HPLF WX Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Marrietta Edgecombe

Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Marrietta Edgecombe

Post  Mona Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:08 pm

This topic is an archive of a thread from the Harry Potter Lexicon Forum hosted on World Crossing which ceased operation on April 15, 2011. ~ Mona

Liz Mann - Jul 1, 2004 4:09 am
Edited by Kip Carter Nov 17, 2005 2:20 am
I added "Edgecombe" to the title. - Kip

Why did she betray the DA like that? It could have got Cho expelled, too. Unless that was part of the deal between her and Umbridge, that she and Cho wouldn't get in trouble if Marrieta told her about the meetings. But still, why?

I reckon she wanted to get Harry specifically expelled. She kept glaring at him all the time in the meetings. But why did she dislike him so much?

INDEX

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
     
     


Last edited by Mona on Thu May 19, 2011 12:44 am; edited 11 times in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 59
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Posts 1 to 100

Post  Mona Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:27 pm

Star Crossed - Jul 1, 2004 4:24 am (#1 of 1080)
I think she knew Cho fancied him and he fancied her back, and maybe she thought Harry was going to steal her away from him. Or maybe she believed the Daily Prophet and thought he was a no-good, lousy, rotten liar.



Loopy Lupin - Jul 1, 2004 5:42 am (#2 of 1080)
I'm not sure that Marietta is particularly complicated with her motivations. I mean, it was a given that someone was going to betray the DA.

I guess she was always nervous about what they were doing and was only tagging along because of Cho. She disliked Harry because she probably felt that Cho was putting her in this awkward position because of him.



haymoni - Jul 1, 2004 8:51 am (#3 of 1080)
It sounded like her mother may have been telling her not to get involved with anything anti-Ministry.

Harry - at that point - was the enemy.



Neville Longbottom - Jul 1, 2004 8:51 am (#4 of 1080)
Don't forget that her mother was working for the ministry and probably influenced Marietta against Harry. And then, in the first DA lesson, her sleeve caught fire and she seemed to blame Cho. Maybe she was even afraid, that her mother will lose her job, if the DA is caught without Marietta telling anyone.

I can't help feeling a bit sorry for her. It was a decision between her mother and her friend. I think she is not really mean spirited but rather weak and gullible. I was a bit shocked that the "Sneak" spell still hadn't fade away at the end of the book. Umbridge got away with a few kicks by the centaurs but Marietta is still marked. I think the proportions of crime and punishment were not really fair.

Edit: I posted at the same time with haymoni.



Lars Smedberg - Jul 1, 2004 9:42 am (#5 of 1080)
"Sneak" - is that the English original ? In the Swedish translation, it was "skvallerbytta" (="tattle-tale"); quite a long word for someone's face, don't you think so...?



Loopy Lupin - Jul 1, 2004 9:51 am (#6 of 1080)
"Sneak" - is that the English original ? In the Swedish translation, it was "skvallerbytta" (="tattle-tale"); quite a long word for someone's face, don't you think so...? -- Lars Smedberg

Yes, its the original English. "Skvallerbytta" would indeed be hard to get on one face.



Accio Book Six - Jul 1, 2004 9:59 am (#7 of 1080)
I dont' know... I think the DA was important enough to make betraying it a severe punishment...



siobhan - Jul 1, 2004 10:20 am (#8 of 1080)
Edited by Jul 1, 2004 11:21 am
I admire Cho for sticking with her though, her doing this makes me think that marietta was just trying to be a good friend and do the right thing. She obviously believed that Harry was crazy and was trying to protect her friend. She probably thought Cho was acting like this because of Cedric's death and that she just wanted to believe in this more fantastic story of Cedrics death rather than it being a silly accident. I don't think she's a bad person, just one who made a terrible mistake. I think Harry above all should understand that as he has made quite a few



Catherine - Jul 1, 2004 10:52 am (#9 of 1080)
I was pretty impressed with Hermione's jinxing ability in OoP, that even Madame Pomfrey didn't seem able to remove the "SNEAK" from Marietta's face.

I've wondered if anyone has actually asked Hermione how to undo it? Otherwise I see a visit to St. Mungo's in store for Marietta.

I'm undecided if I think that Marietta deserved it or not. The way Umbridge told the story, Marietta came to her and told her on her own volition. But perhaps that's not entirely the way it happened.

We know that Snape had given Umbridge fake Veritaserum, so Marietta wasn't "compelled" to tattle in that way. Could Umbridge have used unfair magical means on Marietta? Could she have blackmailed her, or threatened her mother's job? Or maybe Marietta got in trouble for something else, and was able to cut a "deal" with Umbridge by revealing the DA's plans? I don't really see these as what actually happened, but if one of these scenarios played out, it would mitigate the circumstances for Marietta.

I worry that Hermione could experience some backlash because of the SNEAK episode. Are Cho and Marietta capable of taking revenge on Hermione?



Liz Mann - Jul 1, 2004 11:18 am (#10 of 1080)
I think Harry above all should understand that as he has made quite a few.

Well, if I remember correctly Harry was in a bad mood already at the time. But yeah, I mean, if it were Ron or Hermione, wouldn't he want to believe they didn't mean any harm?

Still, I think Marrietta deserved to be punished. Though, as Neville Longbottom said, perhaps it was a bit much to make it last so long.

We know that Snape had given Umbridge fake Veritaserum...

When?



Catherine - Jul 1, 2004 11:25 am (#11 of 1080)
Liz,

Dumbledore tells Harry that Snape gave Umbridge fake Veritaserum in Chapter 37, "The Lost Prophecy" on page 833 in my Scholastic edition. Snape also thwarted Umbridge's attempt to get addition Veritaserum after she caught Harry in her office in Chapter 32, "Out of the Fire" on pages 744-746.

We can conclude that Umbridge did not have authentic Veritaserum when she questioned students. Harry, of course, did not know this, and this is why he poured his drink out when Umbridge wasn't looking.



Loopy Lupin - Jul 1, 2004 11:28 am (#12 of 1080)
Yes, I was surprised that she was still jinxed at the end of OoP. I would have thought that DD or someone would have said "Enough" and made Hermione fix things.

Liz- When Umbridge tries to question Harry over "tea" (she made "quite a production" of adding the milk) she thought she had spiked it with Veritaserum. Snape confirms that he gave her a potion that she thought was Veritaserum when he, Snape, comes into Umbridge's office after everyone was caught. Later, DD confirms that it was fake when he's talking with Harry in the office.

EDIT-- LOL. Not fast enough for you am I Catherine?



Catherine - Jul 1, 2004 11:34 am (#13 of 1080)
LOL, Loopy. I type really fast. It's my only real talent! Smile

I guess Dumbledore never saw Marietta wearing the balaclava or having the pustules. I'm sure that he could get rid of it in an instant.

I'm wondering, though, if there is an escape clause in the jinx? Maybe Hermione made it so that if Marietta was remorseful, it would go away.

I wonder if Marietta, since her memory was modified, even remembers snitching on the DA? That's rather sad, if she doesn't even remember why she's got huge purple pimples all over her face.



Loopy Lupin - Jul 1, 2004 11:45 am (#14 of 1080)
I guess Dumbledore never saw Marietta wearing the balaclava or having the pustules-- Catherine

I would assume that he did since the jinx was revealed in the DD office scene with Umbridge, Fudge, Percy, etc.

I wonder about her memory too. She seeme pretty befuddle from Kingsley's spell.

EDIT-- That is to say, I'm sure he saw the postules. Dunno if he saw her in the balaclava later on. Maybe he assumed it would wear off, underestimating the power of the spell.



Catherine - Jul 1, 2004 11:50 am (#15 of 1080)
Yes, Loopy, I think I need to clarify my last post.

I meant that Dumbledore didn't see her face after he returned to Hogwarts. I don't think Dumbledore had time to fix her face before he single-handedly hexed Fudge, Umbridge, and two aurors! He's good, but probably not THAT good! ;-)

So does anyone else wonder if this could be a school "prank" that causes lifelong emnity between the girls, as Sirius's "prank" on Snape caused such lasting bitterness?

I'm a little concerned for Hermione, as Marietta's mom is in the Ministry, and Cho is very popular.



Loopy Lupin - Jul 1, 2004 11:58 am (#16 of 1080)
I do have similar concerns. However, I think that its more likely that Cho will just fade away into "First Crush" oblivion. I would bet that she even comes up with "I'm too busy studying for NEWT's" to continue with the D.A. (I mean we've got to make room for Pansy here, correct?)



Catherine - Jul 1, 2004 12:10 pm (#17 of 1080)
"I mean we've got to make room for Pansy here, correct?"--Loopy Lupin

Erm, room for Pansy where, exactly? In Filch's office, or the dungeons? :-) Just kidding, of course!

I agree that I can't really see Marietta, or even Cho, being central to the story right now. But JKR has surprised me before, and I sure hope that she'll do it again!



