Rowling Almost Killed Ron Weasley

[Abedeus]

Meh, she coulda killed him. Didn't like his character.

But Sirius is unforgivable.

 

[Macgyvercas]

OT: And then Emma Watson would have been mine. That's how it works, right...?

If you fight me for her...

No...wait, I have Holo. Nevermind, I'm good!

 

[Alar]

I would have married Hermione...

...just sayin'.

 

[everythingbeeps]

I read the entire last book believing Ron was going to die. (Also Hagrid). I'm glad neither did. I definitely prefer happy endings.

 

[Kinokohatake]

Sounds like someone's trying to bring attention back to her series

So someone interviewed her which may show up on the last dvd, then someone else reports it and it's her trying to bring attention to her series. If I ask you how your day was and you say fine, that's not you bringing attention to your day, that's you answering a question.

 

[XDravond]

Killing of some more characters would been great! The whole ending felt way to kids (sub 10y) friendly where was the swearing, the dead, the rest of the world... She showed 3 more schools in goblet of fire, did they just decide to sit on the side and watch and cheer for whomever won...

But killing Ron might not been clever since way to many kids read the books and get waaaaay emotional whenever someone might have died... And Dumbeldore well he didn't really get killed of proper just watch the end...

(I know kids get emotional to these film because fracking kids cried in the cinema on all three last movies...That did really annoyed the hell out of me... Why do you bring 5-10y to movies rated 13...)

O crap started ranting again... O well Rowling needs more attention because her cash flow is probably starting to decrease...

 

[The Cheshire]

I see how many people ***** about how he killed Sirius and not Ron, like it really matters that much... most important is how it serves the drama and the story, Sirius' death was quite well executed, however I am not so happy with the last part, where she kills half the cast of secondary characters with little dramatic function, other than to show how dangerous the last battle is.

Ron's death could have been a dramatic high towards the end, to make the final episode more bittersweet.

 

[SilentCom]

It would have been funny if Rowling, out of spite, made Voldemort kill everyone and the series just ends.

 

[road_to_dawn]

(I base the following statements purely on the movie portrayal)

Too bad to. Ron was a character who kinda deserved to die. He spent the last half of the series being jealous and spiteful and many of the times he did a "good" thing it seemed really out of character because of that.

He honestly seemed like he'd be the type to get tempted by Hitler.. er.. I mean Voldemort, do a heel turn then get killed by someone who used to be his friend and, come the end of the series, I was rather surprised he didn't.

See, here's the thing, the films went out of their way to cut the bad bits or ramp up the good personality aspects of Harry, Hermione, and Dumbledore. Harry spends a pretty significant chunk of the last three books screaming and being self-righteous, which is nowhere to be seen in the films. Most of Hermione's annoying traits are non-existent in the films and she was given important character-shaping lines of others (like Ron.) And Dumbledore? Well, his shady actions were not driven home the way that they really should've been. The way the films portray things, you'd think the only people who got really close to Harry were Hermione and Dumbledore and that's not the case.

The films didn't accurately or fully portray most of the characters and show their significance. Ron is the biggest victim of them all. With the exceptions of the films for Stone and Hallows, most of his hero moments were cut; important lines of his were either cut or given to Hermione; and most critically, the context or reasons behind his sometimes dick-ish behavior weren't shown, like in HBP. The film made it look like he was spiting Hermione for no apparent reason. Meanwhile, in the book, you see him spending a portion of the beginning desperately trying to get her attention, while she ignores him and boosts up Harry ego when it comes to girls. So when Lavender came along (as annoying as she was), she was actually paying attention to him, and can anyone really blame a 16 year old for attaching himself to someone who showed interest and acted on it? It was a jerk thing to do to Hermione, obviously, but it wasn't without reason.

TL;DR: Bottomline, the film-makers made a series without realizing or acknowledging that the most interesting part of the Harry Potter series ISN'T Harry Potter. As a result, many characters didn't get their moment or proper backstory/context. And I firmly believe, it was Ron's character that suffered the most as a result. He was the heart of the Trio and it's a shame that many who've only seen the films don't get to see why.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

And to think, if she'd actually done it, we may never have had the masterpiece that is "Thunderpants".

Ms Rowling, we are in your debt.

 

[standokan]

Maybe she didn't screw Ron over but she did screw Hermoine over by putting Ron with her..

..SHE BELONGS WITH ME

 

[crudus]

Why did someone have to marry Hermione? She could have become some sort of crazy cat lady, or Harry's mistress.

no he's Mr Hermione Granger, we all know who wears the pants in that relationship!

Ron wouldn't be able to make a sandwich without her. With or without magic.

 

[Raven's Nest]

(I base the following statements purely on the movie portrayal)

Too bad to. Ron was a character who kinda deserved to die. He spent the last half of the series being jealous and spiteful and many of the times he did a "good" thing it seemed really out of character because of that.

