That's ad hominem. I can't fault you too much for that for the very reason that parts of my post (including the one you quoted) come close to – if not outright crossing – the line, and I don't want to be hypocritical. The salient point is that the fact that I've made a hell of a lot of retarded posts in the past doesn't invalidate this one.

Here, then, we have come to an impasse as to what friendship means, for I believe that that statement is ludicrous. I feel that throwing away seven years of friendship over two minor incidents is foolish.

And therein lies another major disagreement: you appear to consider those two incidents to be major betrayals, whereas I consider them relatively minor occurrences that can often happen between friends. This leads me to conclude that you have very high – unrealistically so, in my opinion – expectations of people.

No one said this, true, but I feel that it was implied when you stated that Harry shouldn't forgive Ron. Again, the difference of opinion mainly stems from you considering this to be a major betrayal whereas I feel it's a perfectly forgivable event. A belief, mind you, that both Harry and Hermione agree with.

Yes, he did it once before... three years before. How long is that going to be held over his head? Even if you argue that his actions in DH were egregious, I don't see how an argument can be made to that end for what happened in GoF – it was a row that had no serious repercussions.

As to how there is no evidence he didn't abandon them again, I feel that the epilogue is in fact evidence in favor of that, as I feel that if he continued to do that they wouldn't still be friends. You might say that they are still friends with Ron because they, as you said in your first post, have a "lack of understanding." In that case, you run into a circular argument: the have a lack of understanding because they're friends with Ron, and they're friends with Ron because they have a lack of understanding.

If you mean direct evidence, then you are correct, but on the flip side there is no direct evidence that he did abandon them again. However, I would again point to their happiness during the epilogue that this didn't occur.

I think you're exaggerating a great deal. Regardless, however, people generally don't think rationally when they're angry. As much as a rationalist I consider myself, I've done some very stupid and irrational things when I'm angry, and I'm virtually certain you have as well. I doubt Ron was thinking about what his departure meant in the heat of the moment, which, as I said, is something I've done and I'm sure you've done in the past. To expect him to have acted perfectly in that situation is unreasonable in my opinion, and the fact is that he tried to correct his actions. Which leads to...

To an extent, yes, it is okay now. He calmed down, realized he'd done something wrong, and tried to correct it. There are people who go their entire lives without doing this. It doesn't completely erase what he did, and Hermione does give him hell when he comes back, but in the end he made the right choice and tried to right his wrong. Saying "oh boo hoo" to that displays a certain lack of empathy.

As I stated earlier, he wasn't thinking about "leaving them to die," he was trying to get away from some people who had royally pissed him off. He wasn't in the best state of mind own his own, to say nothing of carrying part of the soul of a vile Dark wizard around his neck. Speaking of which...

How can we say what it would or wouldn't have done had Harry had it longer? Perhaps it would have, perhaps not.

It's true that I don't have a source, it was just the impression I got.

I have a particular beef with this. As I've mentioned several times by now, I get the impression that you have very high expectations of people you call friends, and this is perhaps the most solid evidence of that. You consider the fact that Ron is slightly more susceptible to this sort of behavior than the other two is indicative of him being a bad friend, with no evidence that he would have acted on it without extraordinary outside influence? That seems to me that you are expecting somebody you consider a friend to be perfect, and nobody is perfect. Look at some of Harry's other friends:

Hermione: Told the professors about Harry's Firebolt in PoA, betraying Harry's trust and putting a wedge between the two. She also refused to believe Harry about Malfoy being a Death Eater in HBP, something which may have contributed to Dumbledore's death.

Neville: He tried to stop Harry and Co. from going after the Stone in PS/SS. A minor thing, perhaps, but had he succeeded in stopping them, Voldemort would have returned three years earlier.

I could list more, but the general point is that nobody is perfect, and Ron acting in the situation like many, many people would have acted. To call him a bad friend for that is, in my opinion, expecting too much from people.

Fair enough. Still, I don't see much evidence one way or the other that he never tried to excel at anything – we have to fill in the blanks ourselves, and it seems we've done so in opposite ways.

