http://popwatch.ew.com/2011/10/31/harry-potter-kill-ron-weasley-jk-rowling/?hpt=hp_t2
I’m glad she didn’t - it meant a lot to Harry to have Ron and Hermione with him, and helping him, throughout the entire series. There were plenty of other deaths to show that Voldemort and his followers weren’t fooling around.
Would you have liked the series as much if Ron had snuffed it? Would it have made much difference to you? Maybe you hate(d) Ron. How might the series have been improved by his death?
I love the heading on CNN: “Rowling considered killing a Weasley.” Um, she **did **kill a Weasley. Clearly their headline copywriters haven’t read the last book.
I love Ron. He and Neville are my favorite characters. I’d have hated it if he died.
And now that I think about it, it’s good that Ron lived - the “kill the protagonist’s best friend/wise-cracking sidekick” is an awfully cliched meme and I’m glad she didn’t go there. I’m sure that she would have written it well enough, but it is trite and I think the series is probably better without it, even if it does lead to a traditional happy ending where all is sunshine and puppies.
Ron was so goddamn whiny the last book. I wish she would have.
I suddenly imagine J.K. Rowling playing the song “Low of Solipsism” from Death Note while writing a Harry Potter book.
KIRA… (J.K. writes “Albus Dumbledore”, he falls off the tower…)
JK Rowling doing anything to not have to write a new book that doesn’t have “Harry Potter and the” in the title.
Lord, did I hate Ron. Hermione could have done much better. By remaining single.
In fact, I wasn’t a big fan of the Weasleys at all. An awesome ending would have been to have the entire family lit on fire.
I would rather have lost Ron than the Weasely we did lose. But I was hoping for Percy to have been the one to snuff - it in a great show of redemption by throwing himself in front of a curse meant for his father.
I was slightly anti-Ron for the last two books, feeling he was a bit of a whiny bitch (even more than Harry!), until I saw the awesome movie Wild Target. Now I’m slightly pro-Rupert Grint-as-Ron, at any rate. But even given that, I think the dynamic would be greatly lessened without him, and would enjoy a Ron-less conclusion much less.
Also, I have no problem with him getting Hermione. His sister was the better catch for Harry, anyway (although a Luna pairing would also have been OK)
If you’re going to judge people by the way they are as teenagers, a lot of us deserve killing off.
Well, of course she considered it. She’d have been a fool not to consider it, as well as all manner of other possible plot turns. But are we talking “briefly entertained the notion”, or “it was in the first draft and stayed through 17 revisions before being changed in the last copy sent off to the printers”?
I get the distinct sense Rowling is making shit up as she goes along to keep her interviews interesting. And she claims Dumbledore is gay, blah blah blah. Ron wasn’t killed in the book, and Dumbledore’s sexuality is never explored, so it’s irrelevant.
As Chronos points out, “I thought of killing off Ron” is a meaningless statement because it doesn’t indicate the level of seriousness the consideration received. If you wrote seven novels, with the last four each being about nine thousand pages long, over the course of a decade, novels that I might add were quite obviously NOT planned out from the get-go, virtually every conceivable idea will cross your mind at some point. I sincerely doubt there’s a character in the series that Rowling didn’t consider killing off at some point, if only for a moment, including Harry himself, who in a sense kind of was killed off. Indeed, at the end the choice of people who lived and died felt extremely random, aside from one or two people.
Rowling probably entertained the idea of marrying Hermione off to Harry, Percy, Neville, or to make her a lesbian, too. If you put 20,000 hours of work into the series what idea WON’T flit into your head at some point?
She and Joss Whedon should get together and compare notes.
I liked how the last book ended, with Harry and Hermione married into the Weasley family, so that Harry could enjoy a large, loving extended family. (I can imagine how much Mrs. Weasley must love having all of her kids and their kids home for the holidays.) So I’m glad Ron wasn’t killed off. Although I suspect Harry would still be welcome at the Weasley house even if he was.
I’m glad she didn’t kill him, so that Hermione could marry into the Weasley family. I am furious at her for killing off one of the twins, though. That was cruel and uncalled for.
She knows so much about English literature that I had been (comfortably) sure she would pick Hagrid as the character to kill. He’s the virtuous outsider, and the virtuous outsider always snuffs it in Victorian fiction. I think she really messed up.
She should have killed him off; he’s a pillock.
But I agree with RickJay. It’s all nonsense.
Wouldn’t suprise me. Ron didn’t do anything in the last book of any signifigance except rescue Harry when he was drowning. Which was only there to provide Ron with something to do in the last book. Taking it out would have not hurt anything and might have made that bit flow better. (Did he do anything in the next-to-last book? I can’t remember)
Pity, actually. Ron had a lot of potential with the whole middle-child syndrome and his resentment conflicting with his basically friendly nature, and none of it really went anywhere.
–
He could have been Harry Potter’s Sokka. Sadly, he ended up being his Sakamoto.
Including myself, sir, I assure you!
IIRC, the whole Dumbledore thing came about when a child at one of her public appearances asked her if Dumbledore had ever been married. She then replied that she had always imagined him to be gay.
I mention this because folks seem to often bring up the gay thing as if she woke up one day and issued a press release, when really she was responding to a specific question (and I don’t have a cite at the moment, sorry). I’m wondering if the thing with Ron is the same sort of thing, and being blown out of proportion.
Of course, you could still argue that she still doles out tidbits like that to keep herself in the press, but my own impression is that these bits and pieces came out with much less calculation.
Rowling also reveals in the interview that Rubeus Hagrid — the Hogwarts gamekeeper portrayed in the Potter films by Robbie Coltrane — might have been a candidate for extinction had she not held onto the image of Hagrid carrying Harry’s lifeless body out of The Forbidden Forest at the end of the final novel, according to a report by Entertainment Weekly. (As true Potterphiliacs now, Hagrid was the one who brought the orphaned Harry to the Dursleys at the beginning of the series, so the scene of him holding a “dead’’ Harry provided thematic unity.) “That image kept him safe,’’ Rowling said.
One would hope that the Weasleys wouldn’t kick their daughter our of the house for marrying the chosen one.
Well, he does enjoy knitting patterns.
I agree. The interview mentioning the business about nearly killing off Ron is part of a special feature on the soon-to-be-released Deathly Hallows 2 DVD, which was leaked online pre-sale.
This is not J. K. Rowling calling a press conference for the purpose of dangling exciting new revelations in front of her fans, or something like that. Rather, this is Rowling talking about her experiences with writing the HP novels in a fairly routine special-feature interview value-add on an HP extended DVD, followed by popular “news” media and fans voluntarily picking up on this tidbit and making a big deal out of it. So I see no reason to suppose that Rowling was just “making shit up”.
The source article linked in the OP’s link answers that question:
Personally, I think the latent Ron/Hermione romance, as well as the Ron/Harry friendship, was such an integral part of the three main characters’ dynamic that it is hard to imagine how the story could have survived the loss of Ron. Yeah, Harry and Hermione could have gotten together instead, but ISTM it would have been practically a levirate marriage.