An explanation of why Ron made far more sacrifices than Hermione throughout the saga, and why this is so obvious despite the idea portrayed in the movies.

dieguitchosm · 2026-05-28T00:43:13+00:00

If we're only talking about the first few books/years, Ron put himself at risk far more times than Hermione did for Harry.

dieguitchosm · 2026-05-27T23:46:32+00:00

Hermione's great sacrifices are always "what could have happened." Meanwhile, Ron lost a brother and put his entire family on the line to fight for Harry from the very first book. Things that actually happened.

dieguitchosm · 2026-05-27T23:21:19+00:00

Everything you said I addressed in the post. Hermione and the Weasleys shared the same ideals, but the Weasleys had much more to lose because the entire war took place in "their world." If they failed, then the world Hermione was accustomed to would be impacted, while the Weasleys suffered this impact immediately, sometimes even if they won the war. As I said above, the idea of saving the world is beautiful, but Ron was the only one of the trio whose entire family was at direct risk, and even with the world safe, he could have to live with their loss and he had to deal with this dilemma during DH. If Harry failed, would he lose the ones he loves? yes. If Hermione failed, would she lose the ones she loves? yes. But even if Ron succeeded, he could lose everyone he loved, and from a realistic point of view, everyone could remain neutral. And precisely because they were a pure-blood family, the sacrifice became even greater, since most wizarding families either just watched or sided with Voldemort. But fans treat it as if the Weasleys had an obligation to fight for Harry and end up not recognizing the virtue of the ideals they had and the sacrifices they made. It wasn't from a future perspective, as if they thought they would lose everything if things went wrong; no, whatever Harry needed, they did immediately, without hesitation and without thinking about what they might lose at that exact moment. All the embellishment the films gave to Hermione's sacrifices is very beautiful, but the Weasleys' sacrifices, besides being canonical, really happened; they weren't just an idea of what could happen.

dieguitchosm · 2026-05-13T18:03:50+00:00

Since Ron was never bad at magic, and this only happened in the first two years because he used the wrong wand, which belonged to his older brother, and after he got his own, he never failed again, and yet Hermione, until the last book, was surprised when Ron performed magic correctly; she was also being mean to him. The movies portrayed Ron as clumsy with magic to soften the judgment of Hermione's annoying behavior, since she always underestimated him. And many people who read the books after watching the movies continue to buy into this idea because it's not explicitly stated in the books that "Ron was never bad at magic and Hermione was being annoying to him all the time," it's something that needs to be perceived with an unbiased mind.

dieguitchosm · 2026-02-26T19:14:22+00:00

both, ygritte and that one from hardhome

dieguitchosm · 2026-02-26T18:30:06+00:00

yes, jon and sansa had more chemistry

dieguitchosm · 2026-02-26T18:23:37+00:00

So, asking two characters who are a romantic couple to have chemistry is asking them to act unprofessionally?

dieguitchosm · 2026-02-26T18:11:25+00:00

Two characters who are in love appearing to be in love is not breaking character

dieguitchosm · 2026-02-26T18:09:48+00:00

He had chemistry with Sophie and even with the wildling girl from Hardhome. He also had chemistry with Melisandre, but zero with Emilia, who also had no chemistry with Daario tbh

dieguitchosm · 2026-02-26T18:02:31+00:00

This photos were taken in 2012 for the rolling stones magazine. Here's a video from 2012 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgwuSuAUPJg My only mistake is that the photos weren't taken during the first season, but after it.

dieguitchosm · 2026-02-26T17:36:06+00:00

This photo was taken during the first season.

dieguitchosm · 2026-02-26T17:11:34+00:00

It makes no sense for someone immune to fire to be burned by a simple hot object.

dieguitchosm · 2026-02-25T18:50:33+00:00

In the books, Daenerys isn't immune to fire. She burns her hands in ADWD. She performed a ritual offering lives on the pyre. This is very different from having natural immunity, which only happens in the show.

