouldn't judge people at all. Being jealous is not a flaw either - it is an emotion that everyone feels at some point or other. It's not a good thing, but it's not a character flaw either. It typically stems from insecurities - that is the flaw - not jealousy. Both Ron and Hermione made mistakes - their actions were the mistakes caused by their flaws - primarily their individual insecurities. I don't judge either one of them for the mistakes they made because they both owned up to their mistakes and learned from them. It is necessary to discuss the flaws in relation to their mistakes because a lot of their mistakes stem from their flaws. Nobody is perfect - everyone makes mistakes. Hermione made her share of mistakes - a lot of them in fact - because of her character flaws - her own insecurities, the deep seated need to always be right, the fear of failure - Hermione made a great deal of mistakes because of these flaws - particularly in how she interacted and treated Harry over the years. Ron made his share of mistakes because of his insecurities. Neither of them should be judged for their mistakes.

Ron did not abandon Harry. There is a difference between abandonment and having a fight and being ordered to leave. Ron left in DH because Harry ordered him too while they were fighting.

But lets take these events in order - beginning with the fight in GOF. Ron and Harry were both angry in GOF - they both said things that they did not mean and regretted later - they were both too stubborn and prideful to apologize right away. They are both responsible for that fight and the time they spent not talking. There was no abandonment there - they were arguing and not talking to each other. Ron still made sure Harry knew about his detention - which Harry would have gotten into a great deal of trouble for if Ron hadn't told him about it. And Ron never turned against Harry during all that - he didn't join in with the rest of the school in mocking Harry or anything like that. They were angry with each other and not speaking - that was the extent of it. And when Ron realized that he was wrong, he was man enough to admit it and try to apologize. He made a mistake and he learned from that mistake. Harry made mistakes as well and he learned from his mistakes. Incidents like this are important in life because they teach valuable lessons. This incident was significant to both Ron and Harry because it helped them grow and mature and it strengthened the bond of their friendship because they overcame the conflict.

In DH, they argue again. They are under very stressful circumstances and the situation is exacerbated by the locket Horcrux. All three of them are affected by this - the locket produces increased fear and anxiety when they are wearing it and makes them all more irritable. Though all three of them are affected, Ron is affected by this to a greater extent than Harry or Hermione. When the situation reaches a breaking point, Harry and Ron argue. Again, they both contribute to the argument. They are both angry, they both say things they don't mean and regret later - the situation is exacerbated by the locket, but they are both responsible for that fight. In the end, Harry orders Ron to leave and tells him to leave the Horcrux. Ron leaves, but the minute he has apparated away, he realizes his mistake and tries to go back. He is delayed by the snatchers and by the time he gets back to where they were camping, Harry and Hermione have gone. He didn't abandon them. He was ordered to leave and did not make it back in time to catch them before they left.

Again, this was a learning experience for all of them. And - in the long run - it was beneficial that this happened because Ron was able to gather a lot of information while he was gone. He found out about Potterwatch so they could potentially find out some news - he learned about the Taboo on Voldemort's name so they finally knew how the Death Eaters had tracked them down at Tottenheim Court Rd - and so on. The fight was horrible and they all regretted what happened, but the end results were positive. It led to Ron finally confronting and defeating his insecurities and bringing back information they needed.

I find it fascinating that you think Hermione is totally at fault for the guys not talking to her in POA. Even when you called her actions "very selfless".

Yet, Ron is only partially responsible, even when you and many others admitted his actions wee fueled by jealousy and insecurities. Hermione is a fault for being selfless. ROn is only part-responsible for being selfish........that doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense!

I have certainly never said that Hermione's actions were selfless. On the contrary, Hermione's actions were not selfless at all. Her intentions with the Firebolt were good - even though it was a logical fallacy - but her actions were a betrayal of Harry's trust because she did not trust Harry and she did not discuss her suspicions with Harry first.

That is the difference between Hermione's betrayal and Ron arguing with Harry. Ron and Harry argued - both times there was a confrontation and Ron told Harry what he thought and they argued about it. That is what Hermione did not do and that is why she bears the blame alone for Harry not speaking to her in POA. Neither Harry nor Ron did anything - Hermione acted alone with no provocation from either of them and - because of that - she bears the blame alone. She did not attempt to discuss it with Harry, she did not confront Harry - there was no argument. Hermione did not trust Harry's judgement and she never even gave him a chance to make the right decision on his own or even present a defense as to why she might have been wrong. She betrayed Harry's trust by going straight to McGonagall behind his back. Neither Harry or Ron can be held responsible because Hermione did not give either of them any chance to present an argument. She acted alone. That's the difference. It takes two people to argue - Harry and Ron argued and they both said and did things that they both regretted later. It only takes one person to betray another by going behind their back without discussing the issue with them first.

Originally Posted by 1hp2

She definately snitched!! No arguement there!! But I don't see it as a "betrayal". Harry didn't see the broom as dangerous, nor did Ron. (I admit that in the end they were right) She tried to begin the discussion of the broom being dangerous, the boys didn't give it any merit, then Ron kicked her out becasue of the cat and rat thing.

That is only partially correct. All Hermione said was that she didn't think anyone should ride the broom - she didn't say why. For all Harry and Ron knew, she was going to start lecturing Harry on leaving the castle. At that point, even the Quidditch practices were being supervised for Harry's protection. Neither Harry nor Ron had any way of knowing that Hermione thought the broom itself was dangerous. She didn't tell them. Yes, the whole thing with Crookshanks caused a disruption, but she had several hours after that to discuss the potential danger with Harry and chose not to.

Could she have tried to talk to him again? Could she have tried to get him to turn it over himself? Well, yeah, of course. But do you honestly think he would have? I don't. I see it as she tried, they ignored her. She weighed the choice and made a difficult one.

The fact remains that she did not actually try. All she said was that she didn't think anyone should ride the broom. Again, for all they knew, Hermione was thinking that Harry shouldn't go out to the Quidditch Field without an adult present. She never explained what her suspicions were or said that she thought the broom itself might be dangerous.

Yes, Hermione should have tried to talk to Harry first. There is just no getting around that fact. That would have been the right thing to do. That would have demonstrated trust and loyalty. She had several hours in which she could have discussed her suspicions with Harry and given him the chance to make that decision on his own and/or present an argument as to why she might be wrong. She chose not to even try and went behind his back without talking to him about it at all instead.

Hermione had no way of knowing what Harry would have done - and neither do we. We can't know because Hermione never gave him the chance. For all Hermione knew, Harry might have listened to her and gone to McGonagall himself about the broom. We'll never know because Hermione chose to betray him instead of discussing her suspicions with him.

What if a friend were to drive after drinking? And a person tells their parents, to stop them from doing something potentially dangerous? Are they a snitch.....well technically yes. Did they do the right thing.....yes.

I would say that is a betrayal as well. Sure, the intentions are good - but the fact remains that they should have gone to their friend first - before going to the parents. Everyone deserves at least one chance to make the right decision on their own. If they talked to the friend first and the friend would not listen, then - and only then - they should go to the parents.

The same applies to Hermione. If she had talked to Harry first and he refused to listen or dismissed her suspicions, then going to McGonagall would have been fine. It would not have been a betrayal if she had talked to Harry first. But the fact remains - Hermione did not even try to talk to Harry about her suspicions. She assumed that he would not listen - which shows that she did not trust his judgement - and she took the decision out of his hands. She made a unilateral decision that had a significant affect upon Harry without even consulting him about it. That is a betrayal.

[inkling7]

Very well expressed Meesha and I think you would have written balanced editorial about the trio if wanted to.

[dweaselqueen]

originally posted by 1hp2
I also maintain it doesn't matter what Harry thinks. (Now here me out.....) The editorial is not from Harry's point of view. Harry prefers Ron, no one is arguing that. Considering the editorial is looking at the trio from a birds eye view so to speak, Harry's opinion doesn't hold weight on who is the better friend. THe whole point is looking at it from the outside.

I agree with meesha on this one. They are Harry's friends, therefore, what Harry thinks of their actions is important to determining who is the better friend. As we have been arguing, friendship isn't about practicality. Arguing about who is the better friend from an outsider's opinion rules out any emotional attachment between Harry and his friends, which is the absolute basis of a friendship. Both Harry's emotions and the actions of his friends should be considered when determining which is the better friend (a debate I still consider to have a flawed hypothesis).



