You're lucky, Americangirlemmie! I've only read them all once (*hides from Tirian12's wrath just in case*).
On Ron's departure/Return:

Why would you get very annoyed at him for doing that? Because you didn't like his character, or because you didn't think it was his place to do it? Personally, I thought it was about high-time he proved his mettle.

The repeated pattern of fighting and making up suggest to me something very like what happens between Aravis and Shasta in HHB. In fact there are distinct parallels between the two series. EG

And there is the other thing referred to by AmericangirlEmmie and ChristProclamer .

Why exactly would you feel that way? As with other similar objects, the action in question refers to many of Ron's weaknesses, and why he behaves as he does.

I was hoping Harry or Hermione or someone I have respect for would do the job. I just don't think he deserved to do it.

It isn't a character's worth that is the point in who does what.

Though whether or not there is a bit of worth in the person might determine whether the person survives or not. It is also the character's weaknesses and how they overcame them that determine who destroys which horcrux. Ron suffers from jealousy, Hermione has to overcome her fear of failure and her greed for praise and acclaim.but Harry also did kill the first Horcrux, the one in Tom Riddle's Diary, back in Chamber of Secrets.

You do have to be careful of destroying those Horcruxes. DD found that breaking the Ring Horcrux ensured he would be terminally ill.

woooot! this is quite a discussion!
first of all i want to apologize for my "wrath", i'm just a hardtail when it comes to that sort of thing, sorry. you can call me old man Tirian if you want.

anyway, people you shouldn't ashamed of your love for potter!! remember that
now that we're over that

I don't really think you need to put in spoilers everything that is said about either Ron or the DH film rating. I agree with you that it would be really dumb to give the film too high a rating because of scenes which could be as frightening as some of the scenes shown in cartoons or in films such as the recent Clash of the Titans which is PG-13. Clash of the Titans is based on the old Greek legend of Perseus and the Medusa.

ChristProclamer thinks that Ron is a quitter, and up until HBP he has some reason for his assessment. But Ron does plenty to show his worth as well. In the first book Ron is the one who is handily in hospital when Hermione and Harry get put on detention, even though his later winning chess sacrifice in the labyrinth is spectacularly noble of him. In COS you have to hand it to Ron for going into the forest with Harry, to look for Aragog. Remember that Ron suffers from arachnophobia. In POA, Ron as Harry's right hand man, stands firmly besides Harry and Hermione in the Shrieking Shack, despite his broken leg, and despite his quarrel with Hermione over Scabbers and the Firebolt.

It is in GOF that we start really seeing Ron's dark side, when for a while he is on bad terms with Harry due to the latter's name being put in the Goblet of Fire. Apparently he felt too jealous and left out to realise that however Harry's name got into the goblet, he wasn't being done any favours. And Ron's grumpy behaviour at the Yule Ball and nastiness to Hermione and Victor Krum does confirm that Ron suffers from jealousy, this time of Hermione's escort at the ball.

Ron's patchy Quidditch performance in OotP is another clue to his insecurities and his vulnerability to the Slytherin sledging. Ron thinks too much of what others think of him as well. Especially of what his elder brothers think. What Ron would like most of all is to be the centre of attention and praise for his marvellous achievements which is why he didn't like Hermione at first, and why he periodically gets grumpy with both Harry and Hermione.

This is the main reason why he gets entangled with Lavender in HBP, which I agree is quitting in another way. It takes being nearly poisoned by someone's idea of a love/hate potion before he realises that it is Hermione he cares about all the time, & not being made a fuss of by someone else whilst on the rebound. Whilst Ron might be missing in action at times in the series, he does generally come back to his senses when it counts. There are a lot of other HP characters I think who could be better called quitters, I'm sure.

I've just been re-reading a bunch of my old Enid Blyton children's books and was really struck by some of the archetypal patterns of British Kid Lit that find their way into the Potter series. Some of these patterns (particularly the Boarding School stories) can also be found in Anthony Buckeridge's Jennings school stories.

Some of these patterns include a central group of children who take on adventures largely on their own with little adult supervision, sometimes even flouting authority figures (particularly "undeserving" authority figures). I suspect this was largely established in Britain with E Nesbit's 5 Children and It and Treasure Seeker series. But this format was prolifically engaged by Blyton in such series as The Famous 5 and The 5 Find-outer series among others.

