Login  
 
 
Go Back   Chamber of Secrets > Harry Potter > The Stone > Legilimency Studies

The Trio - Group Character Analysis



Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #41  
Old July 19th, 2010, 3:06 pm
ccollinsmith's Avatar
ccollinsmith  Female.gif ccollinsmith is offline
Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!
 
Joined: 3126 days
Location: The Village
Posts: 2,270
Re: The Trio - Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightreading View Post
I think that later on they remained close, but yes, their marriages may have interfered with their friendships. It's depressing to think about, but I think in some ways, they drifted apart. Of course, they all got along very, very well--Hermione & Ginny, Ginny & Ron, Hermione & Ron, Harry & Ron, Harry & Ginny, Harry & Hermione... so i think it had to have helped that they all cared about each other.For instance, if Hermione & Ginny disliked each other, Harry & Ron would have had a tough time staying friends-- it would put a huge strain on their friendship. But they all got along, and so there wasn't any tension that would keep Harry, Hermione, & Ron from remaining friends.
Actually, I tend to think that their marriages would have solidified their friendships. Hermione's husband, after all, is the brother of Harry's wife. In the end, they're all part of the same (Weasley) family.

I also think we see evidence of continued closeness in canon. The Potter-Weasley kids are first cousins to the Weasley-Granger kids. And it seems from the Epilogue that the cousins know each other quite well - almost like brothers and sisters. Given everything we already know about the closeness of the Weasley family, this makes sense, I think - just as it makes sense that James II would refer to another cousin as "our Victoire."

Also, given that the Trios' kids are all in the same general age bracket (and given what I personally have seen of how close siblings support each other as parents), I can imagine that they might have drawn support from each other in the joys and trials of parenting... and that they might also have drawn support from other members of the extended Weasley family.

At any rate, I'd be interested in hearing more on the rationale for the Trio drifting apart. But given the bonds of marriage (and the bonds of Weasley-dom), I personally think they are drawn more closely together as the years pass.


__________________



Hogsmeade Awards 2013: Voted #1 - Biggest Cat Lover | Voted #2 - Most Creative Member |
Voted #2 - Most Likely to Make a Doctor Who Reference


VIVA LA GLITTELUTION!

Last edited by ccollinsmith; July 19th, 2010 at 3:08 pm.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #42  
Old July 19th, 2010, 3:11 pm
meesha1971's Avatar
meesha1971  Female.gif meesha1971 is offline
Master of the Magical Arts
 
Joined: 4846 days
Location: The Unknowable Room
Age: 47
Posts: 12,731
Re: The Trio - Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy View Post
Yup and it was a defining dynamic which was the "aura of the trio" I was talking about because while the Marauder's "aura" was distinct, the cohesiveness, loyalty and trust was there in the end, despite times when those features went temporarily missing. Naturally I speak of just the three remaining Marauders and that is intresting also because you actually have two "trios" at the finish for both groups. But note when the lack of cohesiveness, loyalty and trust faded in either group, it came back fiercely. Ron after GoF and after the camping scene - Hermione at the beginning and Harry after his willfullness in HBP. And with the Marauders Lupin was mistrustful for an entire 13 years (although Sirius perhaps only a couple of weeks) yet note how strongly they instantly bonded again in POA; Sirius violently defending Lupin a few pages later and Lupin becoming Sirius' fierce defender in OOTP.
Exactly.

That was something I admired about both sets of friendships - as well as with the Weasley family in general. They had their fights and sometimes doubted or mistrusted each other, but when push came to shove, such issues were resolved and they were always there for each other in the end.

Quote:
So while the dynamics were distinct, I think there were those similar features I mentioned above in the overall "trio" relationship of both groups and I feel JKR did this quite on purpose. Note the patronuses; Harry and James are Stags and Ron and Sirius are both types of dogs (big black and terrier). While, both Hermione and Remus have patroni quite distinctive from the others, I don't feel that was planned, (assuming Remus' is a werewolf), but in a way it is because JKR made their patroni pertinent to them, which would be distinctive in both cases - if you know what I mean.
I'm not sure about Lupin actually. He was a werewolf, but I don't know if that would automatically translate to him having a werewolf patronus. The patronus and animagus form are usually the same for everyone from what we are shown. There are exceptions shown with Tonks and Snape having their patronus change, but these are not presented as being a true patronus because those changes were brought about by negative emotions - depression, rejection, misery, bitterness, etc... With everyone else, Jo tends to refer to the animagus form and patronus interchangeably. So Lupin's patronus should represent whatever his animagus form would be rather than his affliction of being a werewolf. Of course, that doesn't rule out the possibility that Lupin's animagus form and patronus would have been a wolf regardless, but I don't think his patronus was ever shown on page so we can't be certain of what it actually was. It could very well have been an otter or other animal in the weasel family to show a similarity to Hermione.

Other than that, I agree. It is interesting that Harry's patronus - and animagus form if he ever decided to learn that - was a stag like his father while Ron's was a dog similar to Sirius. Ron's dog patronus was smaller - more like a Jack Russell Terrier - but that still shows the similarities in their personalities. I think Hermione's patronus was - at least in part - intended to show her compatibility with Ron because the otter is part of the weasel family, but it makes an interesting study to look at what their patronuses reveal about their personalities - both as individuals as well as in how they relate to each other in terms of their friendships and romances.

Quote:
There is a dual aspect to this. Patronus means "protector" or "guardian" in Latin, reflecting the role the Patronus Charm plays. In archaic Latin, it meant "father", which is interesting, considering that Harry Potter's Patronus is the same as his father's Patronus and Animagus form. The Latin word exspecto or expecto means "I watch for" or "I await", thus the charm's incantation roughly translates into "I await a protector. So while Harry's patronus is relevant to his father in that way - it is also relevant to Ron's in that both he and his father's best male friends were a type of dog in line with the compatibility and loyal friends idea.
That's a good point. As I said above, this does make a very interesting study. I think it's realistic as well because most kids are going to be similar to their parents - even in cases of adoption, such similarities are apparent. My oldest son - from my husband's first marriage - just recently found his half-brother - through his biological mother - who had been adopted. I probably wouldn't have noticed this if it hadn't been for all the conversations I've had about personality traits on this forum, but it amazed me how similar he is in personality to his mother even though she did not raise him. There are differences, but the similarities stand out - he even has some of her mannerisms.