Czarina II - Jul 1, 2004 12:14 pm (#18 of 1080)
Maybe the SNEAK has already worn off from Marietta's face, but not before everyone at school saw it. She could just be wearing a balaclava because she is ashamed, or because the jinx left some scarring that might look funny. Perhaps Marietta just wears the scarf because she doesn't want to give anyone the chance to jinx her again (not that it would work, but hey, it's worth a try!).

That said, I don't think we've necessarily seen the last of Marietta. She might be rather bitter toward the Gryffindors. On the other hand, she could just ignore them. She only has one year left at Hogwarts, after all. She just needs to get through that one year without Hermione getting mad at her.



Loopy Lupin - Jul 1, 2004 12:34 pm (#19 of 1080)
She just needs to get through that one year without Hermione getting mad at her. -- Czarina II

That's actually another twist I hadn't really thought about: After getting a taste of Hermione's jinxes, would she really want to risk another dose?



Prefect Marcus - Jul 1, 2004 12:46 pm (#20 of 1080)
Edited by Jul 1, 2004 1:46 pm
Catherine - I was pretty impressed with Hermione's jinxing ability in OoP, that even Madame Pomfrey didn't seem able to remove the "SNEAK" from Marietta's face.

I've often wondered at that. Could it be that our beloved Madame Pomfrey suffered from the same selective amnesia that kept McGonagall and Flitwick from removing the swamp and the fireworks?



Loopy Lupin - Jul 1, 2004 12:51 pm (#21 of 1080)
I think its very possible Marcus. Its kind of weird. Its not as though this is a "how did Harry get his map back" question and we find out its something that happened off-screen. Marietta was still jinxed right up to the very end.



Mellilot Flower. - Jul 1, 2004 2:32 pm (#22 of 1080)
If you ask me, she deserved it. She may have only signed up because her friends did, and she may have felt pressure from her parents or Umbridge, but she was in the same boat as several other DA members- Smith for one didn't seem overly pleased at being their and that Micheal kid was only there for Ginny (how awkward must that have gotten when they broke up) and we know that at least Susan Bones had a relative in the ministry.

Marieta signed up for the DA of her own free will, I'd perhaps have prefered Hermione to warn the members what might happen if they snitch, or at least hint, but still. To break a promise is worse than to simply continue your aliegances and delusions as Umbridge did.



Neville Longbottom - Jul 1, 2004 3:34 pm (#23 of 1080)
Umbridge sent Dementors to kill Harry. She tortured school children. She drove Trelawney into the breakdown and enjoyed every minute of it. What Umbridge did was much worse than continuing her illusions and also worse than breaking a promise.



Mellilot Flower. - Jul 1, 2004 3:40 pm (#24 of 1080)
But loyalty is one of the things that is of the utmost importance to JKRowling, and so she shows it in her books by giving the disloyal great punishments... (not sure where this put Cedric, but still- that had to happen for other reasons). Umbridge was loyal to Fudge and Fudge's regeim and she stuck with that, some would also say that she was loyal to her blood by being ardently anti halfbreed. Hermione would have loved the opportunity to prove Trelawney wrong and riduicule her for it and we've seen already that she has no qualms with taking away a womans livlihood if she sees that livlihood as damaging or worthless. I'm ot saying that Hermione is either good or bad, I'm just saying that what Umbridge did, under different lights could be seen as very good, but under JKR's light- snitching is a very bad thing, going against your loyalties is very wrong.



Neville Longbottom - Jul 1, 2004 4:09 pm (#25 of 1080)
I completely disagree. I think no matter under which light, Umbridge's deeds remain evil. Yes, she might have been loyal to Fudge (personally, I think she was loyal to the power), but she went way further than Fudge. She sent Dementors to kill a schoolboy. I do not think that's there's any word for it other than evil. And I think there's a difference between telling Trelawney what they think of her subject, like Hermione and McGonagall did, or torment her with a sadistic pleasure, because she's an easy victim. When Trelawney broke down, homeless and destroyed, Umbridge smiled, clearly enjoying her triumph. Her enjoyment has nothing to do with Fudge. I also doubt Fudge told hr to use the quill on Harry- Hermione was willing to destroy the livelyhood of a woman, because said woman wanted to use Crucio on Harry. Hermione had seen the Longbottoms, she knows what the Cruciatus Curse can do. It was a decision between letting Harry suffer or letting Umbridge suffer, and frankly, I think Hermione chose the right person and I consider what she did as a good deed.

In contrast to Umbridge, Marietta didn't try to kill anybody. She didn't try to use the Cruciatus Curse. She didn't torture anyone, be it physically or mentally. No, I don't like Marietta much. I think betraying her best friend like that was despicable. But not only were some reasons given (her mother influenced her, the first DA lesson went badly for Marietta), her deed itself was still that of a saint comparing to Umbridge. Yet, in the end Umbridge did a runner, still under shock, maybe, (she was clear enough to sneak out of the hospital wing), but otherwise okay, while Marietta is still marked. And I frankly think that's unfair.

By the way, it's not true that disloyality is always bad in these books. After all, Snape was disloyal to Voldemort, and that's not considered bad.



Prefect Marcus - Jul 1, 2004 4:19 pm (#26 of 1080)
I actually feel sorry for Marietta. No, she should not have squealed. But her moral dilema was very real. She liked Cho but didn't think much of Harry. Her parents and family told her continually to support Umbridge, yet she knew how bad Umbridge was. Her mother worked for the ministry. If Marietta's DA activities were discovered, it could easily cost her mother her job.

It sort of reminds me of HAL in "2001". HAL was given two sets of conflicting instructions. So to satisfy them both, he tried to kill all the crew members.

What to choose, what to choose. She did not choose...wisely. :-)



Catherine - Jul 1, 2004 4:37 pm (#27 of 1080)
Marietta chose..."poorly."

I don't think she deserves eternal purple pustules, however.



Prefect Marcus - Jul 1, 2004 4:46 pm (#28 of 1080)
Catherine - I don't think she deserves eternal purple pustules, however.

Neither do I.

How much you want to bet that as soon as she sees another healer, they are taken care of immediately?



Mellilot Flower. - Jul 2, 2004 1:03 am (#29 of 1080)
I'll concede that Marieta doesn't deserve eternal pustules, because everyone deserves a second chance (though you never know they may be usefull in future- we know how useful scars can be and I'm also reminded here of Snapes Dark Mark).

But still, Umbridge was working for the best of the wizarding world. She got rid of unworthy teachers, she did her best to get rid of dangerous half breeds, she was a strict disciplinarian (many people consider corpral punishment a viable and desirable option) and while doing this she managed to show Fudge's enemies that she had more power than they and to route them from thier own seats of power, and so did her bit to protect the minister from rumour mongering, conspiring reactionists. The livlihood that Hermione took away- I was refering to Rita. We've seen countless other characters break the rules in order to do what was right, this done in times when thier rule breaking may possibly have overshadowed the good deed or, as in PoA in a situation in which it is not clear that what they are doing is for the better (without the power of hindsight that is).

Please note, I've now got to the point where I'm simply expanding on a point rather than adding to it- and I'm seeing your points of veiw so much more clearly Smile



MrsGump - Jul 3, 2004 4:31 pm (#30 of 1080)
To go back to the Veritaserum for a second.... do we really know that Umbridge didn't use it on the students?

Snape told DD he gave Umbrigde fake serum, but since I don't trust Snape and Harry never drank any... do we know it really was fake. Poor Marietta could have been having a cup of tea with old toad face when she spilled her guts.

Of course, I think she told of her accord for a lot of reasons, and completly deserved some kind of punishment.



haymoni - Jul 3, 2004 4:51 pm (#31 of 1080)
I can't imagine Snape telling Dumbledore it was fake when it wasn't.

Now that doesn't mean that Umbridge didn't have another resource for the Veritaserum. Maybe she blew through her first batch and needed Snape to get more for her.

Who knows if it really takes a month to make Veritaserum?



ex-FAHgeek - Jul 3, 2004 5:17 pm (#32 of 1080)
I've always thought that Marietta's betrayal is even simpler than pressure from her parents or a focused attempt by Umbridge to get her to talk. I think she broke down and confessed by virtue of the atmosphere. With her Inquisitional Squad prowling around and her sadistic detentions, Umbridge is easily able to drop "You should tell me anything of note... or else" threats. Something caused Marietta to panic and throw logic and reason out the window, and although whatever it was may not have been directed at her, she thought it might have been.

I do hope that she and Cho make-up with Harry. Cho's forgiveness is a wonderful, impressive character trait, and I hope that Harry can pick up a touch of it as well (certainly, Dumbledore would want it that way and I'm sure he doesn't put all the blame on Marietta like Harry wanted to do.)



Tom Vitleysa - Jul 3, 2004 5:39 pm (#33 of 1080)
Marietta didn't deserve what she got, but I enjoyed it all the same. I chuckled everytime she was mentioned after she ratted out the group. That would not have been true in the same way if the curse had been placed on Umbridge. Umbridge is a criminal, deserves Azkaban. I wouldn't have been to fussed if she'd never come out of the Forest. The curse placed on Marietta is a fantasy curse that, I believe, we've all wished, in our own ways, on different people. Petty, but satisfying. Someone like Umbridge, I wouldn't wish a curse on, just that the right authorities got there hands on her, ASAP.



haymoni - Jul 3, 2004 6:40 pm (#34 of 1080)
Tom - I'm with you. I actually WAS disappointed that she survived the encounter with the Centaurs.

