[Essay-athon: for Parallactic: What Motivates Ron Weasley...]
A Rat, a Ferret, and a Weasel Walk Into a Bar…
… And it’s full of chickens. That doesn’t seem like a very funny joke, really, does it? Much like the state of Ron Weasley’s life the punch line falls flat and often incomprehensible. Sure, there’s an connecting thread, which anyone who’s read a book of fables would recognize, but it presumes too much about the reader while giving too little and leaves a general feeling of, well, ‘WTF was the writer thinking there?’ around it.
Or at least it does to me, but then? I’m not a Ron fan. So, what follows is the examination of the question ‘What motivates Ron Weasley?’, as posed by parallactic, as written by a non-Ron fan. You’ve been warned.
* * *
Ronald Bilius Weasley, the sixth child and final boy of the Molly and Arthur Weasley; best friend of one Harry J. Potter, Boy-Who-Lived; Hogwarts’ student via Gryffindor House, is easily both one of the most significant characters in the books and one of the most maligned. While he often plays pivotal roles in the plots, whether through his own actions (such as the play of the chess game in Sorceror’s Stone) or previously designed circumstances surrounding him (as with Peter in Goblet of Fire), just as often he is pushed to the side of the plot to become inconsequential at best and relegated to comic relief at worst.
The latter is a common thread in characters the author, J.K. Rowling, professes to like either through interviews or her website, from Hagrid to Dobby to the Weasley twins of Fred and George to Ron himself. While all of these characters have important and necessary functions within the plots themselves, in both the action of the plot and the direction of the main character’s personal journey, the overlaying impression of them is not serious. They are caricatures. They are over-emotional, responsive, containing flaws that both play into their humor but also their overall sense of ridiculousness. Hagrid blubbers, Dobby wails, Fred and George hiss and cackle. Unlike the loudness of Harry’s position, the shrillness of Hermione’s attitude, the certainty of Dumbledore’s quest, all strong emotions in themselves, these tendencies have the tone of absurdity, of humor through overreaction. That is what defines them, as characters and as attitudes.
Notably, this is the category of behavior Ron, with his billowing (Bilius, billous, billowing… Cute) and blustering, with his red face and reactive temper, with his comic mishaps of slug-belching proportion, is part of, unlike his counterparts in the realm of being a main character of the story such as Harry, Hermione, or even Dumbledore, whose character is partially defined by his twinkling eyes and good humor but never in a way that turns back on himself. This alone places Ron, as a character, in an interesting and subtly layered position; it takes him from the realm of the Sidekick ideal and creates a character with dynamics, dynamics that are often ignored when discussing his motivation in place of relying on the standards and cliches of both the genre and classification-division.
But it does raise the question of what other areas of classification can Ron be proscribed to and what those assignments mean for his character.
For example, Ron can be classified as a Weasley, one of the poorest families we know of within the text itself, which may or may not be indicative of a lack of actual poverty in the magical society of Rowling’s world. By being deigned as one of the “underprivileged” in relativity to the other characters within the world, he becomes motivated by his lack of wealth. By being one of six boys, most of whom have accomplished something at least notable if not impressive, he becomes motivated by his lack of individuality. By being the final son in a family that historically lacks daughters and obviously wished to have one, he becomes motivated by his lack of identity. All of these are aspects of his character that define pieces of his personality and action, and all of them are ways in which he is motivated, so clearly the question of what motivates Ron Weasley is not a simple one.
Then again perhaps, by nature of these motivations being threaded together with a common theme, it is. In all of the above circumstances, in fact in every example or aspect assigned to him in the above paragraphs, one common thread remains: his lack of definition, or definite place within what otherwise seems a very classical structure. And while one can, and the author of this essay has, argue that Rowling’s seemingly classical structure is anything but that, the idea remains that the characters, with very few exceptions, have roles and fit them or, at the very least, fit them and the counterpoint to them.
Ron is one of those exceptions as he fills not only the role of sidekick, not only the role of comic relief, not only the role of guide in main character’s magical journey as the first magical friend (or first friend at all) Harry has ever possessed, but also that of counterpoint to characters outside of his own defined characterization. While Harry plays counterpoint to other characters, such as Voldemort/Tom Riddle, he does so because they are similar characters: Tom Riddle is the motivated, and perhaps justified, villain to Harry’s reluctant (anti)hero, for example.
In comparison, Ron’s foil within the text itself is someone who is not so much a foil as a representation of Ron’s own foibles: Draco Malfoy. They are characters who, despite the clear difference in economic status, share many things in common both in personality and circumstance. Both pureblooded and from old families on at least one side of their genealogy, both impulsive and occasionally reckless, both strategists who will use plans with skill but often have these plans ruined by their own lack of patience or circumstances fully beyond their control, these are characters with far more in common personality-wise than they have apart (unlike, one can argue, Harry and Voldemort, who share circumstance but not traits, at least on the outside of things).