Harry never knew his parents - at least he has no conscious memories of them - but he inherited personality traits from both of them. It's interesting how he seems to be a combination of their best traits. He is naturally drawn to Ron and the two had an instant connection in much the same way that James was naturally drawn to Sirius. And that makes me curious as to what the Weasley twins' patronuses were because they were also very similar to James and Sirius.

Quote:
Yup. But I think some of that lack of confidence was because they grew into their roles and their friendship while doing battle against Voldemort from 11 years old. Note their distinct behavior in the Epilogue - Ron admitting to Harry that he confunded the test supervisor and I can imagine Harry's conspiratory smile. I feel that the cocksureness we saw in the earlier James-Sirius relationship developed once these two had more time free of the worry of being chased and captured by Voldemort. Too, Sirius and James' relationship likely became a lot more like Harry and Ron's in their youth during the time James and Lily were in hiding - both feeling less confident due to the circumstances. Similarities are coming to me in every direction now. .
I think their experiences as children factor into that. James and Sirius both grew up in the wizarding world and were both - in essence - only children. Sirius did have a brother, but his estrangement from his family was so extreme that he never felt the need to prove anything to them, but chose to rebel against them because he did not share their beliefs. In that regard, the parallel is between Harry and Sirius - both growing up in homes that they hated and overcoming their families trying to make them feel that they were inferior. The difference for Harry is that he was not born into that situation, but rather forced into it because of circumstances beyond his control and he didn't have the option of just leaving and living with the Weasleys during holidays the way that Sirius was able to live with the Potters. And Harry grew up in the muggle world with no idea that he was a wizard until Hagrid told him. Ron grew up in a loving home knowing that he was a wizard like James did, but he had a lot of siblings and that led to him being more insecure than James because he always felt the need to prove himself.

In that respect, I think their adventures at Hogwarts in regards to solving mysteries and finding ways to protect Harry from Voldemort as well as fighting against Voldemort was beneficial to both Harry and Ron because it helped them become more confident in themselves and what they were capable of. Without those experiences, I don't think the two of them would have had quite the same level of confidence that we see in the epilogue. James and Sirius were confident in themselves and their abilities from the start and excelled in school because of that. Harry and Ron had to overcome a lot to gain such confidence and I think that was a factor in them being a bit lazy about schoolwork - particularly for Ron. But it is interesting because their experiences at Hogwarts lead to them being even more similar to James and Sirius as they grow up because they did gain that confidence in themselves.

Quote:
I hadn't put my finger on it in quite that way because I didn't hear Jo's comment about Ron dealing with his Jealousy in GoF. But that would make much more sense of what she did. However, you are right, DH made that rather senseless. . I would imagine that JKR felt Ron had not completely dealt with it in GoF and had to get it completely settled in DH. In a way that makes sense because Hermione and Ron hadn't gotten anything really established yet. JKR wanted to resolve all of those lingering issues - she did the same for Lupin and his furry little problem - blowing it up into a magnificent issue in order for him to really have to deal with it. I suppose she felt that she had to do that with Ron too. It is odd how she went to such lengths with some characters like Ron and Lupin to make these points terrifically clear, and then left other issues totally undealt with.
In some ways, that makes sense - in others it doesn't really work for me because there were unresolved issues with Hermione. I was rather disappointed that Jo never put Hermione in a situation where she had to actually deal with being wrong or her insecurities the way she continually did with Harry and Ron. In looking at the series as a whole, I think it would have made more sense for Hermione to have been the one who doubted Harry in GOF and then have Ron have such doubts about Harry - as well as Hermione - in DH because of the locket. It seems more fitting for their personalities and it would make more sense overall because the situation in GOF should have resolved that. Having it come up again three years later with the same two people have basically the same argument didn't really fit, IMO.

Quote:
I agree; that is what I was saying above. That cohesiveness, loyalty and loving friendship was the lasting legacy for both "trios" in the end.
Exactly.

Quote:
Indeed, but I think once Lily stepped into the picture, the Marauders finally had a similar element within the scope of their friendship. However, very distinctive as well. I also agree that it would have likely assisted them to have had Lily as a Marauder all along. But in the end it all worked out, so that is the point. I feel JKR was content to have the Marauders (and Lily) rejoined in the afterlife and the trio all surviving the war together in the earthly one. Thus, you had this pervasive group dynamic going on in both dimensions. .
That is true, but I think the fact that Lily had not been part of the group all along and had her own friends is a significant difference. When James started dating Lily, he didn't have to worry about how it would impact the friendship between the Marauders as a group if it didn't work out. Hermione was an integral part of the trio and - as Harry worried about in HBP - if she and Ron got together and then broke up, it would have a significant impact on the group. They got a taste of what that would be like when Ron and Hermione were not speaking in POA as well as in HBP. If James and Lily had a fight, Sirius and Lupin were not going to be in the middle as Harry was with Ron and Hermione in HBP and Lily wasn't going to be hurt by them not speaking to her as Hermione was in POA because she had her own friends. Ron and Hermione had more to worry about in regards to the potential consequences to the group dynamic and that was a factor in their reluctance to reveal their feelings - not the only factor, but a factor.