I'm sure Marietta will be "Sneak-free" when she returns for her final year. I think she'll steer clear of Hermione but she will probably apologize to Harry.



SarcasticGinny - Jul 3, 2004 8:41 pm (#35 of 1080)
I feel bad that Marietta seems to be Cho's only friend in this book. Didn't Cho used to be really popular?



Lars Smedberg - Jul 4, 2004 7:19 am (#36 of 1080)
Well, "SarcasticGinny", being "popular" isn't the same as having REAL friends - and when a tragedy occurs (for instance; a boy friend being murdered by Death Eaters), you'll find out who your true friends are...



Chemyst - Jul 4, 2004 8:17 am (#37 of 1080)
ex-FAHgeek, your atmosphere-of-fear theory with its "tell me anything of note... or else" seems right on target.



haymoni - Jul 4, 2004 8:21 am (#38 of 1080)
You can be popular - well-liked - and still need a best friend. THen again, if Cho was crying all over the place like Hermione said, who would want to be around her?



ex-FAHgeek - Jul 4, 2004 8:42 am (#39 of 1080)
---quote--- You can be popular - well-liked - and still need a best friend. THen again, if Cho was crying all over the place like Hermione said, who would want to be around her? ---end quote---

Well, she still had her Quidditch team, and Michael was pretty quick to hook up with her after he broke up with Ginny. It may not be so much that other people don't want to be around her as she wants to be alone, or with a few very intimate friends, more often and other people respect her grief and don't want to bother her.



SarcasticGinny - Jul 5, 2004 5:33 pm (#40 of 1080)
Ah Lars, I know. I just have always had a theory that maybe Marietta was the friend in the bunch most sympathetic to Cho's feelings of grief...and might have thought she was saving Cho from more grief by ratting out the DA. I tend to try to make excuses for the "evil curly-hairs" as I have curly hair myself. (I think Umbridge and Rita perm or use curlers!!)

Anyhow, I feel that Marietta must have done something kind to have become Cho's constant companion. Can't be all bad, can she?

It is kind of odd, after reading ex-FAH's comment that you never once see Michael and Cho together. Probaby the "Harry filter" misses it, but even on the train home, Cho is keeping company with only Marietta still.



Lars Smedberg - Jul 6, 2004 12:10 am (#41 of 1080)
Surely all people with curly hair are not evil; doesn't both Justin and Penelope have curly hair ?



Mellilot Flower. - Jul 6, 2004 2:07 am (#42 of 1080)
But even when Cho was interested in Harry she didn't spend much time with him, of course we see now that if she had then she'd have lost interest very quickly...



Padfoot - Jul 16, 2004 12:19 pm (#43 of 1080)
Edited by Jul 16, 2004 1:19 pm
Going back several posts, I completely agree with Neville Longbottom's post #25. Especially the Umbridge portion.

No, I don't like Marietta much. I think betraying her best friend like that was despicable.

I think that both Umbridge and Marietta got "punished" appropriately. Umbridge went through a severe psychological ordeal and lost her job (and the power she loves). Marietta was embarrassed/humiliated because of her tattle telling. She will be cured and can go back to Hogwarts where most people will have forgotten what happened to her (except her friends). Umbridge will never be able to go back to her old life. I think she is broken and will pose no threat to Harry from now on.

Marietta might want revenge, but I doubt she will be successful in getting back at Hermione. She knows perfectly well that Hermione is a better witch and is constantly surrounded by friends. Cho will not try anything either, she will move on.



Sir Tornado - Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm (#44 of 1080)
Marietta might get together with Malfoy to get revange. As they say, 'enemy of your enemy is your friend'...



Chris. - Jul 16, 2004 8:11 pm (#45 of 1080)
I wouldn't say Harry is Marietta's enemy. She made a mistake, which Dumledore forgave, but Harry not.

I hope Harry will forgive her as he starts to realise that petty squables aren't the answer.



Sir Tornado - Jul 16, 2004 8:18 pm (#46 of 1080)
Right, well, may be Harry might forgive and forget; may be Hermione has already forgiven her. But Ron? No way. Marietta? No way. Ginny also resents Cho now; she's stolen her Boy-Friend. Anyone fancies a Weasley/Marrietta-Cho feud in HBP?



Chris. - Jul 16, 2004 8:21 pm (#47 of 1080)
Actually, Cho never stole Ginny's boyfriend. Ginny ditched him when he became sulky about Gryffindor's Quidditch win. Cho and Michael started dating after that.

I have to say it, but after many re-readings of Ron's attitude, he's a pain in the neck. He's started to grow out of stupid things in OP, maybe HbP will be a second chapter of his maturity coming through.



Sir Tornado - Jul 16, 2004 8:36 pm (#48 of 1080)
Ron mature? It's a joke. I see Ron becoming someone like Sirius.



Chris. - Jul 16, 2004 8:46 pm (#49 of 1080)
But Sirius could be serious sometimes.

Ron would just have to stop being such a child, and learn that if you wan't to get somewhere, you have to work together. Remember the Sorting Hat.



Sir Tornado - Jul 16, 2004 9:01 pm (#50 of 1080)
Well, may be in the 7th book. Definately not in HBP. The boy wanted to drink Fire-Whisky in OotP. That's not a sign of maturity. If anything it makes him look a bit more childish than usual.



zelmia - Jul 17, 2004 12:04 am (#51 of 1080)
I agree with Marcus, who said that Marietta's dilemma was very real. These are teenagers, after all. I am surprised to find myself saying this, but Marietta - in a way - did the 'right' thing in telling the adults that something was going on that maybe shouldn't be. Her motivations were very simple: 1) Her parents disapproval
2)Fear of reprisal agains her parents
3) Umbridge's manipulation
and 4) Plain old Antipathy toward Harry himself.
All of these, with particular emphasis on 2, would easily outweigh -- for a lot of people, let alone a 15-year-old -- any sort of personal loyalty.
The other thing to remember is that Marietta knew the consequences would be ... well, unpleasant. She had no way of knowing, of course, what they might be. But yet she chose to act in what she believed was the best for those she valued more than Cho, Harry, the DA or even Umbridge: her parents, both out of respect for their parental edict and their position in the community. And she chose to accept those consequences willingly.
No, we don't like that what she did had a lot more damage than good. But it did take rather a lot of courage for her to speak out and do - what she believed was the right thing to do.



Lars Smedberg - Jul 17, 2004 2:12 am (#52 of 1080)
Now, now, Tornedo; if it's childish to want to taste Fire-Whiskey - how comes you have to be an adult to do it ? Ron may not be the most mature teenager in the world, but calling him "childish" just because he want's to do something he's to young to do - that is petty !

The theory "you-might-very-well-be-too-young-to-understand-your-own-good-but-yet-be-old-enough-to-understand-that-you-are-too-young-too-understand-your-own-good" may be embraced by a lot of people (especially, it seems, by those who write scripts for American TV sit-coms) but it's not embraced by me - and hopefully not by J.K.R. either.



Sir Tornado - Jul 17, 2004 3:45 am (#53 of 1080)
Lars Smedberg; I'm a 15 year-old, and a bit like Hermione. And I think I would consider it to be a bit, well, not Child-ish, but immature to even consider drinking Beer or any other Alcoholic drink.

Zelmia; I agree with you; only because Harry and his friends are exceptionally brave, doesn't mean we should expect such sort of bravery from Marietta, who's in Ravenclaw.



Lars Smedberg - Jul 17, 2004 6:04 am (#54 of 1080)
Well, Tornedo, I'm 38 years old, and for some reason, I'm more tolerant against teenagers drinking alcohol now, than I was when I was a teenager myself. (I admit, though, that I'm no parent !)



Sir Tornado - Jul 17, 2004 10:11 am (#55 of 1080)
Well, Lars, I wouldn't mind 19 year olds drinking.(I swear I won't touch Alcohol. It's bad for health) But 15? I think it's a bit too young; don't you think?



Chris. - Jul 17, 2004 10:45 am (#56 of 1080)
Depends how strong the Firewhisky is. Though, the name does give a sort of idea. Must be strong!

Maybe we should take this over to the Ron thread.



Sir Tornado - Jul 17, 2004 11:00 am (#57 of 1080)
Yeah! Would some Mod please transfer all Alcohol related bussiness to the Ron thread? I guess that's where it belongs.



Chris. - Jul 17, 2004 11:02 am (#58 of 1080)
Or we could just continue our ideas over there. And for the record, I don't think Ron will be an alcolohic after one drink.



Sir Tornado - Jul 17, 2004 11:15 am (#59 of 1080)
Check on the Ron thread.



Lars Smedberg - Jul 17, 2004 11:43 pm (#60 of 1080)
Tornedo; I didn't say that he wasn't a bit young - what I said was, that he shouldn't be blamed for WANTING it. That's a different matter.



zelmia - Jul 17, 2004 11:47 pm (#61 of 1080)
Can we drop this now, please? This is supposed to be a discussion on Marietta Edgecombe. Thank you...