It is easily argued that both Hermione and Ron have betrayed Harry's trust in some way or other. So therefore, there is no way actions alone can determine whether Ron or Hermione has been a better friend.

originally posted by meesha1971
Ron did not abandon Harry. There is a difference between abandonment and having a fight and being ordered to leave. Ron left in DH because Harry ordered him too while they were fighting.

I've long had a problem with the term "abandonment" because I don't think Ron was thinking of leaving until Harry ordered him to leave. And then, Harry had to say it twice before Ron actually took off. Then, he was ready to turn around and come back immediately. It would have been abandonment if Ron had left without prompting from Harry. If he had just walked out in the middle of the fight without any provocation. That is abandonment.

[1hp2]

Originally Posted by SSJ_Jup81

I'd talk to the actual person, not his or her parents and tell him or her that if they ever drink and drive or consider it, I will go to that person's parents and tell, but even then, there's no guarantee that the warning'll work. Unfortunately, some will just do whatever they want. If the person is an adult, going to the parents won't do much good anyway. As you can see, I'm giving my friend a choice of what he/she should do and what'll happen if the right choice isn't chosen.

But, how can you talk to them about it before it happens? Do you just say that to all your friends? THe reason I use that as an example is becasue the guys were not thinking clearly about the broom. She tried to talk about the possible dangers. They didn't see it, and anyone thinking they would have is giving them credit for reasoning skills those two don't have yet. She still snitched, no arguing that. BUt from an outside point of view, she did the right thing.

Originally Posted by meesha1971

Even in DH we see Hermione blowing off Harry's ideas and not trusting his judgement even though he is right.

HE isn't always right. Hermione is correct in saying the Voldemort has probably set a trap for Harry at GOdric's Hollow.

Originally Posted by meesha1971

However, Hermione's actions are a betrayal either way because she did not discuss her suspicions with Harry first.

She tried, they wouldn't hear her out.

Originally Posted by meesha1971

We shouldn't judge people at all. Being jealous is not a flaw either - it is an emotion that everyone feels at some point or other. It's not a good thing, but it's not a character flaw either.

considering it is on the original list of deadly sins.....because of what it can lead to, I maintain jealousy is a flaw. Jealousy is not an action, it is a trait or characteristic, particularly if it strong and frequent. It is a definate flaw Ron has. (and yes before someone gets mad I realize all real people as well as all the characters in HP have flaws).

Example anger is a "emotion" most people will experience at one time or another. But if someone experiences anger frequently, or acts on that anger, then it becomes a character flaw.

Originally Posted by meesha1971

We shouldn't judge people at all.

So, no court trials for criminals? No thinking Voldemort is a bad guy, because we shouldn't judge him? We do and should judge people based on their actions. You quoted me correctly, but do you really disagree with judging actions? I don't. For example when I was that age I would not have been friends with someone who did drugs.....or was a bully.....because I had jusged them based on their actions.

Originally Posted by meesha1971

But lets take these events in order - beginning with the fight in GOF. Ron and Harry were both angry in GOF -

Harry was angry at Ron,after Ron accused him of cheating, and after Ron did not believe him. Harry did not walk into that room mad and wanting to fight him.......he was glad to see Ron was there! Harry got angry after being called a liar......I don't blame him. (because as you have read, I blame Ron).

Originally Posted by meesha1971

I have certainly never said that Hermione's actions were selfless. On the contrary, Hermione's actions were not selfless at all.

Ok. If her actions are not selfless, it means she had something to gain. What did she stand to gain from going to McGonigall? She had mor to lose than to gain.....

[SSJ_Jup81]

Originally Posted by 1hp2

But, how can you talk to them about it before it happens?

I don't get this here. If you know your friend drinks, how can you not know beforehand that there's the possibility of his or her getting behind the wheel?

Do you just say that to all your friends?

Of course I would. If I had a friend, who I knew was the type to drink, I'd give them a choice in the matter to show that I at least tried. Only the actual person can make the right decision here, but if he or she makes a bad one or would consider it, in my presence, then I'd intervene. If the intervention doesn't work and I found out, I'd tell my friend that I'm going to tell because what they're doing is literally dangerous, not only to himself, but to those around him as well.

THe reason I use that as an example is becasue the guys were not thinking clearly about the broom.

Probably because there was no reason for them to think that something was wrong with it and logically, how could Sirius manage to get the broom sent anyway. To them, it wasn't a big deal. For their age and personalities, their thinking was fine.

She tried to talk about the possible dangers.

Not really. She didn't really get into it.

They didn't see it, and anyone thinking they would have is giving them credit for reasoning skills those two don't have yet.

Can't argue with that one. Typical, teenage boys...

She still snitched, no arguing that. BUt from an outside point of view, she did the right thing.

And from the point of view of the protagonist, it's a betrayal, which is why I consider it a minor one.

The main problem is that Hermione didn't fully say why she felt that something could've been wrong with it. She kept that to herself. I doubt that Harry would've turned it in on his own, but if Herminoe had been fully open about her fears here, and then went to McGonagall after she truly, honestly tried, I don't think it would've been as bad. At least Harry would've known about it.

So, no court trials for criminals? No thinking Voldemort is a bad guy, because we shouldn't judge him? We do and should judge people based on their actions. You quoted me correctly, but do you really disagree with judging actions? I don't. For example when I was that age I would not have been friends with someone who did drugs.....or was a bully.....because I had jusged them based on their actions.

I guess, for me, I'm more concerned of one's personality, and back then, I don't think I would've cared much if someone did drugs or whatever. I didn't do it, so no big deal to me and as long as you don't do it around me, or in my presence, okay. Of course my way of thinking has changed since I was a child.

[1hp2]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

Again, this was a learning experience for all of them. And - in the long run - it was beneficial that this happened because Ron was able to gather a lot of information while he was gone. He found out about Potterwatch so they could potentially find out some news - he learned about the Taboo on Voldemort's name so they finally knew how the Death Eaters had tracked them down at Tottenheim Court Rd - and so on.

Beneficial information? Did they learn anything of consequence while listening to Potter Watch? They were still caught because of the name Taboo.....harry's habit and all. SO how did they benefit from any of Ron's information? The real benefit is they were happy he was back, and they could focus on the task at hand, instead of this -ROn thing- bothering them. Ron abandoning them had a major effect.....because he is so important to the two of them! That is what makes his actions so bad.......

[SSJ_Jup81]

Originally Posted by 1hp2

Beneficial information? Did they learn anything of consequence while listening to Potter Watch? They were still caught because of the name Taboo.....harry's habit and all. SO how did they benefit from any of Ron's information? The real benefit is they were happy he was back, and they could focus on the task at hand, instead of this -ROn thing- bothering them. Ron abandoning them had a major effect.....because he is so important to the two of them! That is what makes his actions so bad.......

But it wasn't his fault that he left. He was told to leave like he wasn't even wanted there, and it didn't help that the locket was probably feeding those thoughts to him for hours on end. How can it be an abandonment when you were told to leave? That's more like filling out a harsh request.

[1hp2]

Originally Posted by SSJ_Jup81

The main problem is that Hermione didn't fully say why she felt that something could've been wrong with it. She kept that to herself. I doubt that Harry would've turned it in on his own, but if Herminoe had been fully open about her fears here, and then went to McGonagall after she truly, honestly tried, I don't think it would've been as bad. At least Harry would've known about it.

She was kicked out of the room before she could. Should she have tried again.....I guess people can think what they want on that, I maintain she tried.

Again, I don't see "snitching", especially when your motive is to possibly save the life of a friend is in any way equal to abandonment, or acting out of selfishness. But, part of my job is snitching, so I guess I don't see it as bad, if you are trying to save someone.

[SSJ_Jup81]

Originally Posted by 1hp2

She was kicked out of the room before she could. Should she have tried again.....I guess people can think what they want on that, I maintain she tried.

Of course she should've. She's opinionated anyway, so what's stopping her from doing so? She decided that she was right and that her approach was the correct approach. This has always been Hermione's main problem. I always wondered if she was going to ever have that backfire on her or have her learn a lesson about that, but seems JKR didn't.