Oftentimes in fandom one sees parallels made between Harry and Draco even when canon shows things differently. In canon Draco, much like when Ron is brushed aside for greater aspects of the plot, is often insignificant to Harry’s perception of the world. This is not to say that Ron is insignificant to Harry but merely that, beyond creating an ideal of family, safety and nobility for him within the first books (much like Draco almost immediately came to represent Slytherin and those concerned with their blood as everything Harry already despised within the world), Ron has not importantly affected the way Harry sees the things around him. Neither has Draco, again, except for his original and immediate impressions of the magical community, and thus Draco has become increasingly unnoticeable to Harry’s journey as Harry’s worries become more epic in scale. The same cannot be said for Draco’s role in Ron’s journey, as we see in the Order of the Phoenix with the running thread of ‘Weasley is Our King’.
And there’s still yet another parallel that can be made, one that is often noted and then maligned as bashing by competing factions of the fandom: Ron’s analogy to Peter Pettigrew. It is a comparison that makes sense to make, perhaps beyond that of Ron-to-Sirius as is so popular in generation analysis of the books. The latter comparison is made because of they both, supposedly, have an impulsive temper, though it is questionable as to whether that was true of the younger Sirius, much like people often parallel Remus and Hermione because they are both intelligent (and despite the fact they have radically different types of intelligence from all appearances), and because Ron is the best friend of Harry (who is commonly compared to James despite the fact we see over and over that Harry detests the sort of behavior his father displayed as an adolescent).
In contrast one can argue that Ron’s parallels to Peter Pettigrew are of the more situational type, with an eye to symbolism. Take their parallels in cowardice. Both boys display a distinct lack of unnecessary brave action, despite their Sorting into Gryffindor, whilst at the same time having a core of bravery that defines not only everything they do but what is done with them. It is difficult to argue that Ron is not prone to panic or emotional outbursts of panic when pressed because anything containing spiders, Voldemort, or even simpler things like the revelation of Remus Lupin’s status as a werewolf argue differently. To say that Ron does not display cowardice is as if to say the same of Draco Malfoy, whose actions are often as brave as they are self-destructive and who perseveres often despite a complete lack of success in the past. It is equally difficult to argue that Peter Pettigrew is not ultimately brave, for even acts of desperation and self-preservation have a bravery to them and doing what he has done takes no small sense of courage; to say that Peter is a coward because of the choices that he has made is equivalent to saying that Harry is a coward because he has never actively chosen to make the hard choices, instead having them thrust at him, like the Goblet of Fire gave out his name or Voldemort’s visions haunt his dreams.
Which leaves one at the parallels of Peter Pettigrew, Draco Malfoy, and Ron Weasley: A rat, a ferret, and a weasel walk into a bar… and it’s full of chickens.
* * *
Commentary is welcomed. Flames? Not so much.
- Andrea.
… And it’s full of chickens. That doesn’t seem like a very funny joke, really, does it? Much like the state of Ron Weasley’s life the punch line falls flat and often incomprehensible. Sure, there’s an connecting thread, which anyone who’s read a book of fables would recognize, but it presumes too much about the reader while giving too little and leaves a general feeling of, well, ‘WTF was the writer thinking there?’ around it.
Or at least it does to me, but then? I’m not a Ron fan. So, what follows is the examination of the question ‘What motivates Ron Weasley?’, as posed by parallactic, as written by a non-Ron fan. You’ve been warned.
* * *
Ronald Bilius Weasley, the sixth child and final boy of the Molly and Arthur Weasley; best friend of one Harry J. Potter, Boy-Who-Lived; Hogwarts’ student via Gryffindor House, is easily both one of the most significant characters in the books and one of the most maligned. While he often plays pivotal roles in the plots, whether through his own actions (such as the play of the chess game in Sorceror’s Stone) or previously designed circumstances surrounding him (as with Peter in Goblet of Fire), just as often he is pushed to the side of the plot to become inconsequential at best and relegated to comic relief at worst.
The latter is a common thread in characters the author, J.K. Rowling, professes to like either through interviews or her website, from Hagrid to Dobby to the Weasley twins of Fred and George to Ron himself. While all of these characters have important and necessary functions within the plots themselves, in both the action of the plot and the direction of the main character’s personal journey, the overlaying impression of them is not serious. They are caricatures. They are over-emotional, responsive, containing flaws that both play into their humor but also their overall sense of ridiculousness. Hagrid blubbers, Dobby wails, Fred and George hiss and cackle. Unlike the loudness of Harry’s position, the shrillness of Hermione’s attitude, the certainty of Dumbledore’s quest, all strong emotions in themselves, these tendencies have the tone of absurdity, of humor through overreaction. That is what defines them, as characters and as attitudes.
Notably, this is the category of behavior Ron, with his billowing (Bilius, billous, billowing… Cute) and blustering, with his red face and reactive temper, with his comic mishaps of slug-belching proportion, is part of, unlike his counterparts in the realm of being a main character of the story such as Harry, Hermione, or even Dumbledore, whose character is partially defined by his twinkling eyes and good humor but never in a way that turns back on himself. This alone places Ron, as a character, in an interesting and subtly layered position; it takes him from the realm of the Sidekick ideal and creates a character with dynamics, dynamics that are often ignored when discussing his motivation in place of relying on the standards and cliches of both the genre and classification-division.