Chris. - Jul 18, 2004 5:32 am (#62 of 1080)
Back on to Marietta,

Do you think the word "sneak" has disappeared from her face? It was one of Hermione's curses so I don't think it is. Though if it still there, I think it will have "faded".



Ladybug220 - Jul 18, 2004 6:10 am (#63 of 1080)
Her parents probably took her to St. Mungo's to attempt to get it removed. They probably were able to get rid of it there but there may be a slight reminder (very light scar) left behind.



azi - Jul 18, 2004 6:28 am (#64 of 1080)
I would prefer it if it was to stay obvious for evermore. It may have been removed but to have it there permanently would serve as a constant reminder of what she did. A scar I could cope with.

The spots remind me a little bit of what people used to do to criminals in the 'old days' (before anyone on here was born I expect). If a person was convicted of stealing sheep then they would have a sign branded on their forehead which would scar and everyone they met would know what wrong they had done.



zelmia - Jul 18, 2004 9:39 am (#65 of 1080)
Somehow I don't think that the curse would be permanent. It would simply last long enough to show the school - specifically the other DA members - who the 'traitor' was. I'm confident that when Marietta comes back to school next year, she will be "sneak" free.



Sir Tornado - Jul 18, 2004 10:14 am (#66 of 1080)
May be she won't be "sneak" free when she comes next year and Hermione takes pity on her and takes the jinx off her.



schoff - Jul 18, 2004 10:34 am (#67 of 1080)
That's just too cruel for both Hermione and Dumbledore to allow. It better have just worn off after a *very* short time, like ink.

Technically, Marietta really didn't do anything bad--it's not like she really understood the consequences of her decisions as she was wrapped up in the Ministry's philosophy. She shouldn't have to suffer the rest of her life for it.



zelmia - Jul 18, 2004 10:57 am (#68 of 1080)
Schoff, I said the same thing here: POST #51 But it kind of got lost in the Ron/alcohol arguement.



Sir Tornado - Jul 18, 2004 11:19 am (#69 of 1080)
Yeah, well, Hermione is a Gryffindor and probably doesn't understand cowardness Marietta exibited. So, don't blame her. As far as DD goes; he really didn't have any time to get rid of that Jinx.



schoff - Jul 18, 2004 11:59 am (#70 of 1080)
No, it's too cruel if it's permanent or long lasting. If there's an uproar about Umbridge and Harry's hand, then there should be an uproar about Hermione and Marietta's pimples. Hermione would never permanently harm someone (unless she's fighting for her life).

Hermione is better than her enemies. She fights fairly. Marietta did nothing worth being permanently scarred, especially from someone who in a fight, would fight to save her. Umbridge would never try to save Harry if his life was in danger.

And no, Zelmia. I didn't lose your message. That's the reason I posted in the first place.



Sir Tornado - Jul 18, 2004 7:20 pm (#71 of 1080)
schoff; so what was Hermione supposed to do? Go to Marrietta; who was responsible for Dumbledore leaving and nearly expelling Harry and the DA; and offering to remove the Hex for her? Absolutely rubbish. Hermione did nothing wrong there. "You do the crime; you do the time".



schoff - Jul 18, 2004 7:41 pm (#72 of 1080)
No, the spell should wear off on it's own. And the punishment should fit the crime. Permanent scarring doesn't fit Marietta's so-called crime (which wasn't a crime at all--bad judgment and peer pressure at most).



Luke E.A. Lockhart - Jul 18, 2004 7:50 pm (#73 of 1080)
Giving in to peer pressure is a crime - in my opinion, one of the worst.



Sir Tornado - Jul 18, 2004 7:52 pm (#74 of 1080)
Well, it is likely that the curse will wear off during summer or Hermione would take pity on Marrietta and take it off in HBP.



Czarina II - Jul 19, 2004 10:15 am (#75 of 1080)
For all we know, the curse has already worn off. Marietta could just be wearing the balaclava because she is ashamed, or JKR just put it in because it was funny. (It was.) I don't think Marietta is going to have much more relevance to the story. She is just Cho's best friend. Obviously, she probably won't be coming near Hermione any time soon. She and Cho will probably not be in the DA if it continues in HbP. Otherwise, her use is over.



Tomoé - Jul 20, 2004 9:21 am (#76 of 1080)
I don't know if Marietta will be "SNEAK" free. For the first time in the whole series, Madam Pomfrey wasn't able to cure both Marietta and Montague (she wasn't able to cure Lockhart as well, but we didn't know it was that bad before we witnessed the poor progresses he made in three years).

Hermione is a smart witch, she proved herself to be able to do polyjuice potion in her second year, who knows where she get those jinxes and how unusual they could be.



Penny Lane. - Jul 20, 2004 10:41 am (#77 of 1080)
I would think that the SNEAK would have worn off, like most jinxes that we have seen. But - I don't want it to. I don't feel sorry for Marietta, she sold out her friends. The DA was teaching survival tactics, and the Wizarding World is fighting a war. I would think that what happened to her is very fair, considering what has been done to traitors in the past. Her actions could have ruined the lives of all the students involved, plus seriously endangered Harry's life. It was more than just a mistake: she chose herself over her friends.



MrsGump - Jul 20, 2004 11:32 am (#78 of 1080)
Wasn't the SNEAK written in spots (which in the US, we'd called zits, pimples, blemishes, etc)?

I'd guess that Marietta's skin just clears up more slowly than others. If she keeps her hands off, they should clear up with no scarring. Since Hermione jinxed her with a Muggle affliction, there's no wonder Madam Pomfrey can't cure it. Marietta has to wait it out like the rest of the teens with acne.



Courtney22 - Jul 20, 2004 11:46 am (#79 of 1080)
Azi, You're comment reminded me of the Scarlet Letter Smile which is one of my favorite books.



virgoddess1313 - Jul 20, 2004 12:14 pm (#80 of 1080)
But Madam Pomfrey can help out with acne, can't she? I thought the Bubotuber pus in GoF was specifically for that purpose. It has to be something more complex than simple, everyday blemishes.



MrsGump - Jul 20, 2004 1:48 pm (#81 of 1080)
I forgot about the Bubotuber pus being for acne, thanks for the reminder virgoddess :-)



Tomoé - Jul 20, 2004 4:19 pm (#82 of 1080)
Marietta got her spots somewhere in April and still had them at the end of June, I don't remember any spots that lasted that long.



Sir Tornado - Jul 20, 2004 7:43 pm (#83 of 1080)
May be, the spots reappear after disappearing. You know what I mean? Just like sandwiches reappear in McGonagall's plate after being eaten.



Luke E.A. Lockhart - Jul 20, 2004 7:47 pm (#84 of 1080)
I don't think it's in Hermione's character to put a spell with that much permanent effect; besides, I'm guessing the school nurse (can't remember her name) must have cleared things up with Marietta.



Sir Tornado - Jul 20, 2004 8:08 pm (#85 of 1080)
Madam Pomfrey? No she didn't. I agree on Hermione's character though.



Paulus Maximus - Jul 21, 2004 2:02 am (#86 of 1080)
But if her acne had cleared up by the end of June, why wear a balaclava on the train back?



Sir Tornado - Jul 21, 2004 2:23 am (#87 of 1080)
Because her Acne had not cleared up.



Paulus Maximus - Jul 21, 2004 2:53 am (#88 of 1080)
So you don't think it's in Hermione's character to put a spell with a permanent effect... but the spell hadn't worn off after 3 months or so...

I guess there's a bit of a difference between permanent and long-lasting, though...



ex-FAHgeek - Jul 21, 2004 5:54 am (#89 of 1080)
---quote--- So you don't think it's in Hermione's character to put a spell with a permanent effect... but the spell hadn't worn off after 3 months or so... ---end quote---

It's quite possible that only Hermione can remove the spell, thus requiring Marietta to go to her and apologize. That arrangement would be in character for Hermione.



Tomoé - Jul 21, 2004 7:09 am (#90 of 1080)
I hope not, because Marietta don't remember. Kingsley did mess her memories. I don't see her go to Hermione and apologize, she don't remember doing anything wrong. I wonder if Harry told Hermione.



rambkowalczyk - Jul 21, 2004 9:28 am (#91 of 1080)
Maybe the reason the spots stayed on for so long was because Marietta felt guilty about it and did nothing about it. Had she tried to apologize to Harry or Hermione the spots may have gone away.



els - Jul 21, 2004 4:47 pm (#92 of 1080)
The spots may still be there because Marietta broke a magical contract. Ludo Bagman, in GoF, insinuates that breaking such a contract is a very bad thing, so Madame Pomfrey may not be able to cure the spots because it's a jinx ties to a contract. Hermione is probably the only one who can break it or has a way out of the contract - apologizing to everyone for example.



taniwha - Jul 21, 2004 8:08 pm (#93 of 1080)
Edited by Jul 21, 2004 9:16 pm
Tornedo - "don't think it's in Hermione's character to put a spell with that much permanent effect"

Didn’t Herminone take away Rita Skeeter’s livelihood? Then force her to work for free(slavery).