Again, I don't see "snitching", especially when your motive is to possibly save the life of a friend is in any way equal to abandonment, or acting out of selfishness. But, part of my job is snitching, so I guess I don't see it as bad, if you are trying to save someone.

But you're undermining the friend. That's just as bad, imo. You're coming to the decision that your friend isn't smart enough to make the decision on his or her own or making the assumption that the friend wouldn't. You give a warning and then if the warning doesn't work, then you do something more serious. I would never snitch on a person because I wouldn't want someone to go behind my back and that to me.

I've actually had an intervention of a friend before a few years back. He knew I was having some issues, but, he also said that if I didn't get everything together, then he would go to my family and talk to them himself. I appreciate the fact that he actually gave me a choice and didn't treat me like I was a child who couldn't do anything on my own and didn't come across as if I was incapable of thinking.

That's technically what Hermione did to Harry by going to McGonagall without even telling him that she would. The falling out would've probably still occurred, but at least it wouldn't have been behind his back.

Edit: Just thought of an example. In HBP, Hermione got on Harry for the Felix thing, right in front of Ron. Ron got the impression, due to his reaction, that Hermione felt that he was incapable of playing a good game unless he used that lucky potion. She was undermining his Quidditch abilities, like he wasn't able to play on his own (even though, I know Hermione probably didn't mean that at all, just that it came out wrong). The thing with Harry and the broom can be somewhat paralleled since she came across as like Harry wasn't able to do anything or make decisions on his own.

[1hp2]

Originally Posted by SSJ_Jup81

Ron got the impression, due to his reaction, that Hermione felt that he was incapable of playing a good game unless he used that lucky potion. She was undermining his Quidditch abilities, like he wasn't able to play on his own (even though, I know Hermione probably didn't mean that at all, just that it came out wrong).

Yeah but in a way, isn't that true? ( I know off-topic, but at this point does it matter?)

That is why Harry made sure Hermione saw him. (She is if nothing else predictable.) Because Ron would think he had been given the lucky potion, and he would not be nervous. Ron Quidditch abilities are shakey at times. He wouldn't have made the team if Hermione hadn't cheated for him/ (Well he still might have made the team, but her interference helped). His chances of playing that game well without "thinking" he had been given tht lucky potion are up for speculation, but no one can argue that part of success is positive thinking.

I know Hermione probably didn't mean that at all, just that it came out wrong

I don't know about that. She might have meant it the way it sounds. Sometimes we can tell what people truly think in this way. Often times people say things as "jokes" to tell what they think and not have a backlash. Also, sometimes things "slip", but that doesn't mean we don't think it. I don't have the exact quotes in my head, but throughout, Hermione seems shocked when ROn does something particularly well. There is an example I believe in DH when ROn has a good idea, and she is shocked he came up with it. Ron even comments something to the effect that she is always shocked when he does something intelligent. I happen to agree with Hermione's "slip"....ROn is a mediocre quidditch player.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by dweaselqueen

I agree with meesha on this one. They are Harry's friends, therefore, what Harry thinks of their actions is important to determining who is the better friend. As we have been arguing, friendship isn't about practicality. Arguing about who is the better friend from an outsider's opinion rules out any emotional attachment between Harry and his friends, which is the absolute basis of a friendship. Both Harry's emotions and the actions of his friends should be considered when determining which is the better friend (a debate I still consider to have a flawed hypothesis).

Exactly. The idea of one being better than each other is immensely flawed. While it is true that Harry was closer emotionally with Ron, he didn't categorize them as to which one was better than the other. They were both his best friends and they were both important to him. And they both made mistakes occasionally. That doesn't make one any better than the other.

I said this on another thread about the trio, but it is applicable here. Ron and Hermione are both important to Harry for different reasons. Just like air and water are both important to any human being for different reasons. You need both air and water to survive. They serve completely different functions, but both are vital. Neither is any more important than the other. Ron and Hermione were important for different reasons, but they were equally important because Harry needed both of them. Just like humans need both air and water.

It is easily argued that both Hermione and Ron have betrayed Harry's trust in some way or other. So therefore, there is no way actions alone can determine whether Ron or Hermione has been a better friend.

Completely agree. That is the major flaw with this hypothesis. Nobody is perfect and people make mistakes. Hermione is no exception. She made mistakes and betrayed Harry's trust the same as Ron did. They learned from those mistakes and those conflicts made the friendship between them stronger because they overcame them.

I've long had a problem with the term "abandonment" because I don't think Ron was thinking of leaving until Harry ordered him to leave. And then, Harry had to say it twice before Ron actually took off. Then, he was ready to turn around and come back immediately. It would have been abandonment if Ron had left without prompting from Harry. If he had just walked out in the middle of the fight without any provocation. That is abandonment.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by 1hp2

But, how can you talk to them about it before it happens? Do you just say that to all your friends? THe reason I use that as an example is becasue the guys were not thinking clearly about the broom. She tried to talk about the possible dangers. They didn't see it, and anyone thinking they would have is giving them credit for reasoning skills those two don't have yet. She still snitched, no arguing that. BUt from an outside point of view, she did the right thing.

Unless you are psychic, you cannot know something is going to happen before it does. If you have a friend who drinks and you are concerned they might attempt to drive, the first thing you should do is approach them - give them the chance to make the right decision on their own. If they insist on driving after drinking after you have talked to them, then it is ok to take it to the next level because they are willfully endangering themselves and others. There is no justification for not giving a person at least once chance to do the right thing on their own. You should never go behind a friends back.

From the outside point of view, Hermione betrayed Harry by going behind his back without even trying to talk to him about her suspicions first. There is just no getting around the fact that the right thing to do would have been to talk to Harry first and at least give him a chance to make the right decision on his own.

HE isn't always right. Hermione is correct in saying the Voldemort has probably set a trap for Harry at GOdric's Hollow.

I didn't say he was always right. Hermione is not always right either. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. My point was that, even when Harry was right, Hermione blew him off and told him that he was wrong. Example - there was a Horcrux hidden at Hogwarts. Harry suggested that early on - he understood that Hogwarts was very important to Voldemort. Hermione blew Harry off because she didn't want to take the risk of trying to get into Hogwarts and refused to even consider the possibility. If Hermione had trusted Harry's judgement, that would have saved them months of wasted time.

She tried, they wouldn't hear her out.

She did not try. Saying that she didn't think anyone should ride the broom without explaining why was not trying. As I said before, for all Harry and Ron knew, Hermione was talking about Harry going to the Quidditch Field without an adult present. Crookshanks caused a disruption, but she still had several hours to explain to Harry why she didn't think he should ride the broom. Hermione made the choice NOT to even try. She assumed that Harry would not listen to her because she did not trust Harry's judgement. She never even gave Harry a chance. Hermione made a unilateral decision that had a huge impact on Harry without even attempting to discuss it with him first. She went behind his back. That is a betrayal of trust from any point of view.

considering it is on the original list of deadly sins.....because of what it can lead to, I maintain jealousy is a flaw. Jealousy is not an action, it is a trait or characteristic, particularly if it strong and frequent. It is a definate flaw Ron has. (and yes before someone gets mad I realize all real people as well as all the characters in HP have flaws).

Example anger is a "emotion" most people will experience at one time or another. But if someone experiences anger frequently, or acts on that anger, then it becomes a character flaw.

You've just explained the difference yourself. Jealousy is an emotion - not a character flaw. Allowing jealousy to control everything you do would be a character flaw. And that is precisely what we do not see with Ron. Yes, Ron felt jealousy sometimes. There is nothing wrong with that - everybody is jealous sometimes. Harry was jealous of Ron on several occasions as well. However, out of 7 years of friendship, that only became an issue between Ron and Harry twice - and both times Harry was equally responsible for the argument that ensued. Jealousy was not a character flaw in Ron - the insecurities that led to him feeling jealous on occasion was the character flaw.

So, no court trials for criminals? No thinking Voldemort is a bad guy, because we shouldn't judge him? We do and should judge people based on their actions. You quoted me correctly, but do you really disagree with judging actions? I don't. For example when I was that age I would not have been friends with someone who did drugs.....or was a bully.....because I had jusged them based on their actions.

