{"id":5351,"date":"2012-10-10T12:19:47","date_gmt":"2012-10-10T16:19:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/unequallyyoked\/?p=5351"},"modified":"2012-10-10T15:32:53","modified_gmt":"2012-10-10T19:32:53","slug":"a-disquisition-on-the-nature-of-love-or-contra-ronhermione","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/unequallyyoked\/2012\/10\/a-disquisition-on-the-nature-of-love-or-contra-ronhermione.html","title":{"rendered":"A Disquisition on the Nature of Love, or, Contra Ron\/Hermione"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\"\"
Ron\u2019s face is how I feel about this pairing<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>

See, this is exactly why I love culture-wide book clubs. \u00a0I mention Harry Potter in passing<\/a>, and you all start discussing the proper nature of love<\/a>, and whether Ron\/Hermione or any of the other case studies we\u2019re all quite familiar with from the series, fit the mold.<\/p>\n

I said that one of the reasons I hate the Ron\/Hermione pairing is that Ron\u00a0has, at best, apathy and at worst contempt for Hermione\u2019s curiosity and brightness. \u00a0I didn\u2019t she, or anyone else, should you marry someone who\u00a0didn\u2019t\u00a0care for what she loved to do. \u00a0Dan F was surprised by my vehemence and wrote<\/a>:<\/p>\n

When you love someone, everything they do\/are\/interested in becomes interesting but only through that love. For example, my wife is interested in the show \u201cSay Yes to the Dress\u201d. On my own, I can\u2019t stand it but if she is watching and commenting I can easily get pulled into discussion about various aspects of dress design\/fit\/cost\/family dynamics\/etc. and I find myself being interested, just for the moment, in that interest.<\/p>\n

\u2026I guess my point is that love, from the most basic form of seeing your opponent as human to the full commitment of marriage, as an act of the will, leads to respect, interest, etc. Those things might come first (before love) but they certainly will follow.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

KL also came to Ron\u2019s defense<\/a>. \u00a0When I complained that Ron only valued Hermione\u2019s intelligence\u00a0instrumentally<\/em>, but didn\u2019t appreciate intellectual curiosity as an end-in-itself, contemplating the mind of God kinda thing, KL wrote:<\/p>\n

[T]here is a difference between appreciating someone else\u2019s values in and of themselves and appreciating them simply because the other person takes delight in them. I think you can be a good partner so long as you have the latter, with the former a nice bonus but not strictly necessary. My fiance doesn\u2019t really understand why ten-part choral arrangements move me to tears, but he appreciates that I am moved and encourages me to go to choral performances. I see Ron\u2019s journey as a gradual coming-to-appreciate Hermione\u2019s values because he cares for her, which I think speaks well of him precisely because he doesn\u2019t share those values affectively. It wouldn\u2019t be as noteworthy if he, too, were naturally intellectual; rather, part of his maturing as a person comes in recognizing and valuing that which is foreign and Other to him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I think there\u2019s a difference between how the lover should respond to some of the incidental interests of the beloved and how they should respond to their\u00a0virtues<\/em>. \u00a0It\u2019s perfectly all right if someone setting their cap for me is indifferent to sewing and costuming. \u00a0Dan F\u2019s response is entirely appropriate here; you might take pleasure in my pleasure, but it\u2019s not necessary to pick up a bobbin yourself. \u00a0You\u2019re still obligated to help me hold something together for a fitting or listen to me burble on with excitement when something comes together, but there\u2019s no need for you to adopt costuming as an enthusiasm.<\/p>\n

But it would be a big problem if you were indifferent to\u00a0creativity<\/em>\u00a0broadly. \u00a0If you didn\u2019t have any\u00a0<\/em>maker\u00a0enthusiasms of your own and<\/em> constantly expressed bemusement\/frustration with those who did.<\/p>\n

A lover can acclimate zerself to almost anything in the beloved, but a good<\/em> relationship is one that chafes away some of your faults and supports you in your strengths. \u00a0If you\u2019re in a relationship where your lover really likes you<\/em>, but dislikes or is indifferent to the way you develop your virtues (be they cardinal<\/a>, theological<\/a>, or rational<\/a>), then you\u2019re in for trouble. \u00a0You end up practising your virtues in secret, feeling slightly ashamed.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve had (non-romantic) relationships of this type, where I was very careful not to be myself, because I knew the\u00a0voluble, reference-making bits of myself grated on the people I was around. \u00a0I\u2019m not really a proponent of authenticity, but the koan from my old debate group (\u201cBe who you are, unless who you are sucks\u201d) doesn\u2019t ever advocate mere\u00a0suppression\u00a0of self. \u00a0Changing is choosing to be something different and better.<\/p>\n

When I was being very careful not to be even more \u201cobnoxious and disliked, it cannot be denied<\/a>,\u201d I was only\u00a0pruning<\/em>, not choosing to develop something new. \u00a0I don\u2019t see examples of Ron calling Hermione to higher expression of the virtues she has or pushing her to develop the ones she neglects. \u00a0I just see his indifference to and discomfort with her strengths.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Updated to add: I do wholeheartedly endorse this scene (not in the books) which didn\u2019t make it into Deathly Hallows<\/em><\/p>\n