Even CS Lewis uses this device to establish his protagonists in the Narnia series. The children in his books are remarkably like the kids featured in some of Blyton's most famous book series. The Potter series seems to uphold some of these traditions.

Blyton's (and Buckeridge's) Boarding School stories feature such elements as the Midnight Feast, Pranking, Prowling school grounds after Lights Out, the Wise Headmaster (or Headmistress), the Spiteful Teacher, the Strict but Fair teacher, the Bully, the Swotter (Nerd in modern parlance ), the Prankster...and so on. While this formula was begun in the late 19th century, it experienced a revival in post WW2 Britain and many of the formula's standards were developed in the later period.

Clearly this is a formula that Rowling drew upon for her works, and as such many of her characters can be examined in this light. Indeed--regarding the current discussion of Ron's character--we have to see that the stories would be incomplete without Ron to balance the central grouping of characters.

Ron is also an integral part of the series because his traits are an a central part of any individual personality. He represents the Id (or ungoverned passions). Hermione represents the Intellect, and Harry represents the Ego, which mediates the other two aspects of the Persona (this is a formula also found in Star Trek with McCoy, Spock and Kirk).

Anyway, just a few thoughts. I'm curious to discover if any older Potter fans (Wagga ) have seen some of these literary and psychological connections also.

GB

ChristProclamer thinks that Ron is a quitter, and up until HBP he has some reason for his assessment.

He, Waggawerewolf27?
Ron still seems to me a very selfish guy, and I have little pity for his 'insecurities' and his 'vulnerability'. BUT I had to admit that I was grudgingly proud of him after his return, and he grew on me a bit from there.
I know a character's worth does not relate to their ability to destroy horcruxes, but I still wanted someone I liked more to finish off the locket.

Tirian12: Creepy as certain scenes are, I don't think DH parts 1 or 2 will go above PG-13. And I don't think that will do any injustice to the books. Nowadays people can talk just about anything into getting a PG-13 rating rather than an R.

I've just been re-reading a bunch of my old Enid Blyton children's books and was really struck by some of the archetypal patterns of British Kid Lit that find their way into the Potter series. Some of these patterns (particularly the Boarding School stories) can also be found in Anthony Buckeridge's Jennings school stories.

Not only Enid Blyton or Buckeridge Jennings' stories, though I agree Enid Blyton dominated the field, with series like the Mallory Towers, the St Clare series, which I never read, or the Naughtiest girl at school series.

Even in the ones taking place during school holidays, like the famous Five or the Adventure series have an assumption that the children attended boarding schools during school term, an assumption also made in the Narnia series, I note, in schools such as Experiment House. Though the groups of children in some of Blyton's books, like the Faraway tree trilogy, which deal with the magical inhabitants of a magical tree, seem a mite young for the traditional boarding school which seems to be for secondary school students and upwards, when children are old enough to participate in a wider social circle than in their own homes, and are independent enough to be rebellious, to kick over the traces and to question arbitrary rules more to do with crowd control than any individual's real benefit.

Even in the same age as E.Nesbit you could read boarding school yarns like Stalky and Co, written by Rudyard Kipling, and that classic, Tom Brown's Schooldays. And a whole heap of girls' boarding school stories from the post WW1 stories penned by Dorita Fairlie Bruce to others in the immediate post WW2 era. Charles Dickens also had boarding schools in some of his stories, like David Copperfield, somewhat reminiscent of the one C.S.Lewis attended after the death of his mother. I'm sure you remember characters like Steerforth or Flashman, the latter an out-and-out bully.

the Midnight Feast, Pranking, Prowling school grounds after Lights Out, the Wise Headmaster (or Headmistress), the Spiteful Teacher, the Strict but Fair teacher, the Bully, the Swotter (Nerd in modern parlance ), the Prankster...and so on. While this formula was begun in the late 19th century, it experienced a revival in post WW2 Britain and many of the formula's standards were developed in the later period.

Clearly this is a formula that Rowling drew upon for her works, and as such many of her characters can be examined in this light. Indeed--regarding the current discussion of Ron's character--we have to see that the stories would be incomplete without Ron to balance the central grouping of characters.