If I recall correctly, Harry asked for homework help just as much as Ron. Also, I never got the impression that Ron really has a subject he likes terribly much, which isn't necessarily a bad thing – he isn't that academically inclined, and neither is Harry (though perhaps to a slightly lesser degree). That doesn't mean that he doesn't have a passion (Quidditch), and we see he does try there.

Ah, and here we get to a crux of the problem. I didn't respond so vigorously because you "don't have a boner for one of [my] favorite characters," I responded that way because it offended me. Why is that? Because the relationship Harry and Ron have eerily mirrors the relationship I have with my best friend.

He was my first (and for a long time, only) friend. We had a rather terrible falling out in fifth grade, which escalated essentially to constant bullying by both parties, but we eventually forgave each other and regained our friendship. Fast forward to my sophomore year at college, when he rather suddenly essentially told me to fuck off one day. I was hurt, confused, and angry, and I didn't talk to or even see him for over four years. Then I contacted him one day because I had an extra ticket to a concert that I thought he'd enjoy, and that night we picked up our friendship as though it had never been interrupted. Now he's the closest thing I have to a brother.

It isn't an exact parallel between Harry and Ron's friendship, but there are obvious similarities, and I transferred your statements about that fictional friendship onto my own real friendship and got pissed, because I thought that you were essentially saying that I was an idiot for forgiving my best friend and that he was scum for doing what he did. You didn't intend it that way, of course, and my transference of fiction onto fact was most certainly irrational, but that's why I got so damn emotional. Now that I've calmed down, I hope that I've provided a more logical and coherent argument as to why I disagree with you as well as a justification for an overly insulting post (of which I apologize; it was uncalled for).

Now, like I said, feel free to hate Ron all you want, it really isn't that big of a deal to me (despite me writing two TL;DRs on the matter). I simply disagree with you, partially because this particular topic hits somewhat close to home for me.

It seems like several people have posted after me, so I'll go ahead and post this and possibly edit it after reading the other posts. Otherwise, I think I'll bow out of the discussion unless I feel there's something more I can add.

*edit*

So people should be judged based on what they think... I'm sorry, but that doesn't sit well with me. At all. Especially when said person hates that he's thinking like that (as Ron said he did) and tries not to act upon it. Also, I thought he didn't act that way without the Locket. Again, I feel that expecting him to not be overwhelmed by the soul of Voldemort is a bit lofty.

 

I'm not really condemning him for his thoughts, I was pointing out that the Locket only magnified what Ron already was. He was already doing and saying some of the things the locket made worse, and whether or not having those feelings made him a terrible friend, acting on them did, and acting on them was still a choice, and a very well-informed one at that.

EDIT:

Saying that he shouldn't forgive Ron in that situation doesn't imply friends don't or shouldn't forgive each other. it implies that there's a limit to forgiveness.

Fair enough to say there's no evidence he betrayed them again, but in that context, I was analyzing his betrayals as extreme manifestations of problems that show themselves in other, less ways that would have continued. If they forgive even his most egregious crimes, it would be reasonable to assume he'd still be their friend even if he had continued to do wrong, if two of the same terrible mistake wasn't enough to show them he probably wouldn't learn.

Whether he was thinking about it or not, that's what he did. And he knew he was leaving without being able to come back.

He isn't slightly more, but far more susceptible, and I don't expect perfection. But Ron was worse than Harry and Hermione in that neither of them got as bad as that, or even began with the same level negativity. Expecting decency is not expecting perfection.

Ehh, I don't think so.

Overall, I don't care enough about Ron to keep this up, and I see that most disagree with me, and that's fine. I also didn't have any idea how you felt about your friend in reality, or how that related to Ron. It's not an excuse to bring your personal shit here and go nuts because someone thinks Ron doesn't deserve forgiveness at that juncture.

 

To be honest I don't think we're going to agree on this. You say you don't condemn him for his thoughts, only for his choices. But Ron probably wouldn't have acted on those thoughts without the locket; and since that does not seem to be a valid excuse to you - since the only amplified thoughts that were already there-, I feel that you do kind of condemn him for having those thoughts in the first place.

 

The biggest struggle Ron encounters is his lack of self- confidence. Poor Ron suffers from being overshadowed, particularly by his successful older brothers and by his rich, famous best friend.