Apples and oranges. We are not talking about criminal offences or legal issues. We are talking about making unjustified snap judgements against people for normal, human mistakes without giving any consideration to the underlying issues or circumstances.

Even a court of law will examine evidence and consider circumstances and motive before making judgement.

Harry was angry at Ron,after Ron accused him of cheating, and after Ron did not believe him. Harry did not walk into that room mad and wanting to fight him.......he was glad to see Ron was there! Harry got angry after being called a liar......I don't blame him. (because as you have read, I blame Ron).

That is incorrect. Ron did not attack Harry or accuse him. Ron congratulated Harry - he made a huge effort to put aside his own hurt feelings to do so. He asked Harry - very calmly - to explain. All Harry had to do at that point was explain what had happened - tell Ron what Moody and Dumbledore had said. Harry chose not to. If Harry had explained, there would have been no fight at all. They are both equally responsible for what happened. It takes two people to have an argument.

The fact is, the evidence was against Harry. Ron had every reason to believe that Harry had put his own name in the goblet. Harry had even told them how he would do it. From Ron's perspective, the tournament was a wonderful thing - the chance for glory and a big money prize. He did not see it as dangerous. The idea of anyone else putting Harry's name in the goblet was ludicrous. Why would anyone put another person's name in the goblet instead of their own? Ron was thinking logically. It was Harry's responsibility to explain the situation to him and he chose not to. It was unreasonable of him to expect anyone to believe him without explaining why someone else would put his name in the goblet instead of their own. It all went downhill from there with both of them becoming angry and saying things they did not mean - Ron didn't truly become angry until Harry said he was stupid. Up to that point, he was just hurt because it looked like Harry had left him out.

Ok. If her actions are not selfless, it means she had something to gain. What did she stand to gain from going to McGonigall? She had mor to lose than to gain.....

Being right - McGonagall agreed with her and Hermione took that as justification for her betrayal. She had to be right. That was always Hermione's biggest flaw - her need to be right about everything and being unable to admit when she was wrong.

The fact remains that there was no reason for Hermione to lose anything. It was her betrayal that caused that. She showed Harry that she did not trust his judgement - she treated him like a willful, ignorant child. She lied to him - a lie by omission is still a lie and she did not even attempt to tell him her suspicions. She went behind his back. That was a betrayal. There is absolutely no justification for going behind a friends' back without even attempting to discuss the issue with them first. None. That is a betrayal from any point of view.

Originally Posted by 1hp2

Beneficial information? Did they learn anything of consequence while listening to Potter Watch? They were still caught because of the name Taboo.....harry's habit and all. SO how did they benefit from any of Ron's information? The real benefit is they were happy he was back, and they could focus on the task at hand, instead of this -ROn thing- bothering them. Ron abandoning them had a major effect.....because he is so important to the two of them! That is what makes his actions so bad.......

Yes, they did. It was news. They were completely isolated from the wizarding world - any news was beneficial. They learned what was going on in the wizarding world. Lupin was able to get a message to Harry that let him know he forgave him for what happened at Grimmauld Place. The information revealed led Harry to figure out that Voldemort was looking for the Elder Wand.

It was Harry's mistake that led to them being captured. Ron brought back important information - particularly regarding the Taboo. It's not Ron's fault that Harry screwed up and said Voldemort's name.

Since Harry is the one who ordered Ron to leave - and had to do so twice because Ron did not want to leave - we cannot hold Ron completely responsible. Ron did not want to leave - Harry ordered him to. Ron tried to go back immediately, but was delayed by the snatchers and they were gone by the time he got back. The locket, Harry's actions, and Ron's actions are all factors in that argument. Both Ron and Harry are equally responsible for what happened that night. They argued - they were both angry and said things they did not mean. They both share the responsibility for what happened equally.

The difference between this type of situation and Hermione's betrayal with the Firebolt is the fact that Hermione did not even attempt to discuss her suspicions with Harry. There was no confrontation - no argument. Harry did not do anything at all to deserve Hermione treating him like that. Hermione acted alone and, because of that, she bears the responsibility for what happened alone. There is no justification for Hermione going behind Harry's back without talking to him first. None.

Originally Posted by 1hp2

She was kicked out of the room before she could. Should she have tried again.....I guess people can think what they want on that, I maintain she tried.

She did not try. She didn't say anything about the broom possibly being dangerous or that she thought it might have come from Sirius Black. All she did was make a vague statement that she didn't think they should ride the broom. Without explaining her suspicions, neither Harry nor Ron had any reason to think that the broom was dangerous or that Hermione thought it might be.

Nor was she kicked out of the room because of the broom. She wasn't kicked out at all. Ron told her to get Crookshanks out of there - and really she should never have brought Crookshanks in there in the first place. She knew Crookshanks had attempted to attack Scabbers on multiple occasions. That was very insensitive of her - particularly after she had assured Ron when she bought Crookshanks that she would keep him in her dormitory.

The fact remains that Hermione had several hours in which she could have discussed her suspicions with Harry. HOURS. Instead, she just sat there brooding and shooting dirty looks at the broom and Harry did not understand why. Hermione assumed that Harry would not listen - she could not know if he would or not because she is not psychic. She made that assumption because she did not trust Harry's judgement. She sat there for hours brooding about it and decided to go to McGonagall without even the slightest attempt to discuss her suspicions with Harry. That is a betrayal from any point of view.

Again, I don't see "snitching", especially when your motive is to possibly save the life of a friend is in any way equal to abandonment, or acting out of selfishness. But, part of my job is snitching, so I guess I don't see it as bad, if you are trying to save someone.

The motive is only relevant towards whether or not the betrayal can be forgiven. Going behind a friend's back without even attempting to discuss it with them first is a betrayal regardless of the motive. It shows that you do not trust that person. The fact that Hermione had good intentions because she thought the broom might be dangerous is what enables Harry to eventually forgive her, but it does not change the fact that she did betray Harry by not discussing her suspicions with him first.

I did not equate that with abandonment. Neither Ron nor Hermione ever actually abandoned Harry. They had arguments, there were times they did not speak to each other, and Harry ordered Ron to leave in DH - but that is not the same thing at all. None of those things are abandonment. But going behind someone's back without even attempting to talk to them first is most definitely a betrayal and shows a complete lack of trust.

Originally Posted by 1hp2

Yeah but in a way, isn't that true? ( I know off-topic, but at this point does it matter?)

That is why Harry made sure Hermione saw him. (She is if nothing else predictable.) Because Ron would think he had been given the lucky potion, and he would not be nervous. Ron Quidditch abilities are shakey at times. He wouldn't have made the team if Hermione hadn't cheated for him/ (Well he still might have made the team, but her interference helped). His chances of playing that game well without "thinking" he had been given tht lucky potion are up for speculation, but no one can argue that part of success is positive thinking.

That is completely incorrect. Hermione did not do anything that helped Ron make the Quidditch team. Ron saved all five goals completely on his own. All Hermione did was make McLaggen miss one goal because she was angry with him over his insults towards Ron and Ginny. If Hermione hadn't done that, then it would have come down to Harry having to choose between Ron and McLaggen - and Harry already knew that Ron would be better on the team than McLaggen because McLaggen was not a team player so her actions are completely irrelevant in regards to Ron making the team. Hermione's motive there had nothing to do with Quidditch or whether or not Ron made the team. McLaggen made her angry by insulting Ron and Ginny in front of her. She chose to confund him and make him mess up to punish him for insulting her friends.

As for the Felix Felicis - you are partially correct. Harry did need Hermione to think he had slipped the potion to Ron. That's why he didn't tell her what he was doing - he knew Hermione could not lie convincingly and he needed her to have a genuine reaction so Ron would believe it. Harry's motive was to improve Ron's confidence because he knew that Ron was an excellent player - the only thing holding him back was his lack of confidence in himself. He also hoped that it would help in getting Ron and Hermione to talk, but that is where not telling Hermione backfired because she unintentionally stuck her foot in her mouth and insulted Ron.

I don't know about that. She might have meant it the way it sounds. Sometimes we can tell what people truly think in this way. Often times people say things as "jokes" to tell what they think and not have a backlash. Also, sometimes things "slip", but that doesn't mean we don't think it. I don't have the exact quotes in my head, but throughout, Hermione seems shocked when ROn does something particularly well. There is an example I believe in DH when ROn has a good idea, and she is shocked he came up with it. Ron even comments something to the effect that she is always shocked when he does something intelligent. I happen to agree with Hermione's "slip"....ROn is a mediocre quidditch player.