He honestly seemed like he'd be the type to get tempted by Hitler.. er.. I mean Voldemort, do a heel turn then get killed by someone who used to be his friend and, come the end of the series, I was rather surprised he didn't.

See, here's the thing, the films went out of their way to cut the bad bits or ramp up the good personality aspects of Harry, Hermione, and Dumbledore. Harry spends a pretty significant chunk of the last three books screaming and being self-righteous, which is nowhere to be seen in the films. Most of Hermione's annoying traits are non-existent in the films and she was given important character-shaping lines of others (like Ron.) And Dumbledore? Well, his shady actions were not driven home the way that they really should've been. The way the films portray things, you'd think the only people who got really close to Harry were Hermione and Dumbledore and that's not the case.

The films didn't accurately or fully portray most of the characters and show their significance. Ron is the biggest victim of them all. With the exceptions of the films for Stone and Hallows, most of his hero moments were cut; important lines of his were either cut or given to Hermione; and most critically, the context or reasons behind his sometimes dick-ish behavior weren't shown, like in HBP. The film made it look like he was spiting Hermione for no apparent reason. Meanwhile, in the book, you see him spending a portion of the beginning desperately trying to get her attention, while she ignores him and boosts up Harry ego when it comes to girls. So when Lavender came along (as annoying as she was), she was actually paying attention to him, and can anyone really blame a 16 year old for attaching himself to someone who showed interest and acted on it? It was a jerk thing to do to Hermione, obviously, but it wasn't without reason.

TL;DR: Bottomline, the film-makers made a series without realizing or acknowledging that the most interesting part of the Harry Potter series ISN'T Harry Potter. As a result, many characters didn't get their moment or proper backstory/context. And I firmly believe, it was Ron's character that suffered the most as a result. He was the heart of the Trio and it's a shame that many who've only seen the films don't get to see why.

Good post, I agreed with everything...

 

[Dutch 924]

This got me thinking. What if fate had played out the events of Harry Potter, only it was Ron who survived Voldemort. Then Harry would be the secondary character, and with his personality that would make him totally unlikeable, so Rowling would kill him instead.

It's the perfect plan

 

[Knight Templar]

I'm not going to lie: I sort of adore the fact that Rowling almost killed off one of her main characters simply out of "spite."

Me, not so much. The divine prerogative must be wielded correctly and with a reasonable emotional state (if at all possible). Done wrong you get work like Douglas Adams' Mostly Harmless or... well, several Orson Scott Card series after the first or second book (Oh my GOD why aren't you dead yet, Ender?).

Can't speak on the works of Orson Scott Card, but I can say that I agree with the comment on Mostly Harmless.

A death should have weight.

I always thought Hermione should have married Harry to be honest. Harry and Jenny just seemed like Rowling was forcing two opposite shaped puzzle pieces together with scissors and glue.

Ginny.
Harry and Ginny.

I have not read the latter books recently enough to know for sure, but my memory is telling me the startup of that seemed to just pop out of nowhere. That said aside from fan service I don't see those two together for any reason.

 

[Svenparty]

J.K Rowling always comes accross as an extremely depressed woman who just happens to have millions now. Surely this proves it, maybe she decided to kill off another character because of her emotional problems.

 

[144_v1legacy]

Rowling Almost Killed Ron Weasley
Rowling's never been one to shy away from killing off important characters like Sirius Black

I call bullshit. The only characters that died were either those that absolutely had to to move the plot along and minor characters.

If anyone's seen Puella-Magica-whatever (and shut up), that's a much better example of not being afraid of killing off protagonists.

 

[Hyperme]

I've never understood how killing a character just to change the mood of a story is good writing. It's like, well, everything is too cheery, bam, a death. Now with less happiness we are artier or something. Unless Ron's death had been important to the defeat of Voldemort, it would just feel tacked on for drama. Most pre-Hallows deaths were plot important. And some Hallows deaths as well. Examples; (spoilers)

Sirius - Dies directly as a result of Harry's stupid, providing an example of why Harry needs less stupid.

Dumbledore - Was meant to break the Elder Wand's power (but failed) and convinced everyonw that Snaper was 100% Death Eater (but he wasn't).

Most people Voldemort killed personally - Horocrux material preparation.

Quirrel - Was evil and had Voldy on the back of his head.

 

[Tonythion]

Should have actually killed Harry...he pisses me off so much.

Should have let Remus, George, Tonks, Dobby and SNAPE (Oh he should have lived) live and killed off Harry the pompous douche.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

Eh, who cares? She didn't do it, so it doesn't matter. Just like how Harrison Ford wanted Han Solo to died, but the character didn't. There's no point in caring about what could've been but obviously didn't.