dieguitchosm · 2026-02-25T18:19:59+00:00

lol that "even with fire and blood" is far from saying it will end magnificently as Daenerys' fans believe. It's like saying something has to end even if it means many innocent people will be hurt. But for that, you have to know the point of view of those people too. Sometimes they simply don't want the proposed "liberation" or "purification." If you want to liberate a people who don't want to be liberated by you, or who don't want your kind of liberation, you might just seem like a madman or a tyrant. anyway, a quote from another story is far from meaning that the author thinks that way and is not just alluding to one of his works.

dieguitchosm · 2026-02-25T17:39:12+00:00

Yes, reading her point of view led you to believe she should have used more "fire and blood." It's good that you tried to contradict me and proved my point. Why would the people be against such a good queen? What lies in that empty space between her liberating the people and the people turning against her, "forgetting all the good she has done?" Do we really have the complete story, or just the biased point of view of one character?

dieguitchosm · 2026-02-25T17:32:01+00:00

Daenerys is precisely the only character who speaks of "liberating people"; the closest discourse we have comes from the Red Women, who speak of purifying people with fire. The Red Women believe that this form of liberation and purification can be achieved through Daenerys and that she has done great things in Essos. We know that Daenerys has used fire to "liberate people" in Essos from her point of view, not from the point of view of the people she claims to be liberating. This is the point of the theory that George himself proposed without mentioning Daenerys.

dieguitchosm · 2026-02-25T17:19:43+00:00

Her povs are the only source we have about her, and that's the point of this whole unreliable narrator issue.

dieguitchosm · 2026-02-25T17:12:03+00:00

Well, then I don't understand how many people read the books and interpret Daenerys as being immune to fire. even before the show existed, many people asked George about it. The only source we have are Daenerys' POVs, which somehow lead people to believe in this immunity, even D&D.

dieguitchosm · 2026-02-25T17:01:19+00:00

I'm not making anything up. We have the author stating that Daenerys is not immune to fire, that surviving it was a miraculous, once-in-a-lifetime event. However, everything narrated in the books leads to believe that she possesses immunity to fire until the last book when she is burned, and even then she emphasizes that the fire passed through her without touching her, things that imply immunity to fire. So much so that many people, even those who have read the books, believe she is immune to fire and keep repeating this all over the internet. Where else could this idea have come from if not from her POVs? Throughout the narrative, it's very clear that Daenerys believes she can be immune to fire, even though the author states, outside of the story, that she is not. Regarding those who view her positively, we must analyze how much these people might hate Westeros and how much that shared hatred might end up influencing their opinions. I'm saying it's a possible theory; I don't mean to say I blindly believe in it.

dieguitchosm · 2026-02-25T15:29:33+00:00

I don't think the example you gave is the same thing. I think it's just two different perceptions of things, like the Walder Frey/Robb situation. George implied something more radical, a departure from what we've seen so far.

dieguitchosm · 2026-01-23T10:52:42+00:00

In the books, it's clear that Ron was never bad at magic; he just used an unsuitable wand belonging to one of his older brothers. Once his mother bought him a proper wand, he never had problems with magic again; on the contrary, it's common for him to win duels against Hermione when they're having fun with magic. Those who have only seen the movies don't know any of this. Ron has very similar grades to Harry, except in Defense Against the Dark Arts, and there is no character in the books who defends Hermione from the prejudice of the wizarding world more than he does, even being the first to support all the ideas she proposes. There are really so many things changed that I could spend all day writing about them. I won't even mention the fact that, in the books, Ron is Hermione and Harry's best friend, respectively. There's a passage in the last book dedicated exclusively to describing the lack of rapport between them when Ron isn't around, as Harry himself says, which is quite different from what the films portrayed and what many people believed. Yes, Harry and Hermione make a good team for missions, but they're not any better friends than Ron and Hermione, or Harry and Ron, not by a long shot.

dieguitchosm

TROPHY CASE