You make an interesting point though. The Marauders were all reunited in the afterlife in the end and you can see that Lily did become an integral part of that group in her relationship with James - you could say that Lily became the friend that they had believed Pettigrew was - and there is a sense that the four of them will always be watching over Harry. The trio survives and maintain their friendship in life. Of course, there will be differences in the group dynamics as adults without a war to fight as well as having individual responsibilities with their careers and families, but they are all still together and still close.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightreading View Post
I think that later on they remained close, but yes, their marriages may have interfered with their friendships. It's depressing to think about, but I think in some ways, they drifted apart. Of course, they all got along very, very well--Hermione & Ginny, Ginny & Ron, Hermione & Ron, Harry & Ron, Harry & Ginny, Harry & Hermione... so i think it had to have helped that they all cared about each other.For instance, if Hermione & Ginny disliked each other, Harry & Ron would have had a tough time staying friends-- it would put a huge strain on their friendship. But they all got along, and so there wasn't any tension that would keep Harry, Hermione, & Ron from remaining friends.
I think that is to be expected though. They're not children anymore and adult responsibilities often cause people to drift apart over time. The difference with the trio is that they are also truly family now. They may not be living in the same house as they did in school or even see each other every day because of work or other responsibilities, but they will always have that connection and still see each other on a regular basis. Not many people can say that. The friends we have in school do not always stay with us as we move into adulthood and have to deal with other responsibilities.

I do think there will be differences in the group dynamic - particularly with Ginny becoming part of the group through her marriage to Harry - but I don't see that as a bad thing. The relationships evolved and changed as they grew and changed as people. I think we see in the epilogue that Harry and Ron still have a very similar relationship to what they had in school. They work together as Aurors and probably spend a lot of time together both with work related duties as well as just hanging out to have some fun. I expect that Hermione and Ginny grew closer as they got older and there is some indication of that in the epilogue as well. That makes sense because we know that Hermione did return to Hogwarts to complete her seventh year while Harry and Ron chose to accept Kingsleys offer to become Aurors instead. It is likely that Ginny went back as well so she and Hermione would likely have spent a lot of time together during that final school year. That changes the group dynamic, but it won't prevent them from remaining close as a group. If anything, I think that will help them remain close as a group of friends.


__________________

Reform must come from within, not from without. ~ James Cardinal Gibbons

"So, if people want information on my characters, then they have to accept that I'm going to give them the information on the characters. And if they don't like it, that's the nature of fiction. You have to accept someone else's world because they made that world, so they probably know a little better than you do what goes on there." ~ J.K. Rowling


All posts are my opinions and interpretations based on reading the Harry Potter books and interviews with J.K. Rowling.

Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old August 27th, 2010, 12:38 am
steerthestars  Female.gif steerthestars is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 3007 days
Location: Toronto
Posts: 29
Re: The Trio - Group Character Analysis

Actually, JKR said in a web chat that Ron joined George in the Weasley's Wizarding Wheeze's business. He didn't become an auror.


Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old August 27th, 2010, 12:44 am
weasley9's Avatar
weasley9  Male.gif weasley9 is offline
Fifth Year
 
Joined: 3114 days
Posts: 832
Re: The Trio - Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by steerthestars View Post
Actually, JKR said in a web chat that Ron joined George in the Weasley's Wizarding Wheeze's business. He didn't become an auror.
JKR said that Ron helped George for a bit then became an auror later on.


Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old August 27th, 2010, 1:00 am
steerthestars  Female.gif steerthestars is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 3007 days
Location: Toronto
Posts: 29
Re: The Trio - Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by weasley9 View Post
JKR said that Ron helped George for a bit then became an auror later on.
Thanks. What interview is that quote from?


Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old August 27th, 2010, 5:36 am
HPnerdproud95  Female.gif HPnerdproud95 is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 2883 days
Location: Pigfarts
Posts: 7
Re: The Trio - Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by steerthestars View Post
Thanks. What interview is that quote from?
It's from her interview on Pottercast episode 130, hope this helps.

Or it could be from This Webchat...
http://www.girlgamezone.com/rowling-...ranscript.html


Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old September 5th, 2010, 12:34 pm
MissGranger1979  Female.gif MissGranger1979 is offline
Second Year
 
Joined: 2909 days
Location: Ravenclaw Tower
Age: 24
Posts: 200
Re: The Trio - Group Character Analysis

1. What role does each member play in the trio? How did the role of each member of the trio change over the course of the series?

Harry is the courageous one in the Trio and the person who makes the plans and instigates their "missions" such as going to the Ministry in OOTP. Hermione is the brains and magical talent of the Trio, she's the one who thinks their plans through and she's the one who knows the spells that can assist them, such as the protective charms on the tent in DH. Ron is kind of the glue that holds them together - he's loyal (apart from his blip in DH), he's funny and he's a good friend. Harry and Hermione proved in DH that they can survive without him but it's just not the same.

2. What strengths did each member bring to the group?

Harry brings courage and determination, Hermione brings intelligence, consideration and protectiveness (such as when she tells McGonagall about the Firebolt because she thinks it could harm Harry) and Ron brings the lighter qualities such as fun and laughter.

3. What weakness of each member hindered the group?

Harry's short temper because it causes him to snap at Ron and Hermione when they attempt to help him and Ron and Hermione's stubborness when they fall out over Scabbers and Crookshanks and Lavender Brown.

4. Was their a dominant leader or did they take turns leading at different times?

I think Harry is the leader. He is often the reason they end up in certain situations and he is the bravest of the Trio, which means they tend to follow his lead.

5. How did the relationship between Ron/Hermione affect the trio?

It only affected them when their feelings caused them to get upset with eachother and then their stubborness caused them not to make friends. This left Harry in the middle of the two of them which was awkward for him and not good for the Trio.

6. What do you think was the trio's strongest/weakest moment?

Their weakest moment is when Ron leaves them in Deathly Hallows. He and Hermione promised to be there for Harry and Ron, for whatever reasons he had, broke that promise.

Their strongest moment was when they went to the Ministry in OOTP. Hermione didn't think it was a good idea to go there but she went anyway out of loyalty for Harry.