She disfigured Marietta Edgecombe’s face for many months (a few days may have been far more appropriate)

She led Umbridge into the forest, hopefully to be attacked by the centaurs (admittedly this was to protect her friends)

Hermione is a good friend, but a powerful enemy. Even Ron said that he would hate to get on the wrong side of Herminone.

Other than issuing the occasional Draconian punishment to those who offend her, it is not in her nature!



Tomoé - Jul 21, 2004 8:32 pm (#94 of 1080)
There's also the house-elves she wanted to force to freedom.



zelmia - Jul 21, 2004 8:41 pm (#95 of 1080)
Hermione did all those things to retaliate. The other 3 made the first move. Rita wrote the Hermione article... Umbridge was going to Crucio Harry, and Marietta was a traitor. In none of these instances did Hermione "attack first".



taniwha - Jul 21, 2004 8:48 pm (#96 of 1080)
Edited by Jul 21, 2004 10:15 pm
She may not of attacked first.

but her response was an overreaction

giving out draco-ian punishments

did Marietta really deserve such a long lasting and disfiguring punishment.

if this punishment had been imposed on our heroic trio, would we not think it was obsesive.

even Umbridge's pen was not as long lasting. Wasn't Harry attacking/undermining Umbridge’s beliefs and values in the same way Marietta attracted/revelled Harry and the DA?



Susurro Notities - Jul 21, 2004 8:50 pm (#97 of 1080)
Excellent point Zelmia.

It is possible that Marietta's zits did not last until the train ride home. Maybe she was only trying to hide the redness or pits that often follow zits.



Tomoé - Jul 21, 2004 9:01 pm (#98 of 1080)
Hum ... I'm not sure she was only trying to hide the redness or pits that often follow zits, a bit of make-up should have suffice. I mean, why else wear a balaclava at the end of June if not because there's no other way to hide it?



Susurro Notities - Jul 21, 2004 9:07 pm (#99 of 1080)
After effects of acne are not always well hidden by make-up.



Tomoé - Jul 21, 2004 9:10 pm (#100 of 1080)
But she have magic! I can't believe there nothing about it somewhere in Witch Weekly! ^_^


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Mona on Thu May 19, 2011 12:36 am; edited 6 times in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 59
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Posts 101 to 181

Post  Mona Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:30 pm

zelmia - Jul 21, 2004 9:11 pm (#101 of 1080)
I'm sorry, but this thread seems to be stagnating on Hermione's jinx/hex. It may be that we've reached the end of this discussion....



Sir Tornado - Jul 22, 2004 3:02 am (#102 of 1080)
Hmm... Marieta? Do you think she'll carry any weight in upcomming books? Am I alone in thinking she'll have an agreement with Draco and his Cronies?



rambkowalczyk - Jul 22, 2004 6:42 am (#103 of 1080)
Interesting thought, but it does involve a certain amount of shallowness on her part. I can see Marietta's mother talking to Narcissa about that "Gryffindor gang" that hexed Marietta's face and getting sympathy from Narcissa because there is no one on the Hogwart's train to insure safety. After all last summer her son came home a slug.

If Marietta is a friend of Cho, would she still do it? Cho wouldn't be a Draco sympathizer in light of what happened to Cedric. Would Cho have second thought on Harry's good nature based on what Hermione did making it easier for Marietta to Align with Draco?



Hermy-own - Aug 6, 2004 8:06 am (#104 of 1080)
Well said Tornedo and rambko.

A secret alliance between Marietta and Draco would be even more interesting if Marietta was forgiven by H/Hr/R and allowed back into DA. It is unlikey, but I wouldn't put anything past JKR!



Good Evans - Aug 10, 2004 9:13 am (#105 of 1080)
I wonder whether Marietta may become Harrys love interest in book six.

She was acting from fear of her parents (mother works for ministry) that she must not act against Umbridge and the ministry. Her animosity towards Harry may not just be that he is causing her to be in colflict with her parents instructions but maybe she is also Jealous of his attention to Cho. She has hopefully learned her lesson now - could well feel mortified about what she did and apologise to Harry et al for her treachery. As her reasons are not malicious but conflict he may forgive her. In time Harry may well notice that she is a pretty girl (she is described as having curly hair but is she also described as pretty?). She could also be a week link later, if she bends to pressure she could be very valuable to voldemort. Oh how tragic this would be if she were also Harry's Girl. she has been introduced as a background character to boost cho and to be the "mole" of the DA - bit maybe she has yet another role.



Padfoot - Aug 10, 2004 9:50 am (#106 of 1080)
Good Evans, I would highly doubt that Harry will even be friends with Marietta, let alone a love interest. However crazier theories have been mentioned on the 'Shipping thread. Post your ideas over there. You might find you aren't the only one who thinks this is a possibility.

I would really like to see Marietta apologize to Harry and the DA too.



Good Evans - Aug 10, 2004 11:27 am (#107 of 1080)
I meant to post it there Padfoot - but forgot - will do so now - thanks Good E



TomProffitt - Aug 13, 2004 8:21 pm (#108 of 1080)
Tornedo,

I haven't been posting in Ron's defense, but I certainly agree with them. I can't recall, but I have probably posted some pretty condemning things against Marietta.

Before I state my position on Marietta, I will state my position comparing the offenses of Ron and Marietta.

Ron's offense is not exactly an offense. Friendship is a two way street. It's a partnership where both friends have responsibilities to keep the friendship alive and well. Sure, losing Ron's friendship was hard on Harry at a critical time, but Harry could easily have gone to Ron and mended fences. I have saved more than one friendship by going to the person I thought was at fault and tried to restore the friendship without anger, blame or guilt. It works, and it feels good.

Marietta on the other hand wasn't betraying a friendship. I've loaned out OP, so I can't give quotes, but I recall it being made pretty clear from the get go that the DA was not going to be an "approved" group. Yes, the Hogs Head meeting took place before Dolores decree, but everyone who signed knew Dolores wasn't going to be happy about the DA.

Harry made it pretty clear what he thought they were doing. They were preparing to defend themselves against He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and his DE. (yes, that's what Harry was doing in GoF, but even Harry didn't know that)

It was pretty clear by the reluctance of Ernie, Zacharias, and Marietta to sign that they realized they were signing a "magical contract" and not just a membership roster. Hermione's protean charm on the coins should have been an indication to Marietta that Hermione could put a pretty good jinx on that parchment, too.

I think Marietta knew what she was doing. Knew she was going to pay for it. And did it anyway.

I'm with Hermione, any decent Ravenclaw 6th year ought to be able to undo that jinx.

Really!



Solitaire - Aug 13, 2004 9:01 pm (#109 of 1080)
Tom: It was pretty clear by the reluctance of Ernie, Zacharias, and Marietta to sign that they realized they were signing a "magical contract" and not just a membership roster. Hermione's protean charm on the coins should have been an indication to Marietta that Hermione could put a pretty good jinx on that parchment, too.

I just looked up that passage, and this is what Hermione says: "I-I think everybody should write their name down, just so we know who was here. But I also thinkm" she took a deep breath, "that we all ought to agree not to shout about what we're doing. So if you sign, you're agreeing not to tell Umbridge--or anybody else--what we're up to."

No, Hermione did not SAY the parchment was jinxed--at least not then and not to them (she later tells Ron and Harry, after they find out about Decree 24)--but she makes it clear that by signing the parchment, they are entering into a contract of sorts. Tom is right. The kids know her well enough to know she means business about things. And after they have seen the coins, well ... they know that she knows her magic.

Marietta learned a big lesson: Before caving to peer pressure, make sure you believe in what your peers are doing. She should have remembered this from her first year, when Neville got his points from Dumbledore for attempting to stand up to the Trio ... "It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends." Too bad Mariette didn't remember that line.

Solitaire



Archangel - Aug 13, 2004 9:34 pm (#110 of 1080)
Maybe she was busy giggling and ogling some Hufflepuff cutie like her friends... :-| Ravenclaw seems to have the best looking girls and Hufflepuff, the guys. Off topic I know but just an observation I would like to share.

Anyway, IMO, the combination of parental, peer, and academic pressure was just too much for her. Things got too hot for her and she just wanted to get out of the kitchen -- maybe just for the sake of getting some peace of mind or to save her own hide. The important thing is she forgot that for every action, there's always an opposite and equal reaction. Didn't think of the consequences that girl which is weird because she's from Ravenclaw.



Solitaire - Aug 13, 2004 9:44 pm (#111 of 1080)
Didn't think of the consequences that girl which is weird because she's from Ravenclaw. Good point! She should have known better.



Weeny Owl - Aug 14, 2004 12:44 am (#112 of 1080)
So if you sign, you're agreeing not to tell Umbridge--or anybody else--what we're up to."

Harry and Ron never signed an agreement where they would always believe what the other said or that they would never feel any jealousy.

I'm not angry with Marietta, at least not really. Who knows what pressures she was under. Perhaps Umbridge threatened the loss of her mother's job. There's no way of telling exactly why she did what she did.

