Ron the Death Eater/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions

*** Some people complain when the good is emphasized too much, though. Do we have a trope for that? It's like [[Draco in Leather Pants]], but for good guys. People emphasize the good points and always downplay the bad- especially with the [[Trope Namer]]. Ron does have faults- many of them. You can bet a lot of them happen off-screen (off-text?) because Harry isn't always watching Ron like a hawk. I've seen descriptions of Ron as being an "unwavering, loyal friend" or something to that effect, when he clearly had huge jealousy and trust issues with Harry in two of the books. There seems to be no problem with dropping a ''good'' character's flaws, but forgetting a ''bad''' character's flaws is [[Draco in Leather Pants]].

*** I don't get what you are saying. What do you mean that some people complain the other way as well? Still. To answer the original question, the reason why some people do that is because of the fact they have a misconception about this trope-simply prortraying a character with flaws isn't enough for this trope and to repeat my point "his trope is basically taking the character, exagerating any flaws they have and ignoring their virtues and in general a '''illogically'' grossly misportraying the character (for example Mr. Hero being portrayed an abusive, manipulative, monster ''despite every single evidence in canon making him out to be no worse than a simple Goood guy who just happens to be a jerk''). That is what this trope is about. Have they just simply portrayed them as faithfully as the character really are in the work they come from, with their flaws and virtues, then it would not be an example of [[Ron the Death Eater]]."

**** I don't think you are using the term the way you think it is. After all accepting that the hero has flaws is '''not''' this trope.''the narration generally sets them up as heroes and tells the story from their perspective''-Maybe becuase ''generally'' they really ''are'' heroes, don't you think? ''There seems to be no problem with dropping a ''good'' character's flaws, but forgetting a ''bad''' character's flaws is [[Draco in Leather Pants]].'', No that is still problematic, really. The difference with the villain though is that their evil side is pretty blatant, whereas for the hero, definetly not (no I am not counting Antiheroes/Antivillains)

*** I suppose it's depends on how major the flaw is, how often it recurs and what the ultimately response is. To take the Ron example above, for point of reference; the OP there wonders why Ron is considered a friend of unwavering loyalty to Harry despite having moments where his loyalty wavers. This is partly because most of the time Ron clearly ''is'' a loyal, unwavering friend to Harry -- so those rare occasions when his loyalty does waver, it's clearly shown to be and treated as an aberration from the norm. It's also usually shown to be, if not right, then usually a not entirely unreasonable (or at least understandable) reaction to the circumstances on Ron's part; at least one of those times, if memory serves is prompted by jealousy and insecurity on Ron's part that Harry is ''always'' in the spotlight and is ''always'' the centre of attention, which is something we've all probably felt about people we care who always seem to be overshadowing us about no matter how loyal we are to them. These circumstances are also inevitably patched up, usually with an effort on Ron's part; he comes to his senses, apologises to Harry, and the two make up -- in other words, he admits he was flawed and was wrong and acknowledges it. As for why Harry (and thus the narration) doesn't dwell on this -- well, he's not exactly an automaton of pure objectivity who keeps precise records of when he and his friends fall out; he likes Ron, Ron is there for him when it counts 99% of the time and is ultimately willing to step up, admit fault when necessary and mend fences the other 1%, so it's easy for Harry -- and thus the narration and the reader -- to forgive him and mend fences in return, and thus overlook those relatively few moments.<br /><br />Which leads to the problem with [[Ron the Death Eater]]-ing. The problem is not that the subject of the Eater-ing is pointed out to be a flawed character. Most characters are. The problem is that the person doing it focusses on the flaws out of all proportion to the rest of the character and unfairly distorts them so that the flaws are all that is used to represent the character, often out of character. Ron is loyal to Harry nine times out of ten, but this trope focusses on that one time where he isn't and acts as if that's all there is to the character. Pointing out that Ron has had his moments where he's been a less-than-reliable friend to Harry is not [[Ron the Death Eater]]-ing. Isolating these moments and treating them as evidence that Ron is ''never'' a loyal friend to Harry (when most of the time that's clearly not the case) and treating him as if he's a shifty backstabbing creep when that's clearly not the case ''is''.

** Shipping. You forgot shipping.

*** Not really, [[Die for Our Ship|as it's already covered]].

** Ever seen ''[[Baron Munchausen]]''? You know that scene where the military officer sentences a soldier to death for acting too heroic, because he was setting an example the other soldiers couldn't live up to? It's sort of like that.

 

{{reflist}}