7. Do you think the members of the group worked better together or alone? Why?

Together. They escape dangerous situations unscathed because of the strengths that each member brings to the group. Their combined talents and strengths make them more powerful than they are alone.

8. Do you think that Harry could have defeated Voldemort without the help of Hermione and Ron?

No. He couldn't have gone into the Ministry to get the locket without their help, he wouldn't have retrieved the sword without Ron, he couldn't have broken into Gringott's without Hermione disguised as Bellatrix, he wouldn't have known about the taboo if Ron hadn't have gone back into the wizarding world and might have been caught, he wouldn't have thought to go into the Chamber of Secrets to retrieve Basilisk fangs - that was down to Ron and Hermione, he wouldn't have escaped Bathilda's house without Hermione's quick thinking.... the list is pretty much endless.

9. Do you have any new thoughts about the trio after DH?

After DH they had been through so much together that you probably couldn't find closer friends if you tried.


__________________


"if you attempt to - er - 'bring me in by force', I will have to hurt you" - Albus Dumbledore.

"We could have all been killed - or worse, expelled." - Hermione Granger.

"Just because you have the emotional range of a teaspoon doesn't mean we all have." - Hermione Granger

"Every child in our world will know his name!" - Minerva McGonagall

Proud RAVENCLAW.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old October 20th, 2010, 1:11 pm
bellatrix93's Avatar
bellatrix93  Female.gif bellatrix93 is offline
Malum Veneficus
 
Joined: 3790 days
Location: The Dark Lord's HQ (Mordor) :p
Posts: 2,394
Re: The Trio - Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissGranger1979
Ron is kind of the glue that holds them together - he's loyal (apart from his blip in DH), he's funny and he's a good friend. Harry and Hermione proved in DH that they can survive without him but it's just not the same.
I personally don't believe in the 'Ron-holds-them-together' theory. I don't think the Trio would've survived anything, if anyone of them had abandoned the others (well, they wouldn't be a trio anymore, ). My point is that, (I think) many people think that, if Ron is not there, Harry and Hermione's friendship will no longer be strong, or as strong as it would be when Ron is around. IMO, this is implying that Hermione is only friends with Harry (and vice versa) beacause Ron is there. Also implyimg that Hermione isn't the loyal person, she proved herself to be in many occasions. The strong evidence that this is not true, is that Hermione doen't walk out on Harry when Ron does. She stays behind, because she is friends with Harry, without having anything to do with Ron's presence or departure.
I'm not saying that Ron is an unimportant among the other two; I'm in fact saying that each one of the Trio, held the Trio together. If Hermione had walked out on Ron and Harry, they'd have been stuck in equal misery, abandonment and low spirits, just as Hermione and Harry were, when Ron left them.


__________________



Thanks to my secret sigswitch maker, for the wonderful avatar and signature!


Sig/avatar pictures by Cassandra Austen.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old October 20th, 2010, 9:56 pm
meesha1971's Avatar
meesha1971  Female.gif meesha1971 is offline
Master of the Magical Arts
 
Joined: 4846 days
Location: The Unknowable Room
Age: 47
Posts: 12,731
Re: The Trio - Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by bellatrix93 View Post
I personally don't believe in the 'Ron-holds-them-together' theory. I don't think the Trio would've survived anything, if anyone of them had abandoned the others (well, they wouldn't be a trio anymore, ). My point is that, (I think) many people think that, if Ron is not there, Harry and Hermione's friendship will no longer be strong, or as strong as it would be when Ron is around. IMO, this is implying that Hermione is only friends with Harry (and vice versa) beacause Ron is there. Also implyimg that Hermione isn't the loyal person, she proved herself to be in many occasions. The strong evidence that this is not true, is that Hermione doen't walk out on Harry when Ron does. She stays behind, because she is friends with Harry, without having anything to do with Ron's presence or departure.
I'm not saying that Ron is an unimportant among the other two; I'm in fact saying that each one of the Trio, held the Trio together. If Hermione had walked out on Ron and Harry, they'd have been stuck in equal misery, abandonment and low spirits, just as Hermione and Harry were, when Ron left them.
That's not what we're shown in the text, IMO. Harry and Ron were put in the situation where it was just the two of them a few times - in COS when Hermione was petrified, when they weren't speaking in POA, etc... It is things like this that demonstrate the different dynamics within the group. Harry and Ron were upset when Hermione was petrified, but they didn't completely fall apart because she wasn't there. They found out where the chamber was and figured out how to open it completely on their own. In POA, Harry really didn't even comment much on Hermione's absence - life went on for him and it didn't effect his relationship with Ron. They were able to function and have some fun even without Hermione there because they enjoyed each others company.

That's a big contrast to what we see when Ron is not around. When he and Ron fought in GOF, Harry was grateful that Hermione stood by him - but he was also bored out of his mind and completely miserable because he didn't enjoy Hermione's company and they didn't do anything he considered fun. In DH, that was even worse because they were both miserable and they completely fell apart without Ron there to bridge the gap between them. For the most part, they just ignored each other and they were both completely miserable. They made no progress towards finding any other Horcruxes or destroying the one they had. The one thing that they did do towards that - at least in Hermione's mind because Harry chose to lie to her about why he really wanted to go to Godric's Hollow - was a complete disaster.

Harry realizes this himself and acknowledges it on page in DH - without Ron, he and Hermione completely fell apart. Jo also revealed that this was why Dumbledore gave Ron the deluminator - he knew that Ron was essential and, as Harry pointed out, he knew that Ron would want to go back no matter what happened.

Bloomsbury Live Chat, 7/30/2007Dumbledore understood Ron's importance in the trio. He wasn't the most skilled, or the most intelligent, but he held them together; his humour and his good heart were essential.


