"The point I was attempting to make, though, was not with regards to Ron's talents, but his personality, his laziness in non life-threatening situations, his general immaturity, his irrationality, his short temper, etc." You're judging somebody based completely off how they were in middle school and high school? Honestly, I'd think the books were even worse had all the characters been written with great maturity, rationality, work ethic, etc. Thankfully, people aren't condemned to forever remain like they were as kids.
"When it comes to marriage and fatherhood, maturity carries a great deal more weight than brilliance. Ron certainly wasn't behaving as a master strategist when he was congratulating himself for cheating on a driving test and getting away with it." The wizarding world as a whole doesn't have all that much regard for muggles, and given the examples provided by Arthur Weasley I'm really not surprised that Ron wouldn't think much of fudging his score a little bit. You seem to long for a perfect world where nobody breaks rules or acts out of line, but thankfully Rowling's a bit more realistic than that.
As for the original post: "Rowling puts forth a very consistent message that people can only be bettered by fortunate circumstances, that freaks who are too traumatized to make friends during childhood will remain freakish and friendless thereafter, that the only way they can contribute to society is by sacrificing themselves for the good of the normals." What about Neville? He was a huge loser throughout the first few books, and ends up being the sole remaining leader of Dumbledore's Army, doing a lot of good.
I didn't like the book very much, but I'm not self-absorbed or paranoid enough to see it as an attack on me or mine. The human brain is remarkable in its ability to make connections and pick out patterns, even when none exist. If you're looking to be offended, you can make it happen pretty easily.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-07-31 02:26 am (UTC)You're judging somebody based completely off how they were in middle school and high school? Honestly, I'd think the books were even worse had all the characters been written with great maturity, rationality, work ethic, etc. Thankfully, people aren't condemned to forever remain like they were as kids.
"When it comes to marriage and fatherhood, maturity carries a great deal more weight than brilliance. Ron certainly wasn't behaving as a master strategist when he was congratulating himself for cheating on a driving test and getting away with it."
The wizarding world as a whole doesn't have all that much regard for muggles, and given the examples provided by Arthur Weasley I'm really not surprised that Ron wouldn't think much of fudging his score a little bit. You seem to long for a perfect world where nobody breaks rules or acts out of line, but thankfully Rowling's a bit more realistic than that.
As for the original post:
"Rowling puts forth a very consistent message that people can only be bettered by fortunate circumstances, that freaks who are too traumatized to make friends during childhood will remain freakish and friendless thereafter, that the only way they can contribute to society is by sacrificing themselves for the good of the normals."
What about Neville? He was a huge loser throughout the first few books, and ends up being the sole remaining leader of Dumbledore's Army, doing a lot of good.
I didn't like the book very much, but I'm not self-absorbed or paranoid enough to see it as an attack on me or mine. The human brain is remarkable in its ability to make connections and pick out patterns, even when none exist. If you're looking to be offended, you can make it happen pretty easily.