She didn't mean it that way. That is obvious because Ron is not a mediocre Quidditch Player. It was only his lack of confidence holding him back - when he was able to overcome that, he was excellent. She said it badly, but she was criticizing Harry - not Ron's ability. It is more likely that part of the reason Hermione was so upset with Harry is that she saw that as Harry thinking Ron couldn't play without the potion. She realized she was wrong when Harry revealed that he didn't actually do it. Like Harry, Hermione understood that the only thing holding Ron back was his lack of confidence. That's why she was surprised sometimes - those occasions where Ron was able to overcome that lack of confidence on his own predominantly. It wasn't that she doubted his ability - as we see at the end of OOTP and in HBP, Ron is actually an excellent Quidditch player when he doesn't let his insecurities get to him and there are a lot of other occasions where he demonstrates skill that he never acknowledges in himself because of his insecurities - the chess match in PS/SS, helping Harry get into the COS (It was Ron who figured out parseltongue would open the chamber), standing up to Sirius on a broken leg, taking on 3 Death Eaters by himself in OOTP and surviving, masterminding the escape from the Inquisitor Squad - again taking on 3 opponents though with better results since he wasn't hit with any spells that time - and so on. Hermione saw all that and understood. She always knew that Ron was capable of a lot more than he believed - he had shown that repeatedly. What surprised her was when Ron was able to overcome his confidence problem on his own - which is extremely difficult to do for someone as insecure as Ron - not that he did something well.

[1hp2]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

That is incorrect. Ron did not attack Harry or accuse him. Ron congratulated Harry - he made a huge effort to put aside his own hurt feelings to do so. He asked Harry - very calmly - to explain. All Harry had to do at that point was explain what had happened - tell Ron what Moody and Dumbledore had said. Harry chose not to. If Harry had explained, there would have been no fight at all. They are both equally responsible for what happened. It takes two people to have an argument.

No, Ron did accuse him. He asked Harry how he did it.....legitimate questions. He told Ron he didn't. And Ron did not believe him. He said he could tell him the truth, that implies he didn't think Harry had just told him the truth, which means he just accused Harry of lying.

Originally Posted by meesha1971

That is obvious because Ron is not a mediocre Quidditch Player. It was only his lack of confidence holding him back - when he was able to overcome that, he was excellent.

THis really isn't a book discussion, but I am going say this anyway. To be excellent at sports means you are consistant. Ron was not consistant as a goal keeper, therefore is his not an excellent quidditch player. He has the ability to be if he can overcome his confidence problems. But he doesn't have the chance to prove that, cause he doesn't get to play in year 7. Ron will not go down in Hogwarts History as a top quidditch player.

**granted this is a sports discussion, not really a Harry Potter discussion, buy I just had to write that!

Originally Posted by meesha1971

She did not try. Saying that she didn't think anyone should ride the broom without explaining why was not trying. As I said before, for all Harry and Ron knew, Hermione was talking about Harry going to the Quidditch Field without an adult present.

Not a chance they thought she was talking about going to the quidditch field w/o an adult. Hermione was talking about who sent the broom. She also mentioned that she found it strange someone would buy an expensive gift like that without signing their name, then she said it might be dangerous to ride, and then said she didn't think anyone should ride [b][u]that broom[b][u]. Ron made a comment, and Hermione was going to say something else about the broom and why they shouldn't ride it. I believe it was here she was going to say she thought Black sent it......can't prove it, but it is what I think. But as she was begining to say that ROn yelled at her to take her cat and leave, cause of the whold cat/rat stuff going on. SHE TRIED! Now if you think she should have tried again say that. But to say she didn't try is simply ignoring the facts. Now, maybe you don't think she tried hard enough....again, fine, but she tried.

Originally Posted by meesha1971

Hermione made the choice NOT to even try.

See my above comments or page 167 UK edition to prove that she tried.

Originally Posted by meesha1971

That is completely incorrect. Hermione did not do anything that helped Ron make the Quidditch team. Ron saved all five goals completely on his own. All Hermione did was make McLaggen miss one goal because she was angry with him over his insults towards Ron and Ginny. If Hermione hadn't done that, then it would have come down to Harry having to choose between Ron and McLaggen - and Harry already knew that Ron would be better on the team than McLaggen because McLaggen was not a team player so her actions are completely irrelevant in regards to Ron making the team. Hermione's motive there had nothing to do with Quidditch or whether or not Ron made the team. McLaggen made her angry by insulting Ron and Ginny in front of her. She chose to confund him and make him mess up to punish him for insulting her friends.

I'll just assume you didn't read past my second sentence on this issue since I said Ron probably would have made the team anyway!

Originally Posted by meesha1971

It was unreasonable of him to expect anyone to believe him without explaining why someone else would put his name in the goblet instead of their own.

It is unreasonable to expect your best friend to believe you word? You shouldn't have to explain yourself to your "truest friend". (Which is why Harry did not have to explain himself to Hermione and she believed him straight away.)

It is called faith. Ron should have had faith in a friend that has never lied to him before. Doesn't 3 1/2 years of loyalty, honesty, risking your life to save a guy's sister count for anything??

Friends should have faith in each other, they should trust each other without an explanation needed. Harry has given Ron 3 1/2 years worth of proof and reasons that he can be trusted. Ron ignores all of that. Now if Harry and Ron were newer friends I could undertand your logic. But a friendship that had gone through what theirs had gone through should earn you a little bit of trust. Ron should have given Harry the benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted by meesha1971

You've just explained the difference yourself. Jealousy is an emotion - not a character flaw. Allowing jealousy to control everything you do would be a character flaw.

When you act badly because of negative emotions, those emotions are flaws in your character. I don't think it has to control everything to be a flaw. Even an abusive husband can be kind and loving on occasion (no I am not saying Ron is an abuser!). But the point being if you act out because of negative feelings and emotions on numerous occassions (as Ron has) it is a character flaw.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by 1hp2

No, Ron did accuse him. He asked Harry how he did it.....legitimate questions. He told Ron he didn't. And Ron did not believe him. He said he could tell him the truth, that implies he didn't think Harry had just told him the truth, which means he just accused Harry of lying.

Ron stated the facts that had been presented. Harry's name came out of the goblet. There was no reason for anyone else to put Harry's name in the goblet that Ron knew of. The logical conclusion was that Harry had done it himself.

In addition, this would not have been the first time that Harry lied to Ron and Hermione in the presence of others and told them the truth later. Something that he continues to do even after this incident. Of course, his reasons for doing that are understandable - and Ron and Hermione both understand why Harry does that. There are some things you just don't want other people to know.

There is more than that, but I go into more detail below and I'd rather not be too repetitive. But the point is that Ron had every reason to believe that is exactly what Harry was doing here because he did not have all the information. And Harry knew that Ron did not have all the information. It was Harry's responsibiltiy to explain the situation to Ron and he chose not to. That makes them both equally responsible for the resulting argument and the weeks spent not speaking. They both made mistakes here.

THis really isn't a book discussion, but I am going say this anyway. To be excellent at sports means you are consistant. Ron was not consistant as a goal keeper, therefore is his not an excellent quidditch player. He has the ability to be if he can overcome his confidence problems. But he doesn't have the chance to prove that, cause he doesn't get to play in year 7. Ron will not go down in Hogwarts History as a top quidditch player.

**granted this is a sports discussion, not really a Harry Potter discussion, buy I just had to write that!

Okay. I'm not a sports fan or anything so let me revise what I said so the meaning is more clear because I think we might actually agree on this. What I meant was that Ron is an excellent player in regards to his ability. What held him back was his lack of confidence and Harry helped him overcome that in HBP. After the incident with the Felix Felicis, Ron doesn't have any issues with Quidditch anymore - he becomes more consistent because Harry helped him realize that he was an excellent player. He didn't play in DH - that is true - but he proved himself in HBP. I wouldn't say he's the top player, but he is an exceptional player in regards to his talent and he will be remembered for his role in helping Gryffindor win the Quidditch cup in both fifth and sixth year - both times that Harry was not playing due to extenuating circumstances. That is significant because nobody could say Harry saved him by catching the snitch early - as happened in his first Quidditch match in OOTP. It was important for Ron to do some of that on his own and that played a part in him eventually completely overcoming all of his insecurities in DH.