I don't see that as a bad thing and I don't feel that it reflects negatively on Harry or Hermione. They simply had a different type of friendship with each other than they did with Ron - it's more practical than emotional. There's nothing wrong with that and that is true for any group of friends because the people in our lives will each have a different role. Hermione was very loyal and she did put defeating Voldemort ahead of everything else. She certainly saved their butts on several occasions and she was very good at finding out what they needed to know - or she already knew it because she read so much. She is important to the group dynamic in that sense, but Harry and Ron could get along without her. Hermione's absence would certainly make things more difficult for them, but they proved in COS that they could handle things on their own as well. And the same is true for Ron and Hermione - they were able to function and handle things without Harry. But this is not true for Harry and Hermione because they were not able to function or handle things well without Ron. Hermione stays and she even saves Harry's life, but they make no progress on their own because they were disconnected without Ron.

Where Ron is essential is in the emotional aspect of it. Ron is the heart of the trio because he holds them together emotionally. Harry and Ron became friends because they connected with each other - they enjoyed each others company, they had fun together, and they understood each other. They had a very strong emotional bond and no matter what they fought about or how angry they might get with each other at times, they would always find their way back to each other because that bond was so strong. They became friends with Hermione because they saved her from the troll - a situation that Hermione was in because of Ron. If you remove that situation, Harry would never have become friends with Hermione because they did not have that same emotional bond that Harry had with Ron. That doesn't mean that they didn't care about each other at all or that Hermione wasn't important - it was just for very different reasons.


__________________

Reform must come from within, not from without. ~ James Cardinal Gibbons

"So, if people want information on my characters, then they have to accept that I'm going to give them the information on the characters. And if they don't like it, that's the nature of fiction. You have to accept someone else's world because they made that world, so they probably know a little better than you do what goes on there." ~ J.K. Rowling


All posts are my opinions and interpretations based on reading the Harry Potter books and interviews with J.K. Rowling.

Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old October 20th, 2010, 10:31 pm
Melisa  Female.gif Melisa is offline
New HP kid in town
 
Joined: 3196 days
Location: Camelot
Posts: 118
Re: The Trio - Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by meesha1971 View Post
Where Ron is essential is in the emotional aspect of it. Ron is the heart of the trio because he holds them together emotionally.
I wholeheartedly agree, and I loved your entire argument, extremely well written.

In my opinion, it is an oversimplification to consider Ron just as someone who contributed a bit of humour to the trio. As I see it, Ron is not funny on his own, he becomes funny in his interactions with the other two, because he tends to say the first thing that comes to mind (which is usually not the brightest idea).


__________________
You can call me Mal
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old October 21st, 2010, 10:48 am
bellatrix93's Avatar
bellatrix93  Female.gif bellatrix93 is offline
Malum Veneficus
 
Joined: 3790 days
Location: The Dark Lord's HQ (Mordor) :p
Posts: 2,394
Re: The Trio - Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by meesha1971
It is things like this that demonstrate the different dynamics within the group. Harry and Ron were upset when Hermione was petrified, but they didn't completely fall apart because she wasn't there. They found out where the chamber was and figured out how to open it completely on their own. In POA, Harry really didn't even comment much on Hermione's absence - life went on for him and it didn't effect his relationship with Ron.
The situation in COS, is very different from the one in DH. But anyways, I don't think Harry and Ron would've gone too far as finding where the Chamber was, without Hermione. She was the one who gave them the essential information and got petrified in the process. Harry and Ron didn't 'fall apart'. because there was hope in front of them. They had Hagrid's clue about the spiders, then later they had the information Hermione got from the library. In other words, it wasn't the end of the world for them.

Quote:
When he and Ron fought in GOF, Harry was grateful that Hermione stood by him - but he was also bored out of his mind and completely miserable because he didn't enjoy Hermione's company and they didn't do anything he considered fun.
I take you mean that, to Harry friendship merely means having fun? I think Harry's definition went beyond that, at least mine does. Hermione, imo, is the vital person here because she stands by Harry when everybody leaves him alone. IMO, this is the sort of thing that creates strong bonds -when a friend stands by your side, where no one in the world does. And we saw this happen more than once.

Quote:
In DH, that was even worse because they were both miserable and they completely fell apart without Ron there to bridge the gap between them. For the most part, they just ignored each other and they were both completely miserable. They made no progress towards finding any other Horcruxes or destroying the one they had.
In DH it was worse, because they didn't have a drop of hope in the whole world. They were shut away from the whole world, and the few pieces of news that reached them, didn't make them hopeful in the least. That (not being able to make any progress towards their goal) and the locket were the reason Ron left them. IMO, it's not his mere absence that hindered their progress towards their goal. When Ron came back, he brought some hope with him, a wand for Harry, some news, the Potterwatch, etc. This helped them move once more. I don't see what change ROn could've brought to the period Harry and Hermione spent alone. They could've been less miserable, obviously, they wouldn't have felt abandoned by the whole world, but I don't know what could they have done concerning the Horcrux Hunt.

Quote:
I don't see that as a bad thing and I don't feel that it reflects negatively on Harry or Hermione. They simply had a different type of friendship with each other than they did with Ron - it's more practical than emotional
I see it reflects very badly on th two of them, when we say they wouldn't be together if Ron wasn't there. I understand Ron's role in the Trio, an important one. but to say that the other two weren't good friends without him, IMO, reflects badly on Harry's definition of friendship and Hermione's loyalties.

Quote:
Hermione was very loyal and she did put defeating Voldemort ahead of everything else. She certainly saved their butts on several occasions and she was very good at finding out what they needed to know - or she already knew it because she read so much. She is important to the group dynamic in that sense, but Harry and Ron could get along without her
IMO, this suggests that Harry and Ron were only friends with Hermione because of her cleverness. Which isn't at all true. I think they both value her more than that. She's more than a tool to them.

Quote:
And the same is true for Ron and Hermione - they were able to function and handle things without Harry. But this is not true for Harry and Hermione because they were not able to function or handle things well without Ron. Hermione stays and she even saves Harry's life, but they make no progress on their own because they were disconnected without Ron
I don't recall much information about the time Hermione and Ron had to spend alone, so I won't argue this.