The difference in the two situations is that one was between friends, it was a private matter, and both eventually got over it. No one was really hurt, although both parties were unhappy for a while. I'm not talking about hurt feelings but actual damage as in the loss of a job.

Marietta, on the other hand, managed to involve two Aurors, Professor McGonagall, Percy, Fudge, and the horrid Umbridge. What happened caused Dumbledore to have to leave Hogwarts. Her actions did cause quite a bit of damage, if for no other reason than Dumbledore having to leave.

The situations really can't be compared. Two friends argue and make up, and there were never any signed agreements involved. A student signs an agreement and manages to involve the Ministry when she breaks her contract. Having Dumbledore out of Hogwarts caused a great deal of misery for many people.



Sara Elizabeth - Aug 14, 2004 5:45 pm (#113 of 1080)
I think another key diffences between Ron and Marietta is that we don't know much about Marietta, and what we have been told is not that great. Through 5 books we have learned to love Ron and feel we understand him. All we really know about Marietta is she is Cho's friend and it is made pretty clear she never wanted to be at the Hog's Head to begin with. Readers may feel more sympathy for her if they get the chance to know her better.

Sara



DJ Evans - Aug 14, 2004 6:43 pm (#114 of 1080)
Got a question & I'm sorry if this has been brought up before. Ignore me if it has, but I just had a thought. Is it not feasible that Umbridge could have given Marietta some Veritaseerum? Or is that stupid? I could see how Umbridge had Marietta in her office for a little chit chat and they had a spot of tea -- doctored tea that is. My books aren't handy to me right now, but I couldn't remember if it is stated in the books that Marietta went to Umbridge on her own or if it was even mentioned specifically how it came about that she told about the DA's -- just that she told.

Later, Deb



MrsGump - Aug 14, 2004 7:14 pm (#115 of 1080)
Talking about Ron and Marietta at the same time made me think of something...

Remember in 'Christmas on the Closed Ward', the wizard in the portrait following Ron? It makes me wonder if Marietta has spattergroit? (I tried searching for spattergroit, and it didn't come up, so I don't know if someone has suggested this or not).

Here's the passage:

"Ron was seriously affronted when a medieval wizard called out that he clearly had a bad case of spattergroit.

'And what's that supposed to be?' he asked angrily, as the Healer pursued him through six more portraits, shoving the occupants out of the way.

'Tis a most grievous affliction of the skin, young master, that will leave you pockmarked and more gruesome even than you are now -'

'Watch who you're calling gruesome!' said Ron, his ears turning red.

'- the only remedy is to take the liver of a toad, bind it tight about your throat, stand naked at the full moon in a barrel of eels' eyes -'"



Solitaire - Aug 14, 2004 8:07 pm (#116 of 1080)
Hm ... somehow I sure can't imagine Marietta doing that! LOL Actually, Umbridge using Veritaserum on Marietta does sound exactly like something she would do ... but I don't think it is what happened in her case.

I do remember the spattergroit thing, though, and felt bad for all people who had freckles back then (I assumed he was talking about Ron's freckles)! Can you imagine having them called an affliction and being told you had to take the liver of a toad, bind it tight about your throat, and stand naked at the full moon in a barrel of eels' eyes? Sheesh! What if a werewolf came along while you were out there? I don't suppose he would be satisfied with chewing the toad liver and eels' eyes. And no, it wouldn't be Remus. He wouldn't have been born yet!

Solitaire



Gemini Wolfie - Aug 15, 2004 7:14 pm (#117 of 1080)
Not sure if it has been mentioned but you know one thing that bothered me about Marietta telling Umbridge is whether Cho herself would be expelled. It would be in character for Umbridge to tell Marietta that there would be nothing to fear about her own participation as Potter is a very good teller of lies. It's possible that Marietta got assurance the she and her friend would be safe from expulsion. Or perhaps she is too dim to even have thought about the consequences but that's nevertheless a huge point.

To me, whether or not she guaranteed Cho's safety and not the fact that she told on the DA is the most important quality.



Sir Tornado - Aug 16, 2004 2:18 am (#118 of 1080)
Well, surprisingly enough, if you don't think Ron and Marietta had done any thing Wrong, please tell me what you think about Umridge on Her thread. It can be argued very well that Umbridge wasn't doing anything wrong. She was just following orders of her boss. BTW, Fudge might have even misled her about LV and have told her that Harry and DD were lying about LV. In that case, shouldn't she have believed him Fudge and think DD and Harry were trying to capture power? Shouldn't she be entitled to forgivance? Surely from those who agree to forgive Ron and Marrietta.



Sara Elizabeth - Aug 16, 2004 7:11 am (#119 of 1080)
I don't think Umbridge gave Marietta veritaserum. First, if Umbridge was unaware of the DA up until that point, how would she have known to give Marietta the veritaserum. And secondly, it seems she would have to have asked Snape for it, and in the past, hasn't he given her a fake version?

Just my two cents.

Sara



Solitaire - Aug 16, 2004 8:41 am (#120 of 1080)
Oh, I think Umbridge was VERY aware of the DA before she actually caught them. Remember that Willy Widdershins overheard them planning the whole thing in the Hog's Head before it even began. As Umbridge herself said, "He heard every word Potter said and hastened straight to the school to report to me--" using it to get off the regurgitating toilet charge. That is WHY she enacted Decree 24 in the first place.

Now ... remember that Marietta's mother works in the Ministry of Magic, in the Department of Magical Transportation, Floo Network. She had been helping police the Hogwarts Fires (which is probably how Umbridge found out Harry had been communicating with Sirius). I would say that she was bound to hear about the DA with all the communications between Fudge and Umbridge (remember not everyone is as clueless as Fudge).

I realize there is no evidence for this, but consider it: Possibly, she began poking around to see if she could find out anything, maybe even sending an owl (I started to say an email ... shame on me) or two to Marietta, encouraging her to avoid getting mixed up in anything involving "that Potter kid," etc. It sounds very like something a mom would have done. Molly Weasley would probably have told the kids not to do it, if SHE had known--and she believed Harry and knew the truth.

By the way, I seriously doubt Umbridge was following any "orders." I suspect she dreamed up most of those stupid decrees on her own. She was doing as she darn well pleased. I think she probably considered Fudge as inept as he was, and she had taken things into her own hands, at this point. We know she that did with the Dementors ... so there is no telling what else she would do in her quest to squash Harry like a bug.

By the way, I do not think she would be above using Veritaserum on Marietta. I think it would have been right up her street, and I believe she would have thought herself totally justified to do it without telling her victim.

Solitaire



Matilda the Pygmy Puff - Aug 16, 2004 8:46 am (#121 of 1080)
Thats right Sara. I believe Snape was giving Umbridge fake Veritaserum all along because she wanted to use it on several students. I don't remember where it says it though.



Solitaire - Aug 16, 2004 9:28 am (#122 of 1080)
I believe Dumbledore told Harry that Snape had given Umbridge fake Veritaserum to use on HIM ... not sure about the other kids.



DJ Evans - Aug 16, 2004 9:29 am (#123 of 1080)
By the way, I seriously doubt Umbridge was following any "orders." I suspect she dreamed up most of those stupid decrees on her own. She was doing as she darn well pleased. I think she probably considered Fudge as inept as he was, and she had taken things into her own hands, at this point. We know she that did with the Dementors ... so there is no telling what else she would do in her quest to squash Harry like a bug. Solitaire

I totally agree with you on your read of Umbridge there, Solitaire. She is a very bit of nasty work and really, if you ask me, lives in "her" own little world!!!

Sarah & Matilda Jones -- as far as Umbridge using fake Veritaserum? You could be right there, but that's not to say she didn't have some "real" stuff on her to begin with & had been using it all of this time. Could have ran out (or be running low) and "then" ask Snape to make her some more. It's just a possibility there, cause I'm kinda leaning toward her giving Marietta Veritaserum -- it just sounds like something she would do in a split second to me!!!!

Marietta didn't know what hit her. Not with Umbridge & Hermione out there, that is!!!

Later, Deb



Weeny Owl - Aug 16, 2004 10:11 am (#124 of 1080)
It can be argued very well that Umbridge wasn't doing anything wrong. She was just following orders of her boss.

I do think Marietta was wrong; however, I don't think she needs to be hated for it. She's a kid, she's learning, and that's why at fifteen she is still in school and is not considered an adult.

Umbridge sent dementors to steal Harry's soul, was going to allow Filch to use whips on Fred and George, and was going to use an Unforgivable Curse. As much as I dislike Fudge for being an idiot, I don't believe he would tell her to use that nasty quill or use Unforgibables or send dementors to such out souls. I doubt if he would approve of the whips either.

Marietta told someone in authority about a group of students. She should not have done that since she signed an agreement not to, but telling an authority figure about something isn't, in and of itself, an offense worthy of hatred. Umbridge, being the authority figure who was told, was responsible for the well-being of the entire school. Her actions were with the intent to harm from the beginning. She didn't just tell an authority figure (Fudge) something; she chose to use an Unforgivable Curse because the authority figure in question (Fudge) didn't need to know.