Again you are right about stock characters, but I think JKR puts quite a few twists on the traditional boarding school story, which is why I like the series so much. Yes, breaking bounds is a capital crime, and so Ron, Hermione and Harry are constantly dodging Filch even when paying an out-of-hours visit to the Prefect's Bathroom, something you would think would be perfectly legal, whichever bathroom that one might be. Thank goodness for that handy Invisibility Cloak. Because when this trio break bounds they are usually doing it for a good cause, such as relieving Hagrid from the consequences of his dragon rearing longings, finding out who the Heir of Slytherin might be or saving more than one innocent life in POA. Alas, there were no Midnight feasts in HP, far from it. Only parties for Gryffindor House at strategic moments, summoned from the Hogwarts kitchen by Ron's elder brothers.

Yes, there are pranks and pranksters, but unlike the boarding school pranks and pranksters, JKR has Hermione worrying about people getting hurt, etc. As sometimes happens. Snape might be the spiteful teacher, but JKR's depiction of him is absolutely brilliant. Even at the end of HBP, do we really know whether he is good or bad?

I agree with you that Hermione is the conscience of the trio which is why I am a bit annoyed with her in HBP when, just like Ron's reaction to Hermione's going to the Yule Ball with Krum, she gets equally snooty in HBP about Harry's beating her at Potions. Hermione is a swot to be sure, but she is a swot with a social conscience, which she sometimes exercises somewhat selectively. Exactly why is she so swotty? Oh yes, she has professional parents with expectations to live up to and has a fear of failure. Just as Ron, at the end of a line of 5 brothers, feels overshadowed by them.

And yes, Hermione is the other side of the coin to Ron, which is why by the end of HBP, you know they are destined for each other, whatever Hermione/Harry shippers might have said. Harry, himself, is the narrator of the series, related from his POV, so of course he is the ego of the trio. Ron is the everyman, leaning on Hermione to get his homework done, leaning on Harry for a bit of reflected glory, but also a good interpreter of the Wizarding world to those outsiders, Harry and Hermione, and otherwise supplying the very family background that both Harry and Hermione lack.

He, Waggawerewolf27? Ron still seems to me a very selfish guy, and I have little pity for his 'insecurities' and his 'vulnerability'. BUT I had to admit that I was grudgingly proud of him after his return, and he grew on me a bit from there.

I agree that there seems little difference between Ron and Draco at times in the series. Except that Draco comes from a rich pure-blood family and Ron comes from an equally poor pure-blood family who have chosen to be less prejudiced and selective about the sorts of people they are happy to associate with. Harry likes Ron because like himself, Ron has had to wear hand-me-downs, eat whatever is served up to him and has to put up with the sneers of those better off than himself. Harry dislikes Draco because he is all too similar to Dudley his spoiled cousin.

As for the proprieties of who destroys the Locket Horcrux, what do you make of the following DH incidents?

Yes, the Enid Blyton parallels in the books are unmistakeable. Blyton was the J.K. Rowling of my childhood, incredibly well-known in Australia back in the 80s (and I imagine much earlier). Her books were very imaginative but the writing style and everything don't hold up so well (they're far too precious). Rowling's books are far more developed and mature takes on Blyton's books. I dressed up as Moon Face for a friend's 21st. That was fun!

I knew I could count on the Nweb Aussies to recall Blyton and see the connections . Thanks Wagga and W4J.

I quite agree that Rowling put a whole new spin on the Boarding School formula. And that's why I like it too. The characters are far more developed, and not at all one note. They seem like real people to me.

Historically speaking, I think the first book in the genre was The Governess (1749) by Sarah Fielding (I haven't read it). But the genre seems to have really taken off in the mid 1800's. Of course David Copperfield had some of the elements too, as did Jane Eyre (forgot about those till now). I've heard of the Tom Brown books but never read them.

I just re-read a couple of Mallory Towers and St Clare's books and was startled at the greater depth of characterization in them. The personalities are much more rounded than some of Blyton's other books. Actually there were some second thoughts and hand-wringing about more dubious pranks.

RE: Ron: I don't really understand why some people dislike him. He's funny and loyal and brave. Yes he has issues, but who doesn't? Everyone has some sorts of issues. That's what makes us Human, and not "precious" as W4J put it . I wouldn't be surprised if some people felt Ron's insecurities hit a little too close to home perhaps.

GB

There were about three or four times that I really disliked Ron in the series,

During GOF, I didn't understand why Ron got so annoyed with Harry's name coming out of the Goblet of Fire, though when he joins in with Harry to fight Draco over his comments to Hermione, I should have seen something that I never noticed beforehand. Certainly not in POA, when for a large chunk of the book he was not on speaking terms with Hermione over Crookshanks' alleged hounding Scabbers. And, Gandalf's Beard, whilst I agree that Ron is often funny, brave and loyal, especially in HBP, when drugged by Romilda's chocolates, I really didn't like his HBP LavLav experiment or his 'big-brother-is-watching-you' attitude to Ginny's romancing Dean. Or Ginny's later getting together with Harry, either.