As I stated above, they made no progress because they didn't have enough sources to work from. They had solid information, which Dumbledore had given Harry before he died. They knew nothing new, and they weren't likely going to find out anything, being shut away from the whole world as they were. Each of them tried to deal with this misery on their own. They were more miserable because Ron abandoned them. But his absence wasn't the reason they were upset in the first place. Actually they'd been that miserable, when he was around too.

Quote:
They had a very strong emotional bond and no matter what they fought about or how angry they might get with each other at times, they would always find their way back to each other because that bond was so strong.
I think it's the same thing with Hermione and Harry. They fought with each other directly very few times, and when they did, they were always back as they'd been. When Hermione breaks Harry's wand, for instance, he's rightfully angry, but he realises Hemrione's good intention and loyalty and forgives her soon enough.

That's my opinion on their friendship. They were all equally important, they were all there for each and everyone of them. They all understood each other's losses, sacrifices, loyalties. They needn't talk about it and express it by words. Actually, the stronger the bond of friendship, the more difficult talking about it is. That's how I always interpretted Harry's silence about his friends' loyalty. Some people might think that he's taking his friends for granted, but I don't think it's that. Same thing with the other two.


__________________



Thanks to my secret sigswitch maker, for the wonderful avatar and signature!


Sig/avatar pictures by Cassandra Austen.

Last edited by bellatrix93; October 21st, 2010 at 10:54 am.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old October 21st, 2010, 12:45 pm
GingerCat1  Undisclosed.gif GingerCat1 is offline
Seventh Year
 
Joined: 3045 days
Posts: 1,656
Re: The Trio - Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by bellatrix93 View Post
I don't recall much information about the time Hermione and Ron had to spend alone, so I won't argue this.
Its not always easy to find as the books are from Harry's perspective these are some of the things i have noticed

- Whenever Harry was off at Quidditch practice Ron and Hermione seemed to spent that time with each other as i remember more than one ocassion where Harry came back into the common room to see Ron and Hermione sitting together.

- Ron and Hermione went to Hogsmeade together without Harry and according to the book Ron and Hermione seemed to have the time of their lives.

- In GoF Hermione comes to the Burrow early so its clear that she likes spending time with Ron otherwise she would have only come to the Burrow when harry did.

- In OotP Ron and Hermione spent weeks together at Grimmauld Place. Hermione had no need to be there (as her parents were at home so clearly she wasn't in any danger otherwise she would have taken steps to protect them) so it appears that Hermione wanted to spend a few weeks with Ron at Grimmauld Place.

- From OotP onwards Ron and Hermione go on regular prefect patrols which they do together and it would take up quite a bit of their time.

- In HBP again Hermione arrived at the Burrow a few days earlier than Harry.


Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old October 21st, 2010, 1:17 pm
messrsmoony  Undisclosed.gif messrsmoony is offline
Second Year
 
Joined: 2837 days
Posts: 110
Re: The Trio - Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy View Post
Indeed, but I think once Lily stepped into the picture, the Marauders finally had a similar element within the scope of their friendship. However, very distinctive as well. I also agree that it would have likely assisted them to have had Lily as a Marauder all along. But in the end it all worked out, so that is the point. I feel JKR was content to have the Marauders (and Lily) rejoined in the afterlife and the trio all surviving the war together in the earthly one. Thus, you had this pervasive group dynamic going on in both dimensions. .
Yes, and Lily's entry into the Marauder's circle could be a parallel to Ginny's into the trio.


Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old October 21st, 2010, 2:06 pm
sekhmetlion's Avatar
sekhmetlion  Female.gif sekhmetlion is offline
Third Year
 
Joined: 2950 days
Location: Discussing in CoS.
Age: 35
Posts: 397
Re: The Trio - Group Character Analysis

As I see it; the relationship between Harry and Hermione was not as fluent as Ron-Harry , not because they were not enough friends, but because the were too similar (both thend to worry too much and ovethink things) so they needed Ron to relax the tension. However, with Ron alone they feel both relaxed (I mean, Hermione-Ron, or Harry Ron, they were both relaxed and at ease). I do believe Harry and Hermione liked each other and were very strong friends, just in a different way.


Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old October 21st, 2010, 2:12 pm
GingerCat1  Undisclosed.gif GingerCat1 is offline
Seventh Year
 
Joined: 3045 days
Posts: 1,656
Re: The Trio - Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by sekhmetlion View Post
As I see it; the relationship between Harry and Hermione was not as fluent as Ron-Harry , not because they were not enough friends, but because the were too similar (both thend to worry too much and ovethink things) so they needed Ron to relax the tension. However, with Ron alone they feel both relaxed (I mean, Hermione-Ron, or Harry Ron, they were both relaxed and at ease). I do believe Harry and Hermione liked each other and were very strong friends, just in a different way.
I don't see Harry and Hermione being particularly similar personality wise but what id do think is that both Harry and Hermione are naturally very tense and high strung people and they both need the relaxed nature of Ron in order to loosen up a bit and enjoy themselves. Without Ron they can't really have fun and enjoy themselves.


Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old October 21st, 2010, 3:52 pm
LupinsHowl786  Female.gif LupinsHowl786 is offline
Second Year
 
Joined: 4564 days
Location: Slytherin Dungeon/Florida
Age: 26
Posts: 182
Re: The Trio - Group Character Analysis

I believe that Ron brings a good heart into the group. That isn't to say that Harry and Hermione are cold-hearted or heartless. Harry and Hermione are both very uptight people and are very over-analytical. Ron's the only one I think that really brings a more emotional approach to things (if that makes any sense). He reacts to things because he feels a certain way about it which can be useful than always using your head like Harry and Hermione. There have been instances where Harry has reacted on emotion but I think Ron's more emotion-driven in contrast to Harry and Hermione's constant use of reason.