But it does raise the question of what other areas of classification can Ron be proscribed to and what those assignments mean for his character.
For example, Ron can be classified as a Weasley, one of the poorest families we know of within the text itself, which may or may not be indicative of a lack of actual poverty in the magical society of Rowling’s world. By being deigned as one of the “underprivileged” in relativity to the other characters within the world, he becomes motivated by his lack of wealth. By being one of six boys, most of whom have accomplished something at least notable if not impressive, he becomes motivated by his lack of individuality. By being the final son in a family that historically lacks daughters and obviously wished to have one, he becomes motivated by his lack of identity. All of these are aspects of his character that define pieces of his personality and action, and all of them are ways in which he is motivated, so clearly the question of what motivates Ron Weasley is not a simple one.
Then again perhaps, by nature of these motivations being threaded together with a common theme, it is. In all of the above circumstances, in fact in every example or aspect assigned to him in the above paragraphs, one common thread remains: his lack of definition, or definite place within what otherwise seems a very classical structure. And while one can, and the author of this essay has, argue that Rowling’s seemingly classical structure is anything but that, the idea remains that the characters, with very few exceptions, have roles and fit them or, at the very least, fit them and the counterpoint to them.
Ron is one of those exceptions as he fills not only the role of sidekick, not only the role of comic relief, not only the role of guide in main character’s magical journey as the first magical friend (or first friend at all) Harry has ever possessed, but also that of counterpoint to characters outside of his own defined characterization. While Harry plays counterpoint to other characters, such as Voldemort/Tom Riddle, he does so because they are similar characters: Tom Riddle is the motivated, and perhaps justified, villain to Harry’s reluctant (anti)hero, for example.
In comparison, Ron’s foil within the text itself is someone who is not so much a foil as a representation of Ron’s own foibles: Draco Malfoy. They are characters who, despite the clear difference in economic status, share many things in common both in personality and circumstance. Both pureblooded and from old families on at least one side of their genealogy, both impulsive and occasionally reckless, both strategists who will use plans with skill but often have these plans ruined by their own lack of patience or circumstances fully beyond their control, these are characters with far more in common personality-wise than they have apart (unlike, one can argue, Harry and Voldemort, who share circumstance but not traits, at least on the outside of things).
Oftentimes in fandom one sees parallels made between Harry and Draco even when canon shows things differently. In canon Draco, much like when Ron is brushed aside for greater aspects of the plot, is often insignificant to Harry’s perception of the world. This is not to say that Ron is insignificant to Harry but merely that, beyond creating an ideal of family, safety and nobility for him within the first books (much like Draco almost immediately came to represent Slytherin and those concerned with their blood as everything Harry already despised within the world), Ron has not importantly affected the way Harry sees the things around him. Neither has Draco, again, except for his original and immediate impressions of the magical community, and thus Draco has become increasingly unnoticeable to Harry’s journey as Harry’s worries become more epic in scale. The same cannot be said for Draco’s role in Ron’s journey, as we see in the Order of the Phoenix with the running thread of ‘Weasley is Our King’.
And there’s still yet another parallel that can be made, one that is often noted and then maligned as bashing by competing factions of the fandom: Ron’s analogy to Peter Pettigrew. It is a comparison that makes sense to make, perhaps beyond that of Ron-to-Sirius as is so popular in generation analysis of the books. The latter comparison is made because of they both, supposedly, have an impulsive temper, though it is questionable as to whether that was true of the younger Sirius, much like people often parallel Remus and Hermione because they are both intelligent (and despite the fact they have radically different types of intelligence from all appearances), and because Ron is the best friend of Harry (who is commonly compared to James despite the fact we see over and over that Harry detests the sort of behavior his father displayed as an adolescent).
In contrast one can argue that Ron’s parallels to Peter Pettigrew are of the more situational type, with an eye to symbolism. Take their parallels in cowardice. Both boys display a distinct lack of unnecessary brave action, despite their Sorting into Gryffindor, whilst at the same time having a core of bravery that defines not only everything they do but what is done with them. It is difficult to argue that Ron is not prone to panic or emotional outbursts of panic when pressed because anything containing spiders, Voldemort, or even simpler things like the revelation of Remus Lupin’s status as a werewolf argue differently. To say that Ron does not display cowardice is as if to say the same of Draco Malfoy, whose actions are often as brave as they are self-destructive and who perseveres often despite a complete lack of success in the past. It is equally difficult to argue that Peter Pettigrew is not ultimately brave, for even acts of desperation and self-preservation have a bravery to them and doing what he has done takes no small sense of courage; to say that Peter is a coward because of the choices that he has made is equivalent to saying that Harry is a coward because he has never actively chosen to make the hard choices, instead having them thrust at him, like the Goblet of Fire gave out his name or Voldemort’s visions haunt his dreams.
Which leaves one at the parallels of Peter Pettigrew, Draco Malfoy, and Ron Weasley: A rat, a ferret, and a weasel walk into a bar… and it’s full of chickens.
* * *
Commentary is welcomed. Flames? Not so much.
- Andrea.