Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

The way Ron and Hermione keep mirroring each other is so interesting to me. Like you said, he saved the day in book 2, she did in book 3. Book 3 was time for Hermione to learn something with the whole cat incident and all the fights, in book 4 Ron has to learn through the Krum incident and the jealousy and everything connected to that. And there are so many other examples through the books. In my head it was always a back and forth between the two of them in all accounts, and the two most important things that come out of it through all the books is showing that Harry has two very intelligent and capable friends and that they are making each other better people.

Enci wrote: "The way Ron and Hermione keep mirroring each other is so interesting to me. Like you said, he saved the day in book 2, she did in book 3. Book 3 was time for Hermione to learn something with the wh..."

Yes, there certainly is a persistent back and forth between the two: Hermione gets a love interest, Ron's annoyed and jealous; Ron gets a love interest, Hermione's annoyed and jealous, etc. As you say, there are so many examples. It's a much more layered and complex relationship in the books than in the films.

Though I understand the need to simplify because of the length, frankly, the films do a disservice to both Ron and Hermione's characters by presenting them so unequally and stereotypically. For example, it doesn't say much for Hermione's judgement that she falls in love with a mean-spirited buffoon. Whereas they're very complimentary and well-matched in the books, as you say, they're both intelligent, capable and make each other better people.

Yeah, I completely agree that they did disservice to them. Both as individual character - Ron got super dumped down and turned into a comic relief and I think Hermione was put up onto this pedestal that showed her a lot less complex character because they kind of just erased her flaws, which is partly what makes her interesting in the first place -, and in consequence to that they make no sense as a couple when they happen eventually and it's so annoying because all of the simplifying could have been done without taking away their characters.

Enci wrote: "Yeah, I completely agree that they did disservice to them. Both as individual character - Ron got super dumped down and turned into a comic relief and I think Hermione was put up onto this pedestal..."

That's a good point about Hermione. I find it's quite prevalent, in film particularly, to have essentially perfect characters. In many cases, character flaws are swapped for some tragic backstory, which people mistakenly think of as a substitute source of depth. Film-Hermione doesn't even have that. She's also too brave in the films. The reason her saying Voldemort's name was a big deal in the books is because she was quite easily scared for most of the series. Frankly, were it not for the books, I'd not find her film version interesting in the least. It's like having adventures with a computer.

Yeah, I think it's so much harder to show flaws in movies with the reduced time the story has, so making the character likable and good is usually more important than making them three dimensional.

And I agree on the "if not for the books" part. I love the movies (except for the sixth one) but I know that part of the reason I love them is because I have a bunch of knowledge from the books and know the characters and the story more in depth than what we're getting. I am not sure how the people who haven't read the books feel about certain things, but it must be a completely different experience.

Enci wrote: "Yeah, I think it's so much harder to show flaws in movies with the reduced time the story has, so making the character likable and good is usually more important than making them three dimensional...."

I know that people who've only seen the movies are far more pro Harry and Hermione getting together than people who've read the books. Obviously, due to the less than flattering portrayal of Ron in the films. As well, Ginny's not given much depth or dimension either. I also hear that the latter films especially are excessively dark and serious, which is likely from cutting out the more light-hearted and fun moments from the books � SPEW for example. Probably there's loads more differences of opinion that I'm not aware of.

I always noticed the mirror of Hermione being in the hospital in book 2, and Ron helping Harry, and then the opposite happening in book 3. I wondered if I was just looking too deeply into things, but it makes sense to me that in Harry’s first years of friendship with both of them that he’d need to cultivate a deeper foundation with each of them individually to have such a strong bond with both.

Kenzie wrote: "I always noticed the mirror of Hermione being in the hospital in book 2, and Ron helping Harry, and then the opposite happening in book 3. I wondered if I was just looking too deeply into things, b..."

Yes, I agree. I also think it gives each some time to shine as sort of the singular sidekick for a bit. It's interesting with these books because each book has a different sort of cast at climax. "Goblet of Fire" ends with Harry going it alone after getting to the portkey, "Order of the Phoenix" ends with a group of students heading to the Ministry, "Half-Blood Prince" is Harry and Dumbledore, and "Deathly Hallows" is everyone at war.

I never thought of it that way. Each climax is different. In book 1, Harry faces a singular opponent alone, but in the final book, everyone is fighting.

Kenzie wrote: "I never thought of it that way. Each climax is different. In book 1, Harry faces a singular opponent alone, but in the final book, everyone is fighting."

Yes, it's definitely a thoughtful way to bookend the series :)