__________________

©GryffnSoldier
| USE KNOWLEDGE FOR POWER |
PROUD SLYTHERCLAW

HereThere
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old October 21st, 2010, 6:55 pm
meesha1971's Avatar
meesha1971  Female.gif meesha1971 is offline
Master of the Magical Arts
 
Joined: 4846 days
Location: The Unknowable Room
Age: 47
Posts: 12,731
Re: The Trio - Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by bellatrix93 View Post
The situation in COS, is very different from the one in DH. But anyways, I don't think Harry and Ron would've gone too far as finding where the Chamber was, without Hermione. She was the one who gave them the essential information and got petrified in the process. Harry and Ron didn't 'fall apart'. because there was hope in front of them. They had Hagrid's clue about the spiders, then later they had the information Hermione got from the library. In other words, it wasn't the end of the world for them.
Actually, Harry and Ron did figure out where the chamber was completely on their own. Hermione provided information regarding what the monster in the chamber was and how the basilisk was getting around the school - not the location of the chamber. That was certainly useful, but Harry and Ron did well without Hermione there.

I disagree that they had "hope in front of them" at that time. Hermione was petrified, Hagrid was taken to Azkaban, Dumbledore was removed as Headmaster, and nobody had any idea who was behind it all or what the monster was. Going into the forest to "follow the spiders" was a desperate move on their part because the situation was looking hopeless.

Quote:
I take you mean that, to Harry friendship merely means having fun? I think Harry's definition went beyond that, at least mine does. Hermione, imo, is the vital person here because she stands by Harry when everybody leaves him alone. IMO, this is the sort of thing that creates strong bonds -when a friend stands by your side, where no one in the world does. And we saw this happen more than once.
That's not what I meant at all. However, I do feel that enjoying someone's company is a vital part of friendship and this was lacking in Harry's friendship with Hermione. When Ron wasn't around, Harry simply did not enjoy Hermione's company. He was bored and often irritated or annoyed with her. Hermione's loyalty is to be commended and Harry certainly appreciated it, but it didn't give them an emotional bond like Harry had with Ron, IMO. That type of bond happens when people have similar personalities and/or common ground to bond over. Harry and Hermione simply did not have that.

Quote:
In DH it was worse, because they didn't have a drop of hope in the whole world. They were shut away from the whole world, and the few pieces of news that reached them, didn't make them hopeful in the least. That (not being able to make any progress towards their goal) and the locket were the reason Ron left them. IMO, it's not his mere absence that hindered their progress towards their goal. When Ron came back, he brought some hope with him, a wand for Harry, some news, the Potterwatch, etc. This helped them move once more. I don't see what change ROn could've brought to the period Harry and Hermione spent alone. They could've been less miserable, obviously, they wouldn't have felt abandoned by the whole world, but I don't know what could they have done concerning the Horcrux Hunt.
Ron left because of how the locket was effecting him and realized he needed to go back immediately after he disapparated. It was bad luck that resulted in him getting delayed by the snatchers and then getting lost so he didn't get back before they left.

Ron leaving didn't change the fact that they had gotten new information they could work with - not to mention realizing that they had a source for information with them all along. And Harry's wand was not broken when Ron left. Likewise, Ron did not bring any information back with him that was useful for finding or destroying the Horcruxes. Harry and Hermione fell apart because they do not function well on their own without Ron to bridge the gap between them. That was always true, IMO. It was always more difficult for Harry to relate to Hermione than it was for him to relate to Ron.

I would agree that the effect the locket was having on Ron was detrimental and we see them falling apart as Ron pulled into himself and stopped trying to help because of the locket. They were already starting to fall apart because Ron withdrew emotionally. I think they were figuring that out on their own before Ron left - and Ron certainly understood that because he confessed that to Harry when he did return. I think that, even if they hadn't been able to destroy the locket when Ron returned, they would have realized that wearing it was only making things worse.

Quote:
I see it reflects very badly on th two of them, when we say they wouldn't be together if Ron wasn't there. I understand Ron's role in the Trio, an important one. but to say that the other two weren't good friends without him, IMO, reflects badly on Harry's definition of friendship and Hermione's loyalties.
I never said they weren't good friends. Their friendship was simply on a different level and Harry valued Hermione for different reasons than he valued Ron. There is more than one type of friendship and the people in our lives have different roles. Hermione was important to the trio, but her significance to Harry was not emotional - it was more practical. There's nothing wrong with that and it doesn't detract from the group dynamic, IMO. I think that adds to it.

Quote:
IMO, this suggests that Harry and Ron were only friends with Hermione because of her cleverness. Which isn't at all true. I think they both value her more than that. She's more than a tool to them.
Well, I would agree that Ron valued Hermione for more emotional reasons, but that simply is not true for Harry, IMO. And I don't see that as a bad thing because he did value her for her cleverness and was grateful to have her as a friend because of that. Valuing someone for their cleverness does not make them a tool.

Quote:
I don't recall much information about the time Hermione and Ron had to spend alone, so I won't argue this.
GingerCat1 covered this quite nicely so I won't repeat that.

Quote:
As I stated above, they made no progress because they didn't have enough sources to work from. They had solid information, which Dumbledore had given Harry before he died. They knew nothing new, and they weren't likely going to find out anything, being shut away from the whole world as they were. Each of them tried to deal with this misery on their own. They were more miserable because Ron abandoned them. But his absence wasn't the reason they were upset in the first place. Actually they'd been that miserable, when he was around too.
They weren't going to discover any new information or figure anything out by ignoring each other either. That was the entire problem. They did have new information to work with because they had discovered that the sword could be used to destroy Horcruxes and they had realized they could get information from Phineas Nigellis before Ron left. Had they been able to function well without Ron to bridge the gap between them instead of ignoring each other, they could have utilized Phineas to get more information. He couldn't bring Dumbledore to them, but they could have asked him to talk to Dumbledore's portrait for them so they could ask questions.