I did read the Mallory Towers books and many of the others, revisiting them when my own children were growing up in the eighties. But I don't think that Enid Blyton ever discussed in her books the romantic side of growing up, let alone the examples JKR gives in HBP of some of the pitfalls of what people consider to be relationships, or the points made by Mrs Weasley or Lupin or Harry, himself, about relationships or even friendships.

I think you'd look in vain in Blyton's books for examples of the dilemmas of normal, growing teenagers, such as how it might feel to be unable to find the right partner, or any partner at all, for that all-important school formal, or how it is your best mate who gets chosen for prefect, or even your worst enemy, whilst you, yourself, are passed over. JKR, herself, once commented that Julian, the eldest of Blyton's Famous 5, stays in perpetual pre-adolescence as do his siblings and cousin, having adventure after adventure without progressing through adolescence, as if they are spending time in a never-ending ground-hog summer .

In Enid Blyton's books, as in other boarding school books, the hero or heroine always becomes a prefect, and probably school captain as well. That is a stock given, as is the minimum amount of study necessary for the hero or heroine to pass final exams at a high enough level to go on to University. Stalky and Co at least do pay some attention to their school books and homework, though they resort to cribs. Whilst if it wasn't for Hermione's attempts to get Harry and Ron to do a bit of work, I doubt they would have had the relatively good OWLS results they did, and the establishment of the DA as a DADA study group also shows how participating in such a group can benefit members.

There is one aspect of Enid Blyton's books that really annoyed me, even as a child, when I missed other attitudes since found objectionable, and edited out of her original books. Most of the characters, with the exception of George/Georgina Kirrin, who are only children are portrayed as spoiled or selfish. Whereas in JKR's books there are as many reasons why someone is an only child as there are reasons for someone being at boarding school in the first place. Neville because of his parents' long-term hospitalisation, Harry because he is an orphan, Hermione is the daughter of professional people absorbed in their business lives, or Luna, or Theodore Nott, because their mothers have died. Not all only children are spoiled, over-indulged heirs of family fortunes, like Draco or Dudley. Though I think even Enid Blyton's only children wake up to themselves along the line.

I dressed up as Moon Face for a friend's 21st. That was fun!

I dressed up one of my children as the Saucepan Man for a book week parade, once. This was a relatively simple outfit to get together, consisting of all the saucepans etc in our kitchen that I could spare, linked together with string, over the child's ordinary clothes, the largest saucepan being worn as a hat.

Yeah Wagga, I didn't like Ron's Over-protective Big Brother act either (probably the thing that annoyed me the most about Ron in the books). But his jealousy towards Harry in GoF, while upsetting, seemed perfectly understandable to me. And of course Ron's

was upsetting, but it was a great plot point and was a logical outcome of previously established issues. It believably reflected some of the natural conflicts that can arise between friends.

You're right of course, that Blyton by and large ignored teen romance in her books, but she was writing pre-1960's , and also the boarding schools were gender segregated, so that left little room for teen romance during school term.

And you (and Rowling) are also right on the mark that the children by and large in Blyton's various adventure series often don't have real character arcs and seem stuck in pre-adolescence. But they do seem to have more developed and complex personalities and problems in the school stories.

And the old Blyton books certainly reflect a lot of the cultural and gender attitudes of their day. But it's to her credit that some of her atypical characters (such as George[ina] in the Famous Five) seem to also be the most strongly drawn and complex.

But really, that's part of Rowling's genius, to have built on established literary archetypes and genres, re-visioned or upended the conventions, and made them relevant for a modern audience . I think that's partly why the Potter books are so popular among adults as well as children. They have the comfort of a well worn shoe with new insoles . People recognize the old forms, but relish in the novel and more mature approach.

GB

Pardon me if this has been addressed already, but I'm just curious what you other Harry Potterites think of this. I love the series (it ranks on my all-time favorites list!), but there is one part that has always bothered me:

How do you guys feel about this? For me, it always seemed like Rowling just threw it in there as one of those moments of delicious revenge, but that never sat well with me. It somehow lessened Harry's character for me.

Just wondering if anyone else was ever bothered by this.