There are huge differences between the actions of each character. In most instances, they really cannot be compared.



Solitaire - Aug 16, 2004 10:13 am (#125 of 1080)
DJ Evans, you might want to check out my latest post on the Umbridge thread, which addresses in part the extent of her use of Veritaserum at Hogwarts.



Penny Lane. - Aug 16, 2004 12:25 pm (#126 of 1080)
Marietta was 15. At 15, teenagers know the difference between right and wrong. She knew perfectly well that her actions could cause all of the members of the DA to be expelled. Now, if they were all doing serious harm to each other, or themselves, she would have a vaild reason to turn them in. As it was, she only turned them in to protect herself. She knew perfectly well that all the DA was doing was preparing for the OWLS (it could be argued-and that is why several students were there). Marietta knew that her actions could have ruined the entire lives of all of her "friends" - including Cho. We aren't talking detention here - she knew they would all be sent away from Hogwarts. Cho should not remain friends with someone who felt she could just ruin other people's lives with out a second thought.

If Umbridge did use Veritaserum on Marietta - real Veritaserum - then it would be more forgivable. Umbridge knew that Potter was "Up to Something" and she probably had been watching him like a hawk. She probably saw him talking to Cho a few times, then saw Marietta talking to Cho. Umbridge most likely kept Marietta after class on some pretext of needing to discuss a paper, and drugged her.

Okay, now Marietta's memory has been modified, right? I'm wondering what they told her about the spots - she won't know to go to Hermione for the counter jinx. Also she now has no idea of the DA - does she still know how to preform those spells?



Solitaire - Aug 16, 2004 1:07 pm (#127 of 1080)
Okay, now Marietta's memory has been modified, right? I'm wondering what they told her about the spots - she won't know to go to Hermione for the counter jinx. Also she now has no idea of the DA - does she still know how to preform those spells?

Interesting point, Penny L. I had not thought about her memory modification. I suppose it remains to be told exactly WHAT part of her memory Kingsley modified. He may not have been as vicious as Lockhart and may only have modified what was pertinent to the questioning at the time.

I hope we see a bit more about this in the next book. If Marietta has indeed forgotten WHY she has "sneak" tattooed across her face in zits, she may not know she needs to talk to Hermione and apologize. Harry SHOULD remember the fact that her memory has been modified, as he was there at the time and Dumbledore told him what Kingsley had done. It is kind of pointless for Marietta to continue to sport "sneak" on her face--except as a warning to others--if she doesn't even remember why it is there.

Solitaire



Weeny Owl - Aug 16, 2004 1:10 pm (#128 of 1080)
Marietta was 15. At 15, teenagers know the difference between right and wrong.

Perhaps, but if Marietta's mother told her to give information to Umbridge, that certainly would put her in a bind. She did sign the agreement, she did not live up to what she signed, but at the same time, a fifteen-year-old is far from a full-fledged adult.

There are different degrees of what is wrong depending on the circumstances. Perhaps Marietta thought that flouting the Ministry and Umbridge, considering they were running the Wizarding World and Hogwarts, had more seriousness than signing something from another student. The Ministry and Umbridge or another student? Again, since her mother worked for the Ministry, she would have been more inclined to side with them than with a rogue student organization.



TwinklingBlueEyes - Aug 16, 2004 1:12 pm (#129 of 1080)
Soli, "WHAT part of her memory Kingsley modified. He may not have been as vicious as Lockhart"

I think alot depends on the wizards skill too, remember, Lockhart could also "do things with a wand that I've never seen before". Just because he didn't try and they came out wrong, like boneless arms... am off to St Mungo's now.



Solitaire - Aug 16, 2004 1:27 pm (#130 of 1080)
Weeny, I suppose it is also possible that she could have been approached by another student (a Slytherin, perhaps?) who wanted some info and threatened to "out" her--and she simply decided to go to Umbridge first and save her own skin. It IS entirely possible that the Death Nibblers got wind of the DA, isn't it? Maybe we will find out more in Book 6.

Solitaire



DJ Evans - Aug 16, 2004 1:32 pm (#131 of 1080)
Penny L -- I too had a lapse of memory there (NO pun intended there ) on her memory being modified!! Thanks for bringing that up. Now I'm starting to really feel kinda sorry for poor ol' Marietta -- that is if she was given real Veritaserum by Umbridge, then with the memory charm preformed on her & now she's got these "spots" popping up spelling out sneak -- if that being the case, you've got to feel for her. You know she's got to be thinking "What the heck is going on?"

Later, Deb

EDIT: Solitaire, thanks for the heads up on your Umbridge post, I'm heading over there now.

Also, TBE, wasn't the quote about "doing things with a wand that I've never seen before" about DD? I was thinking that was said about DD by the ol' tester during Harry/Ron/Hermione's OWL's? Books aren't handy so I can't check, I could be entirely wrong there.

EDIT #2: Ooooops!!! Solitaire & I posted at the same time there. Sorry about that!! "Waves" to Solitaire!!!!!



Solitaire - Aug 16, 2004 1:33 pm (#132 of 1080)
Twinkles, I thought it was Dumbledore to whom Professor Marchbanks was referring with that comment: "Did things with a wand I'd never seen before ..." (OotP, page 711, US ed.) Or are you referring to a different book and event ... or maybe even being a bit facetious? **evil grin**



TwinklingBlueEyes - Aug 16, 2004 1:38 pm (#133 of 1080)
Me? Facetious? Surely you jest? LOL, I, err, borrowed the phrase since it seemed to fit what I was thinking.



Solitaire - Aug 16, 2004 1:40 pm (#134 of 1080)
DJ, after mulling it over a bit, I got to thinking ... perhaps Umbridge did only give Harry his requisite three drops of Veritaserum. But when it did not produce the desired effects (due to the fact that it was fake, as we now know), maybe she decided to use more on any other kids she tried to strong-arm ... also not getting any effects.

Remember that the only Veritaserum we know about was fake, so even if she did use THAT stuff, she would not get results--unless Marietta told her of her own accord. I suppose it IS possible that she had some real potion on hand before she got the fake stuff from Snape, but we do not know that for certain, and we do not know if she ever used it on any kids.

The fact remains that when Marietta entered Umbridge's office, before Kingsley's "modification," she DID know why she had "sneak" written on her face. Still, under the circumstances, with her memory wiped, it seems kind of harsh. Hm, what was the point of this post?

Solitaire



Solitaire - Aug 16, 2004 1:47 pm (#135 of 1080)
Twinkles, perhaps the sentence best used with Lockhart should read as follows: "The man did things with a wand I'd never seen before ... which makes me wonder how he managed to survive as long as he did!" There is a lot more I could say, but ... this is not his thread. **evil giggle**



TwinklingBlueEyes - Aug 16, 2004 2:14 pm (#136 of 1080)
Have a butterbeer on me and we can reflect on the original point of this, whatever that may have been.

Actually, the point was thinking and having a little fun with friends, that is part of forum is about. Besides, we have to do something as we wait for next book.

I do admit I mangled that sentence. Thought was still relative though :-) There, edited, with a word I can spell!



DJ Evans - Aug 16, 2004 2:52 pm (#137 of 1080)
Hm, what was the point of this post?: Solitaire Have a butterbeer on me and we can reflect on the original point of this, whatever that may have been.: T Blue Eyes

Hmmm, we almost need a score card to keep up with, don't we? Umbridge very well could have had "only" the fake stuff all along, but I'm still in the camp that I wouldn't put it past her (nor would I be surprised) to have had some of the real Veritaserum to begin with. As it's been said by some, I totally despise her and wouldn't put "anything" past her.

Later, Deb



Sir Tornado - Aug 18, 2004 6:54 pm (#138 of 1080)
While you've been talking about Umbridge using Veritaserum on Marietta, has anyone iven a thought to where Umbridge might get the Veritaserum? Umbridge clearly doesn't have any with her and Snape had given a fake one when she had requested him for it. Any ideas?



Solitaire - Aug 18, 2004 8:38 pm (#139 of 1080)
Actually, Tornedo, I think some of us were trying to find an acceptable excuse for Marietta's having betrayed the DA, and we were considering whether or not Umbridge might have used the Veritaserum on her. But I think the argument broke down after considering that Umbridge had never even had REAL Veritaserum to use on Harry ... so if she'd used THAT, it wouldn't have worked on Marietta anyway.

In the end, I suppose we have to just accept that Marietta knew she was betraying the DA and did it anyway. I have no proof of this next idea, but I also have no doubt that she probably received some owls from her mother warning her not to get mixed up with anything that crazy Harry Potter was doing, and if she knew anything about it, she'd better tell, etc. I also have no doubt that Cho and probably some other kids may have received similar warnings (they just didn't buy into them).

I just figure that any such communications from Mrs. Edgecombe--if indeed they did happen--may have provided Marietta with exactly the excuse she was looking for to blow the whistle on something she didn't really want to do in the first place (and maybe get on Umbridge's good side--assuming she had one). It would not be the first time a kid used his parents' advice as an excuse to stop doing something he didn't want to do in the first place, would it? Does this make any sense?