"I have seen your dreams, Ronald Weasley, and I have seen your fears. […] Least loved, always, by the mother who craved a daughter… Least loved now, by the girl who prefers your friend… Second best, always, eternally overshadowed."

Ron's insecurities mostly boil down to the following:
He's afraid that he's not as good as Harry. He's scared that Molly wishes Harry were her son instead him. He's sure that Hermione prefers "the Chosen One" over him.

Though the locket brings out the worst in Ron, destroying it also gives him a chance to work through the issues he's been fostering, and emerge as a stronger, more confident person. Rowling points to this as the moment when Ron really grows up:

"A lot of Ron's humor comes from his insensitivity and his immaturity, to be honest about Ron. And Ron finally, I think, you see, grows up in this book. He's the last of the three to reach what I consider adulthood, and he does it then and faces those things."

 

It's more that his thoughts had already translated into certain behaviors, which he has more control over than his thoughts. I see your point though, and I was wrong to say that his negative thoughts confirm anything. I only mean to consider his actions, so I misspoke.

 

He fooled the entire Order of the Phoenix about his loyalties, staging a coup that by all accounts should have destroyed the only opposition to Voldemort's final victory. When that failed, he lured the only wizard who knew he was the guilty party into a trap, landing Sirius in Azkaban for twelve years, fooling the entire wizarding world with his faked death and scoring himself an Order of Merlin. He spent that entire time spying on the Weasleys, then, when he was found out, escaped both Sirius and Remus, retrieved Voldemort's wand, captured Bertha Jorkins, and brought Voldemort's shade the information he needed to plan the kidnapping. He helped Crouch capture Moody, then cut off his own hand for the ritual to give Voldemort a new body without the weakness to the vague sacrificial protection Harry had from his mother.

So I don't know about great, but he was certainly pretty effective despite being a total coward.

On-topic: I'm pretty apathetic toward Ron. I mean, if I read an awesome Ron, I'm okay with that, but if the author wants to make him out to be a fool and basically write him out of the entire fic, that's okay too. That might sound like a weak non-answer, but it's kinda significant to me in that it's not really true of any other major character. I don't think his pairing with Hermione in canon made much sense, but I'll read fics pairing them (though I probably wouldn't read a Ron- or Hermione-centric R/Hr fic).

Lastly, this thread made me think of this other one from eight months ago. There are a couple recommendations on there for a good Ron -- Chess and Forging the Sword -- that might help change people's minds.

 

Or... Peter was targeted by Voldemort to get to Lily and James, was terrified for his life and gave the secret up to save himself. He ran from Sirius because he knew that Sirius knew the truth and would come for him. He thought up on the spot the idea to fake his death and was too afraid to reemerge anywhere in the world and consequently spent a decade as a rat. He escaped capture when Lupin transformed because he could turn into a rat, and did the only thing he could: try to get back into Voldemort's good graces for protection. To that effect, he retrieved his wand - because he was a rat - and sacrificed his arm believing he'd get a new one.

There isn't enough information from Peter's side to make conclusions on how calculating - or not - he was. I choose to interpret what we were given as Peter was driven by fear, nothing more. He escaped because of his Animagus ability, and retrieved the wand due to the same. He wasn't a useless wizard - he could become an Animagus. But I don't see him as a great villain.

 

Unfortunately Ron is usually the least liked of the trio just because he is the most realistic. The fact of the matter is that Harry & Co. are essentially teenagers. The whole envy, insecurity and immaturity thing that people accuse Ron of is; in fact, how most people are during that age. Harry lacked that because of the fact that having an evil Dark Lord after your head and killing your loved ones causes you to grow up rather quickly. Hermione had small instances which were quickly glossed over (because she's practically an Author Insert/Mary Sue).

So yeah Ron had his flaws, however they're blown drastically out of proportion, like saying that leaving during the Horcrux hunt was worthy of him being killed off. Seriously? The Horcrux exacerbated his worry over his family and his own insecurities and caused him to leave. He realized his mistakes and tried coming back almost immediately after (and did return on the first possible opportunity) and for that he should be...AK'ed?

Let's go over this again. Ron is the most realistic of the trio- perhaps the only one who you can find a real life example of- it doesn't mean he's the worst nor does it create any ground for bashing.
And personally I dislike Hermione (Author Insert/Mary Sue that she is) the most anyway.