Not a chance they thought she was talking about going to the quidditch field w/o an adult. Hermione was talking about who sent the broom. She also mentioned that she found it strange someone would buy an expensive gift like that without signing their name, then she said it might be dangerous to ride, and then said she didn't think anyone should ride [b][u]that broom[b][u]. Ron made a comment, and Hermione was going to say something else about the broom and why they shouldn't ride it. I believe it was here she was going to say she thought Black sent it......can't prove it, but it is what I think. But as she was begining to say that ROn yelled at her to take her cat and leave, cause of the whold cat/rat stuff going on. SHE TRIED! Now if you think she should have tried again say that. But to say she didn't try is simply ignoring the facts. Now, maybe you don't think she tried hard enough....again, fine, but she tried.

Just to be clear - I did not say that is what they actually thought. That was just an example because, for all they knew, Hermione could have been worried about a lot of things. She could have been worried that the broom had been stolen because she made a comment about how expensive it was. She could have been worried about Harry going out to the Quidditch field without an adult present. She could have been worried that it was too highly polished and Harry would slip off the end - silly example, but it was very shiny. But she could have been worried about a lot of things. They had no way of knowing what her actual suspicions were because she did not tell them and gave no indication that she thought the broom might be dangerous.

The fact remains that neither Harry nor Ron understood what she meant and Hermione was fully aware that they did not understand her because she did not make her meaning clear. She did not try. She made vague statements about who would send the broom - something they had been asking themselves already. She asked questions about the broom - they know she doesn't know much about Quidditch or brooms and does not like flying. She made a vague comment about it being unusual - again, something they had already decided for themselves. Not once did she say she thought the broom was dangerous or give any indication that she thought the broom was dangerous. She basically repeated all the speculation they had already gone through before she arrived and asked a few questions. She did not actually try to discuss her suspicions.

Crookshanks causing a disruption is a factor because that did interrupt the discussion. There is a very, very slight possibility that Hermione may have intended to present her suspicions. However, this is highly unlikely because she had ample opportunity to bring it back up while they were all in the common room and she chose not to. Neither Harry nor Ron had shown any anger or any indication that they would not listen to her about the broom. Ron was angry with her over Crookshanks - not the broom. If Hermione had any intention of discussing her suspicions with Harry, she would have done so. The fact that she sat there for hours and said nothing tells us that she had no intention of discussing it with Harry because she had already decided he would not listen because she did not trust his judgement.

There's just no getting around the fact that they spent hours in the common room before going down to lunch that day. Hermione had hours to try to discuss her suspicions with Harry and she chose not to. Hermione made an assumption that had no basis in fact simply because she did not trust Harry's judgement. She never tried to discuss her suspicions with him.

No matter how you try to spin it, the fact remains that Hermione should have discussed her suspicions with Harry before going to McGonagall. The fact that she did not discuss it with Harry first makes it a betrayal.

I'll just assume you didn't read past my second sentence on this issue since I said Ron probably would have made the team anyway!

I did read it. I just get irritated when people accuse Hermione of cheating when her reasons for confunding McLaggen were stated clearly on page. It didn't have anything to do with Ron beyond the fact that McLaggen had insulted Ron and Ginny. Sorry if I came across harshly - that's just an old issue that always irritated me.

It is unreasonable to expect your best friend to believe you word? You shouldn't have to explain yourself to your "truest friend". (Which is why Harry did not have to explain himself to Hermione and she believed him straight away.)

It is called faith. Ron should have had faith in a friend that has never lied to him before. Doesn't 3 1/2 years of loyalty, honesty, risking your life to save a guy's sister count for anything??

Friends should have faith in each other, they should trust each other without an explanation needed. Harry has given Ron 3 1/2 years worth of proof and reasons that he can be trusted. Ron ignores all of that. Now if Harry and Ron were newer friends I could undertand your logic. But a friendship that had gone through what theirs had gone through should earn you a little bit of trust. Ron should have given Harry the benefit of the doubt.

It is completely unreasonable to expect your friends to always just take your word with no evidence - especially when there is a great deal of evidence against you. It simply is not feasible. Sometimes things have to be explained so everyone can understand it - particularly when they do not have all the necessary information to enable them to understand it. In this particular case, all the evidence was against Harry. He had given indication more than once that he was interested in entering if they could figure out a way to get past the age line. He told Ron and Hermione that he would do it at night when nobody could see. His name came out of the goblet and there was no reason that Ron knew of for anyone else to put Harry's name in the goblet. He had lied to Ron and Hermione in the presence of others and told them the truth later on more than one occasion. He came into the dormitory with a banner tied around his neck looking as though he had been celebrating the fact that his name came out of the goblet - and immediately starts trying to take it off which makes him look guilty. He refused to explain why someone would put his name in goblet - lying and saying he did not know - and called Ron stupid. All of the evidence pointed to Harry putting his own name in the goblet.

The thing is, good faith is something that must be earned and it can be easily lost. Harry's own behavior works against him here because of his habit of lying to them in the presence of others and telling them the truth later. He always has good reasons for doing that - and Ron and Hermione know that - but it works against him in this incident because Ron believes that is what he has done. But he still has faith in Harry - he believes Harry did it and left him out and his feelings are hurt, but he is positive that Harry will come back and have a good explanation for it. He was positive that Harry had to have a good reason because they were best friends. It was Harry's responsibility to explain what had actually happen - what Dumbledore and Moody had said. An explanation was needed because of the overwhelming evidence against Harry and the fact that Ron did not know that the tournament was dangerous. As far as Ron knew, there was absolutely no reason for anyone else to put Harry's name in the goblet. That's what needed to be explained. And that's all Ron was asking for - an explanation as to why anyone else would put Harry's name in the goblet instead of their own.

When Harry first tells Ron that, he asks him - why would anyone do that? He is still calm - still only seeking explanation because it doesn't make any sense to him. He can't make any sense of it because he does not have all the necessary information and Harry knows that. Harry refused to explain it and that made it look like Harry was lying. The minute that Ron got the information he needed - actually seeing how dangerous the tournament was - that enabled him to understand why someone else would put Harry's name in the goblet. At that point, he immediately goes to Harry and tries to apologize. That's all Ron needed - that additional information to help him understand why someone else would do it because that did not make any sense based on the limited information he had. Harry should have explained it to Ron that night. If he had, there would have been no argument.

Even Hermione required evidence that Harry had not put his own name in - she did not believe him on his word either. The difference here is the fact that Hermione had done a lot of research on the tournament and - unlike Ron - Hermione knew that the tournament was dangerous. She had tried to tell all of them that before, but none of them would listen because Dumbledore had gone on about all the safety measures they had put in place. However, Hermione still needed evidence - the evidence she used was the look on Harry's face when his name came out of the goblet. Even so, she needed to go back to her room and think about it - go over all the information she had and put it all together - she was not in the common room when Harry got back either. She took that night - unhampered by arguing with Harry and being called an idiot - to think it through and eventually reached the conclusion that Harry had not done it. But she did not simply take him at his word any more than Ron did. She simply had more information than Ron did because she had done all that research on the tournament.

And she also made Harry explain it to her the next day because she didn't fully understand it either - Dumbledore and Moody's suspicions were significant there. Ron needed to know that to understand why someone else would put Harry's name in the goblet. Without that information, he had absolutely no reason to believe Harry because the evidence was against Harry and Harry's own behavior made him look guilty.

Both Harry and Ron made mistakes that night. They were equally responsible for that argument and the weeks they spent not talking because they were both too stubborn and prideful to talk the situation out. It takes two people to have an argument.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying that either of them behaved in better than the other. They both acted like immature idiots and that's why they ended up arguing - again, equal responsibility because their behavior was equally bad. However, this was extremely important to their character development because it was a learning experience for both of them. As I said before, if you never make any mistakes, you never learn anything. Both Harry and Ron made mistakes and acted like idiots here - and they both learned from their mistakes and the experience helped them grow and mature. Learning experiences like this are not always pleasant, but they are valuable.