As I said before, Ron did not bring any new information with him when he returned that would help them find or destroy Horcruxes. The lack of information was frustrating, but that was not why Harry and Hermione fell apart. They simply were not able to function well without Ron there to bridge the gap between them. Instead of moving forward with the new information they had discovered and utilizing the source of information they had with them the entire time, they stood still.

Quote:
I think it's the same thing with Hermione and Harry. They fought with each other directly very few times, and when they did, they were always back as they'd been. When Hermione breaks Harry's wand, for instance, he's rightfully angry, but he realises Hemrione's good intention and loyalty and forgives her soon enough.
Harry chose not to fight about it, but he was angry and resentful about Hermione breaking his wand. Even after Ron returns, that resentment comes through - particularly when he was having difficulty using the wand that Ron brought back with him. It is a sign of his growing maturity that he doesn't act on that frustration, but that doesn't change the fact that it was there and reflected in his thoughts, IMO.

The difference with Harry and Hermione's relationship was that there was never an emotional bond between them. When Harry fought with Hermione it simply wasn't that big of a deal to him because of that. He wasn't phased by not speaking to Hermione in POA and even when Ron expressed concern about Hermione in regards to how she was overworking herself and how she was getting to all those classes, Harry brushes it off because he felt he had more important things to worry about. He wasn't miserable and he didn't miss Hermione the way he was miserable and missed Ron when they fought.

Quote:
That's my opinion on their friendship. They were all equally important, they were all there for each and everyone of them. They all understood each other's losses, sacrifices, loyalties. They needn't talk about it and express it by words. Actually, the stronger the bond of friendship, the more difficult talking about it is. That's how I always interpretted Harry's silence about his friends' loyalty. Some people might think that he's taking his friends for granted, but I don't think it's that. Same thing with the other two.
I would agree that they were all important, but it is significant that they each served a different function in the group dynamic. Harry and Hermione were both significant for practical reasons - Harry was the "hand" and Hermione was the "brain". Ron was significant for emotional reasons - he was the "heart". If you remove Harry from the group, Ron and Hermione function very well on their own because they did have an emotional bond. If you remove Hermione, Harry and Ron function very well on their own because they have an emotional bond. Harry and Hermione simply did not have that emotional bond and did not relate to each other very well. They needed Ron to bridge that gap between them.

That is what Harry realizes when Ron returns - it's right there on the page so I don't see any point in denying it. Harry acknowledges that they fell apart because Ron left. His absence cost them a great deal. They stopped talking to each other and didn't utilize the new information they had or the source of information they had with Phineas because they were each focused on their own misery about Ron leaving.

This is true for all groups of friends. We also see that with the Marauders - James and Sirius were closer to each other and had more of an emotional bond than they were to Lupin and Pettigrew. That didn't mean that they didn't care about Lupin or Pettigrew - those friendships were simply on a different level. Pettigrew didn't care about them in return, but that's a whole different issue. We also see that within Harry's extended group of friends. Neville was also very loyal and a very good friend to all of them - but they weren't very close to Neville. That is also true for Luna. They cared about Neville and Luna very much, but it was on a different level. In any group of friends, each individual plays a different role. That doesn't lessen their importance to the group in any way. The trio were stronger together because of those differences - they balanced each others strengths and weaknesses to form a stronger unit than they would have been individually or in pairs. Harry and Ron could function without Hermione, but it was more complicated and they were not as strong without her. Ron and Hermione could function without Harry, but they were stronger with Harry. They are each important, but the fact that they were important for different reasons is very significant because that is what gave them their strength as a group, IMO.


__________________

Reform must come from within, not from without. ~ James Cardinal Gibbons

"So, if people want information on my characters, then they have to accept that I'm going to give them the information on the characters. And if they don't like it, that's the nature of fiction. You have to accept someone else's world because they made that world, so they probably know a little better than you do what goes on there." ~ J.K. Rowling


All posts are my opinions and interpretations based on reading the Harry Potter books and interviews with J.K. Rowling.

Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old March 16th, 2011, 12:23 pm
Shaun_MT  Male.gif Shaun_MT is offline
Second Year
 
Joined: 4010 days
Location: Portsmouth
Age: 28
Posts: 149
Re: The Trio - Group Character Analysis

I have a question: If Hermione and Ron found out about Harry giving himself up to Voldemort to die, how do you think they would have reacted and what do you think they would have done?


Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old March 16th, 2011, 2:18 pm
GingerCat1  Undisclosed.gif GingerCat1 is offline
Seventh Year
 
Joined: 3045 days
Posts: 1,656
Re: The Trio - Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun_MT View Post
I have a question: If Hermione and Ron found out about Harry giving himself up to Voldemort to die, how do you think they would have reacted and what do you think they would have done?
I think they would have tried to have stopped him.


Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old March 16th, 2011, 3:47 pm
Shaun_MT  Male.gif Shaun_MT is offline
Second Year
 
Joined: 4010 days
Location: Portsmouth
Age: 28
Posts: 149
Re: The Trio - Group Character Analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by GingerCat1 View Post
I think they would have tried to have stopped him.
I agree. I don't think any reasoning on Harry's part could have convinced them it was the only way. Even Hermione would have put logic aside and done anything she could to stop him.

I have always thought if they couldn't persuade Harry not to go they would have wanted to go with him. He wouldn't allow that of course and I think he would have demanded that they stay alive to finish off Voldemort (and live a happy life together) which they would have accepted.

But I've always felt that if it ever came to "going out" (impending certain death) they'd want to do it together.


Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back  Chamber of Secrets > Harry Potter > The Stone > Legilimency Studies

Bookmarks

Tags
character analysis, the trio


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 4:29 pm.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Original content is Copyright © MMII - MMVIII, CoSForums.com. All Rights Reserved.
Other content (posts, images, etc) is Copyright © its respective owners.