 

I thought Weaslette was JKR's self insert

 

Perhaps the Horcrux affected him more than it did Harry or Hermione. If so, that'd be cause he was weak. Maaybe suggesting he should've been killed was a taking it a tiiiny bit too far, but honestly, I still think he's a giant raging dick.

Not only cause of that but cause of his actions throughout the books towards both Harry and Hermione. I mean, sure, it's human to sometimes be a jerk, even to your friends.
I'm sure we've all done it, myself included, but there are limits.

If anything, I prefered Ron in the movies.

 

Ron ran away. Even going by an "eye for an eye" punishment, death is far to much.
More to the point, Harry didn't kill Voldemort. He woudn't kill a (former) friend.

And Ron ran away in DH while under the influence of what can amount to a downgraded version of the one ring. If average joe Ron deserves death for deserting, what does that make Boromir?

To the threat, I think Ron often takes the role one person should take, but Harry has other stuff to deal with and Hermione is distinctly not average.
So Ron states the obvious, walks into all the pitfalls we as readers need to know about.

Without Ron, Harry and Hermione would be disconnected from Hogwarts. They woudn't play chess or exploding snap in the commonroom, play Quiditch ...
With him, there a part of Hogwarts, not just in it.

I think Rons usually a good friend and reasonably brave, as evidenced by the ministry assault in book five, the shrieking shack scene in book 3 and the chess scene in book 1.
But he's insensitive, so even if he means well, he woudn't do well; he's easily provoked and has a bit of a white/black worldview; he's not smart and not hardworking; has a major jealous streak since he's always overshadowed by everyone ...

And last, average joe just isn't a very interesting character. I'd rather read about something amazing.

 

I'm divided in my feelings over Ron. If you go by the books, then I'd say that I really don't like him all that much and other than the two times where I thought he was very heroic and acted like a hero, the human chess game in the first book, and when he stood in front of Harry to defend him from Sirius in POA. Yet in the books, he comes off as very unlikeable to me at the very least. He's not a bad character mind you, far from it, but I always thought it would have made better sense if it was Neville, Harry, and Hermione who were the Trio.

However my feelings over Ron differ greatly from his movie interpretation. Rubert Grint actually made me like the character more than I did from the books. Maybe it was because he was less annoying, I don't know, but I liked the movie version of Ron a lot more than I did the book version.

 

Neville couldn't replace Ron. Without Ron there would be no Weasley family friendship for Harry and no marrying their daughter and no one to marry Hermione. The Weasleys play a major role in the series. Besides Neville wouldn't be as cool as Ron and Harry would have to be defending him all the time.

 

Did you miss the part where he killed a giant snake with a sword?

 

Until DOM Neville was a pussy. He was getting bullied by Malfoy of all people.

 

Did you miss the part where Neville took on Crabbe and Goyle single-handed in PoS?

I don't quite get your logic. Yes, having Neville as a best friend instead of Ron could mean that these things don't happen (which isn't a guarantee) but you say as if they'll be completely deprived of positive experiences. Harry and Hermione could get married to someone else or they could get married to the same people under different circumstances. Harry might not become a part of Weasley family but that doesn't mean he'll definitely might on that kind of experience with different characters. Weasleys play a large role because they were written that with; if Neville replaced Ron then other characters could have been used or created to fill the necessary roles whilst the Weasleys take a backseat.

 

I just meant being friends with Ron was very advantageous for Harry. Ron and Harry both have a great sense of humor, find similar things funny, aren't too fussed about school, etc. There were actually several chances for Harry and Neville to become best friends, or for him to join Harry and Ron, but it just never happened - yet Hermione, who had much less in common with the boys and who wasn't in the same dormitory was able to join them. Don't get me wrong, I love Neville, and they did get to be good friends later on, it just seems that Ron was what Harry needed, and vice versa, which is why they bonded together so well.

 

“There are some things you can't share without ending up liking each other, and knocking out a twelve-foot mountain troll is one of them."

But I can see what you mean.

 

Don't talk down on Boromir. That guy was fucking awesome.

 

I've always hated that fucking quote. I would damn well still hate some people regardless of troll fighting experiences. I'd have to weigh the troll experience against the times they were a twat.