When you act badly because of negative emotions, those emotions are flaws in your character. I don't think it has to control everything to be a flaw. Even an abusive husband can be kind and loving on occasion (no I am not saying Ron is an abuser!). But the point being if you act out because of negative feelings and emotions on numerous occassions (as Ron has) it is a character flaw.

That's not the result of the emotion though. The emotion is not the character flaw. The insecurities that cause the negative emotion are the character flaw. Ron occasionally became jealous because of his insecurities. His insecurities are the character flaw - not the jealousy. And it's not just jealousy - his insecurities also cause him to react in anger as well. For example, when Ginny taunted him about never having kissed anyone. His anger is not the character flaw - that's just an emotion. The insecurities that led to him reacting in anger are the character flaw. I'm not saying Ron doesn't have any character flaws - he most certainly does. My point is that it is not negative emotions - those are just emotions. It is not jealousy or anger that leads to Ron reacting a certain way - he reacts to those negative emotions because of his insecurities. It is the insecurities that lead to him reacting to those negative emotions that are the character flaw.

Hopefully I explained it better that time.

[1hp2]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

It is completely unreasonable to expect your friends to always just take your word with no evidence - especially when there is a great deal of evidence against you.

I would agree, but only if they have given you cause before. If they have been trustworthy before, why doubt them now?

Originally Posted by meesha1971

Harry's own behavior works against him here because of his habit of lying to them in the presence of others and telling them the truth later.

They were alone and not in the presence of others.

Originally Posted by meesha1971

Even Hermione required evidence that Harry had not put his own name in - she did not believe him on his word either.


And she also made Harry explain it to her the next day because she didn't fully understand it either - Dumbledore and Moody's suspicions were significant there.

Hermione didn't "make" Harry explain anything. I just re-read it. It states that He told Hermione what had happened, and then we her Hermione talk for the first time. And Hermione told im she knew by the look on his face.

**As I said in the other thread, all you other points I will read and respond to tomorrow.....too late to think! (or type coherently for that matter.)

[SSJ_Jup81]

Originally Posted by 1hp2

I would agree, but only if they have given you cause before. If they have been trustworthy before, why doubt them now?

Because the evidence says otherwise and the lack of an explanation doesn't help either. Friends are also supposed to be open with one another, and here, Harry wasn't fully open.

They were alone and not in the presence of others.

I think Meesha was referring to when Harry's name first came out of the Goblet. He was in the presence of others there.

[dweaselqueen]

originally posted by 1hp2
I would agree, but only if they have given you cause before. If they have been trustworthy before, why doubt them now?

The evidence was against Harry. All the evidence points to Harry placing his own name in the goblet, and he doesn't offer an alternative explanation. It's true that Harry hasn't kept a lot of information from (if he lies, he will explain later), but never before had the evidence been stacked against as it was with the goblet. As we have said, Ron wasn't thinking about the danger. He saw no reason for someone else to put Harry's name in the goblet, so he had to assume Harry had done it. Refusing to give an explanation makes it look like Harry has lied to him. By this time, Ron's feelings are already hurt. He already thinks Harry has entered the tournament without confiding in him, and now Harry doesn't trust him enough to even explain how or why he did it. So Ron's anger gets the best of him.

I agree with Meesha that this fight was the fault of both boys. Even best friends need explanations sometimes. Harry is to blame for not giving an explanation when it was clear Ron needed one, and Ron is to blame for accusing Harry of lying and letting his jealousy get the better of him.

originally posted by 1hp2
Hermione didn't "make" Harry explain anything. I just re-read it. It states that He told Hermione what had happened, and then we her Hermione talk for the first time. And Hermione told im she knew by the look on his face.

But still, Hermione has all the facts when she says that. Hermione had a long night without talking to Harry to decide what had happened. The look on Harry's face may have haunted her and it led her to conclude Harry hadn't done it. As Meesha pointed out, Hermione is focused on the danger of the task, it isn't a stretch for her to believe someone would use it to kill Harry. Ron is focused on the glory of the task, and it isn't feasible to him that someone would give Harry the chance for more honor.

originally posted by meesha1971
Completely agree. That is the major flaw with this hypothesis. Nobody is perfect and people make mistakes. Hermione is no exception. She made mistakes and betrayed Harry's trust the same as Ron did. They learned from those mistakes and those conflicts made the friendship between them stronger because they overcame them.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by 1hp2

I would agree, but only if they have given you cause before. If they have been trustworthy before, why doubt them now?

Because there was just cause for doubt. Harry's name came out of the goblet. With the limited information that Ron had, there was no reason that he knew of for anyone else to put Harry's name into the goblet. We have to remember that Ron - as well as pretty much everyone else except Hermione - thought of the tournament as a wonderful opportunity. The idea that someone else would put Harry's name in for a chance for glory and a big money prize instead of their own name was ridiculous on the basis of what Ron knew. Fleur gives the evidence for that earlier when Moody says Harry should complain because she says Harry has no reason to complain. That was Ron's take on the situation as well based on what little information he knew.

Ron needed that information. Without that information, there was no reason for him to believe Harry. Harry's own behavior and actions made him look guilty - particularly his habit of lying to them in the presence of others and then telling them the truth later, in private.

They were alone and not in the presence of others.

On the contrary, the three of them were in the middle of the Great Hall - surrounded by every student at Hogwarts, the students from Durmstrang, the students from Beauxbatons, the teachers, Karkaroff, Madame Maxime, Barty Crouch, and Ludo Bagman. There were hundreds of people there.

Ron knew - because of Harry's past behavior - that he would never admit to putting his name in the goblet with all those people around watching and listening. Nor would he say anything in the crowded Gryffindor common room. That's why Ron was waiting for Harry in the dormitory. He believed Harry would explain everything to him properly in private.

The problem begins when Harry walks into the dormitory wrapped in a banner, looking like he's been celebrating the fact his name came out of the goblet. Strike one - that makes Harry look guilty. Harry makes no comment, but he does realize how the banner looks so he "hastens" to remove it. Strike two - that also makes Harry look guilty.

Still, Ron doesn't attack or yell or anything like that. It is obvious that his feelings are hurt, but it is equally obvious that he's trying very hard to put that aside. He congratulates Harry. Harry attacks first - "What d'you mean congratulations?"

Now, of course, we know this was not Harry's intention - he was confused. But that is how it looked to Ron. Remember - arguments are caused by miscommunication and misunderstanding. Ron is sitting there holding on to his belief that Harry will explain everything to him properly because he simply cannot believe that Harry would leave him out without a really good reason. But Harry is not explaining and everything he has done and said has thus far only served to make him look guilty.

Next, Ron asks Harry if he used the Invisibility Cloak to get across the age line. Harry makes his next mistake by saying “The Invisibility Cloak wouldn’t have got me over that line” Strike three. This was the wrong thing to say because it directly implies that Harry did put his own name in the goblet using another method. Again, not Harry's intention - he is still confused. But that is the implication even though it was not what he actually meant. That makes him look guilty.

Ron picks up on that and reveals what is bothering him.

GOF “Oh right,” said Ron. “I thought you might’ve told me if it was the cloak … because it would’ve covered both of us, wouldn’t it? But you found another way, did you?”

He's upset because Harry didn't share how to get past the age line with him. And - because Harry said he didn't use the Invisibility Cloak and implied that he found another way - he askes him how he did it.

Finally, Harry says what he should have said the moment he walked in the door - he didn't put his name in the goblet and somebody else must have done it. Ron asks him why anyone would do that. The idea that someone else would put Harry's name in instead of their own makes absolutely no sense to him on the basis of the limited information he has. And this is where it should have ended because all Harry had to do here was tell Ron what Dumbledore and Moody had said. That was the information that Ron did not have - he did not realize that the tournament would be so dangerous that someone could attempt to kill Harry by ensuring that he was entered.

But Harry chooses not to explain anything. Instead he lies and says "I dunno". That's strike four - he still looks guilty. If there was any valid reason for someone else to put Harry's name in the goblet, then why on earth wouldn't Harry share that with Ron? Without that information, Ron is left with no alternative options - Harry has to be lying to him. And, the irony is that Harry was lying. That lie sealed the deal. Without that information, Ron has no reason to believe that Harry did not put his name in the goblet because there is no valid reason that he knows of for anyone else to do it.

