« Previous Post | Index | Next Post »
I wrote:
Percy's good opinion is something that Ron values highly enough for it to be presented as a major part of his triumph at the end of the novel
Amy wrote:
I don't follow this. The fact that it's emphasized by JKR means Ron values it?
No, but the particular way in which JKR emphasizes it implies (to my mind, at any rate), that we're supposed to understand Ron to value it.
This is admittedly a matter of nuance and therefore open to interpretation. But given the emphasis placed throughout the text on Ron's concerns about not being as good as his older brothers, not being able to live up to their reputation, not having a niche within his family dynamic, and so forth; and given that Percy was established both in his very first appearance and in the Christmas chapter as being prone to value his extra-familial relationships (specifically, with his Prefect friends) over his familial relationships; and given that Percy's depiction in the first book is not nearly as negative or as ineffectual as it will become later on (he is shown, for example, to be a very good leader in PS/SS, in stark contrast to his ineptitude in CoS); and given that the scene is constructed in such a way as to emphasize that each of the four protagonists is not only earning accolades, but has also triumphed in some manner highly relevant to their character-specific concerns and conflicts...
Um, yeah. Given all of that, I think that we're meant to read Percy's boasting to his Prefect friends of his familial relationship to Ron as a personal and important triumph for Ron himself. I don't think that it works very well if we don't accept that—at this point in his life, at any rate—Percy's good opinion really is something that Ron truly values.
So Percy's delight about winning his bet with Penny is important to Harry and that's why it's mentioned at the Ravenclaw match?
Nah. Percy's delight at winning his bet with Penny is just Percy being a strutting boor. ;->
But I don't think that the two situations are really comparable. They bear superficial similarities, certainly, but they don't occupy at all the same position within the narrative structures of the two novels.
Amy also said:
However, I am never going to forgive Fred for killing Ron's puffskein, or JKR for thinking that that is funny (FB). I'm praying there turns out to be another explanation. Killing someone's pet is a particularly advanced form of abuse.
Oh! (Elkins exclaims, momentarily losing all of her Edge, as well as a great deal of her Twin antagonism) But surely that must have been an accident!
I refuse to believe that the same woman who wrote PoA could fail to comprehend the gravity of killing someone's pet. And since I don't believe for a minute that Fred is that evil, I remain convinced that it must have happened due to a terrible, horrible, gruesome error of judgement, and not as a premeditated act of pet murder.
And I quite agree with you, Amy. It really isn't funny.
—Elkins, who simply cannot bear the thought of murdered pets.
Posted to HPfGU by Elkins on March 7, 2002 3:34 AM
« Previous Post | Index | Next Post »