It just goes downhill from there - culminating in Harry telling Ron that he is stupid. And that is the end of it for Ron. That's when Ron loses his temper and snaps at Harry. He's done with it. He gave Harry multiple chances to explain the situation to him so he could understand it - to give him the information he was missing. But Harry lied and said "I dunno".

Everything - including Harry's own behavior and actions - pointed to him being guilty. With the limited information Ron had, there was no alternative for him but to believe that Harry was lying to him.

There is an interesting parallel between Harry's behavior in GOF and Sirius' behavior in POA. As Dumbledore explained to Harry then, there was little they could do to help Sirius because Sirius had not behaved like an innocent man. Harry does the same thing with Ron in GOF. He does not behave like an innocent man.

However, I want to reiterate what I said earlier. Both Harry and Ron are equally responsible for this argument. They both made mistakes. They both behaved immaturely and they both said things they didn't mean in anger. Harry's behavior made him look guilty, but Ron gave up too soon because he got angry when Harry said he was stupid and he allowed his anger to get the best of him. Had Ron persisted, it is likely that he could have eventually gotten a proper explanation from Harry. But, again, arguments happen because of miscommunication and misunderstandings with both parties involved.

Hermione didn't "make" Harry explain anything. I just re-read it. It states that He told Hermione what had happened, and then we her Hermione talk for the first time. And Hermione told im she knew by the look on his face.

**As I said in the other thread, all you other points I will read and respond to tomorrow.....too late to think! (or type coherently for that matter.)

We know how Hermione gets Harry to talk to her - it's shown on page repeatedly. She makes him talk to her. For example, when Harry and Cho kissed. Harry didn't want to talk about it. Hermione forced the issue by asking him point blank. This is the same thing. We just didn't get all the dialog because that would have been redundant since we had already seen everything that happened a few pages before.

Now, I don't mean that in a bad way. Harry's propensity to internalize things is what caused the fight with Ron after all. Hermione made him talk to her about it, but that was a good thing.

However, like you said, Hermione needed the evidence of the look on Harry's face. She did not believe him on blind faith. And Hermione had a lot more information about the tournament because she had been researching it. She knew how dangerous it could be. Still, Hermione needed to consider the evidence before she did anything. Instead of waiting for Harry in the common room, she went up to her room to consider the evidence and think it all through. Eventually, she came to the conclusion that Harry did not do it because of the look on his face, but that was not a conclusion she reached through blind faith. She came to that conclusion after careful consideration of the evidence she had - she had a lot more information than Ron did and she wasn't there to witness all the things Harry did that made him look guilty to Ron.

And - of course - the fact that Harry did explain everything to Hermione that morning also made a huge difference. If he had done that with Ron the night before, there would have been no argument.

The irony of this is the fact that Hermione's interference here ended up having the exact opposite effect that she intended. She already knew that something had happened with Ron and Harry - though she didn't know everything. One of her goals in intercepting Harry on his way to the Great Hall was to try to get him to talk to Ron. This is ironic because that is what Harry was trying to do when Hermione intercepted him. He woke up that morning determined to talk to Ron and explain everything - make him understand. Which was precisely what Ron wanted Harry to do. If Hermione had not intercepted him, he and Ron probably would have made up that morning. But, by the time Harry is finished talking with Hermione, she has made him even more angry at Ron and he decides that he's not going to talk to Ron at all.

Of course, from a literary perspective, that was necessary - just as it was necessary for Hermione to not be present when Harry saw Ron the night before. Hermione knew a lot more information. If she had been present, then she would have interjected when Ron asked Harry why someone else would put his name in the goblet - she knew how dangerous the tournament could be. So she would have said "Isn't it obvious? The tournament is dangerous! Harry could die!"

That would not have been a good thing because it was necessary for Harry and Ron to go through this. This argument was a significant event in their character development because of the lessons learned. As such, Hermione could not be allowed to interfere. So Jo put Hermione off in her room to consider the evidence on her own to allow Harry and Ron to miscommunicate and have an argument. She then has Hermione prevent Harry from talking to Ron the next morning - a conversation that ensures Harry is even more angry with Ron and change his mind about talking to him at all. This was necessary to bring about the character development. All friends are going to argue at some point. It would not have been realistic for Harry and Ron to never have any misunderstandings and never argue.

[darklordspal]

Originally Posted by cgold

Hermione likes Harry because he's Harry Potter (on a personal level) and Ron likes Harry in spite of it. Hermione would do a lot of what she does for anyone and anything. Ron does it because it's Harry.

That is such a cool way to express Hermione's and Ron's friendship with Harry.

And that goes to some of the things said by Wimsey earlier in this thread. He seems to value Hermione higher b\c she is rational. Wimsey seems to have alot of problems with how Harry often goes along on intuition and dumb luck.

Harry values Ron b\c his loyalty is based on sheer faith. Hermione is miserable that Ron left in DH b\c she realizes she also needs faith and hope to pull them through. She tries to provide this for Harry, but she knows she can't do it b\c she is (to Harry at least) the voice of reason, not the voice of faith.

Hermione is always questioning Harry b\c she needs a rational explanation for everything. Ron doesn't, he can go on faith alone. This is what Harry needs b\c in the end Harry knows it is going to his willpower and faith that will be deciding factors in defeating Voldemort once the ability to defeat Voldemort is found.

Both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Hermione has trouble thinking outside the box on occasion and can be inflexable concerning trust and faith. Ron can be overly emotional and irrational, but he has the power to lift Harry's and Hermion'e hearts (as well as break them) and give them the strength and will to push on. I see Ron's taking over the leadership of the trio in the second half of DH as symbolic that hope is leading the way and Ron's acceptance of his role.

[veelavouivre]

I don't think we can compare Ron's betrayal with Hermione's betrayal as I read in a lot of posts here. Regarding the broom, Hermione just doesn't have time to fully explain why they shouldn't ride it, and we feel their refusal to look at the broom as a dangerous thing anyway because they are so excited about it. Even if she had explained about Sirius, I doubt Ron and Harry would have believed her and gone to McGonagall. They would have scoffed and she had nothing to back her assertion up. In the end, she was partially right, it WAS Sirius Black who had sent it, but none of them knew at that point that he was a good guy.
Besides, as Hagrid says to them: friends are more important than brooms and cats, they should value friendship more, and they fail to recognize it, even though they both feel ashamed when Hagrid talks to them.

Regarding the scene under the tent with the locket and Ron's departure, and the name in the goblet, Ron is plain mean with Harry and the consequences far more serious at least in the tent scene, because he lets Harry down and alone to face difficult and dangerous times.
I am not saying Ron doesn't have good reasons, and I was fully ready to forgive him after the Goblet of Fire scene. However, not so easily in DH, where not only he should have matured compared to his 2 years ago self, but also where the situation was much more dangerous and desperate. In GoF there is still DD, there is still fun, the event is supposedly monitored carefully by trusted wizards etc. Ron is jealous - fine, it happens, no big deal. But in DH, DD is dead, they don't have any leads, they don't know who to trust and where to go, they are thoroughly alone and hunted down by the DE, the ministry and its power, headhunters, etc.

I am not discussing Ron's own difficulties, his tortured soul and what makes him do it. For that we would have to know a bit more about the power of the locket too, on top of what we know about Ron's jealousy from GoF. And we know he wanted to come back almost right away, which is a good point in his favor.
But his impulsiveness at that point puts them all in danger: his family, the girl he loves, Harry, their mission, the "greater good" etc. So we can't really compare this act of betrayal, as impulsive and short-lived as it is, to the one Hermione does when they are much younger, in a moment of lesser urgency, and when after all it turns out that she is partially right, and did it for Harry's protection.

No, Ron's act is much more serious.
Yes, both Hermione and Ron have flaws. They both make mistakes, so does Harry. But between the so-called "betrayal" of Hermione with the broom, and the real act of betrayal that Ron does in DH, there is a huge gap.

In the very least it can be said that Hermione betrays her friends by sneakily doing things behind their backs once when she was 13. But Ron betrays not only a friend, but also a mission, and a loved one at age 17. I am glad he is forgiven, and I cheered when he came back, but I am also glad that Hermione beats him up a bit before forgiving him too.