Solitaire



Weeny Owl - Aug 18, 2004 8:50 pm (#140 of 1080)
That's a very nice explanation, Solitaire, and it's pretty much the way I looked at it myself.



DJ Evans - Aug 18, 2004 9:00 pm (#141 of 1080)
OK, you all might be right, but I'm going to keep the idea of her having a bit of the real Veritaserum (that she accquired from a trip down to Knocktrun Alley!!! ) and used it on Marietta, on a back burner for now. Never know when it might come in handy to bring up some time!!!

Later, Deb



Solitaire - Aug 18, 2004 9:07 pm (#142 of 1080)
Thanks, Weeny Owl.

DJ, I wouldn't put it past her to visit Knockturn, either. In fact, I can see her marching right down there to get whatever she wanted. If questioned, she'd probably tell anyone who asked to mind their own business. After all, she was a ministry official and the fact that SHE asked for whatever it was should be a good enough reason to give it to her, etc. I just see her as one who considers herself above all rules ... or better still, a rule unto herself.

Solitaire



weasley by nature - Aug 18, 2004 11:56 pm (#143 of 1080)
Veritaserum use is strictly controlled by Ministry officials. Surely a regular shop could not just sell some, even if it was in a shady area (such as Knockturn Alley). So in order to get Veritaserum from a store Umbridge would've had to use her influence in the Ministry to get some, and I don't see Fudge allowing illegal use of Veritaserum just like he wouldn't allow setting up a fake situation to get Harry expelled. Then you may ask, why was she allowed to get Veritaserum from Snape? I don't think she was allowed to but I think it would be impossible for the Ministry to track all individuals to prevent them from brewing Veritaserum. And so I think that Umbridge only got Veritaserum from Snape.

"I would like another bottle of Veritaserum, as quick as you can, please." "You took my last bottle to interrogate Potter. Surely you did not use it all? I told you that three drops would be sufficient." Umbridge flushed. (744)

This makes it sound like Umbridge was using Veritaserum for the first time. Because if she had used it multiple times she would've known that putting more in will not help. Also why would Snape have told her that she only needed to use three drops if she had used it multiple times/borrowed it multiple times from him? Because it was the first time she had asked for Veritaserum from him. And she asked it for a specific purpose so she must've been explaining that she needed Veritaserum for that specific incident.

"It was he too [Snape] who gave Professor Umbridge fake Veritaserum when she was attempting to force you to tell of Sirius' whereabouts" (833) Again the Veritaserum refers to the specific incident in which she gave it to Harry.

We can conclude that Snape only gave Umbridge Veritaserum once and guess that Umbridge wouldn't be able to access Veritaserum from anyone else because Snape is the only experienced Potions Master that she knew and the Ministry regulates the sale of Veritaseum in shops. Therefore I think that the only time that Umbridge used Veritaserum was to interrogate Harry and that that time she was using Snape's fake Veritaserum and used the entire bottle. So I don't think that Marietta was ever under the influence of Veritaserum.



Prefect Marcus - Aug 19, 2004 8:02 am (#144 of 1080)
I highly doubt Umbridge used Veritaserum on Marietta. If she did, why would Marietta stop talking when she broke out in zits?



Solitaire - Aug 19, 2004 9:11 am (#145 of 1080)
Weasley by nature: I don't see Fudge allowing illegal use of Veritaserum just like he wouldn't allow setting up a fake situation to get Harry expelled.

I don't really see that as a convincing argument, since I rather doubt Fudge had half a clue about a lot that was going on. Umbridge obviously sent Dementors after Harry without telling Fudge. I doubt she was above using Veritaserum without telling him, either.

As for stores in Knockturn alley not being able to sell it, well ... I don't suppose they should have been buying/selling a lot of things they bought and sold there. That didn't stop them from doing it, did it? That's probably why Hagrid made the comment about people thinking you're up to no good if they see you skulking around down there.

For the record, I do not believe Umbridge used Veritaserum on Marietta. I believe Marietta finked all on her own. I also believe Snape had real Veritaserum somewhere in his stores and would have given it, if Dumbledore had needed it. Something about the way Dumbledore asked in GoF just led me to believe that Snape would not run out of Veritaserum in the current climate of things; he probably just decided there were certain things Umbridge did not need to know. I don't think Snape felt particularly bound to follow her stupid rules and orders.

Solitaire



Hermy-own - Aug 19, 2004 10:12 am (#146 of 1080)
"just like he wouldn't allow setting up a fake situation to get Harry expelled" - weasley by nature

Tell me again, what was this fake situation to get Harry expelled? I'm assuming it was Umbridge who came up with it.

Sorry, these things slip my mind.



Solitaire - Aug 19, 2004 11:54 am (#147 of 1080)
Hermy, the Dementors who came after Harry in Little Whinging were sent by Umbridge. She didn't tell Fudge (we find this out when she was preparaing to use the Cruciatus curse on Harry, shortly before her "encounter" with the Centaurs).

When Harry used the Patronus charm to get rid of the Dementors, he FIRST received an owl from the Ministry informing him he had been expelled from Hogwarts for using underage magic, and he was told that someone from the Ministry would be coming to destroy his wand. Before that could happen, he got another owl from Mr. Weasley telling him NOT to surrender his wand because Dumbledore was sorting out what had happened. Then he got one from Sirius to stay put at Privet Drive.

In the end, Harry was "tried" by the full court (a big surprise to Arthur Weasley and Dumbledore, as well) for the use of underage magic (the Patronus charm). Umbridge, who had actually sent the Dementors after him, was on the panel of judges and voted against him, the old battle axe. Hence my statement that I wouldn't put it past her to use any illegal tricks or substances to get what she wanted. And as far as I'm concerned, either Fudge didn't care or was totally clueless about what she was doing. Either way, the man is a jerk.

Solitaire



Hermy-own - Aug 19, 2004 12:03 pm (#148 of 1080)
Thanks Solitaire

Fudge is certainly a jerk - makes you wonder how on earth he became minister in the first place!

And yes, I wouldn't put anything past Umbridge. I wonder what Rowling has planned for her in HBP...

*visits Umbridge thread*



Solitaire - Aug 19, 2004 12:36 pm (#149 of 1080)
I have NO idea what Rowling has planned for her, Hermy, but I hope it's really BAD! Maybe she will have to do some community service with Centaurs, giants, werewolves, Mer people, and house-elves! I REALLY don't like this woman!



Hermy-own - Aug 19, 2004 12:56 pm (#150 of 1080)
Haha! Community service would sound even better if you threw in a couple of dementors...

Yes, she's my worst character in the entire series! (except the all-evil LV of course)



weasley by nature - Aug 19, 2004 6:03 pm (#151 of 1080)
I agree that Fudge didn't know what was going on, my point (which I didn't make very clear, sorry about that) was that she wouldn't ask Fudge for an exception and the Ministry strictly controls it's use so it wouldn't be sold anywhere (not even Knockturn Alley) so the only place Umbridge could get Veritaserum from would be a Potions Master. It's a thin reason but other reasons that you have to get by all combined lead to my conclusion that Marietta was acting on her own.

Good point Prefect Marcus. She wouldn't have been able to stop talking if she was under the influence of Veritaserum, and I don't think that someone talking under the influence of Veritaserum would make her break out at all since she wasn't doing anything wrong that was under her control so the curse shouldn't have taken effect.



Jessalynn Quirky - Aug 23, 2004 1:31 pm (#152 of 1080)
Personally, I think Marietta would not have gone to Umbridge if she'd known about the sneak jinx. Hermione should have gotten everyone's signature, and then told them all what would happen if they told. Of course, JKR probably needed a reason for Dumbledore to leave to add plot, which is probably why Hermione didn't tell about jinx.



Solitaire - Aug 23, 2004 7:02 pm (#153 of 1080)
I think it is interesting that Dumbledore is back and the jinx still seems to be on Marietta's face ... unless she is now just wearing the balaclava out of embarrassment or humiliation. I suppose with Hermione in the infirmary for so long after the battle, maybe she just forgot about it, until they saw Marietta on the train. But I'm surprised Dumbledore didn't talk to Hermione and ask her to remove the jinx, since Marietta probably doesn't even remember why it's there. Then again, isn't he the one who said scars can be useful? Hmmmmmmmm ...



Archangel - Aug 23, 2004 11:09 pm (#154 of 1080)
Edited by Aug 24, 2004 12:10 am
I wonder how Marietta's mom would react though if she sees her daughter with "SNEAK" written on her face once she gets home from Hogwarts. "Good heavens child, what have you done to deserve this?" Marietta proceeds to tell the story and jinx acts up again. LOL



Hermy-own - Aug 24, 2004 4:29 am (#155 of 1080)
Lol Archangel! I wonder what she'd look like by the time she returns to Hogwarts in HBP...



Solitaire - Aug 24, 2004 11:59 pm (#156 of 1080)
Archangel, I wonder about her ability to "retell" the story, given Kingsley Shacklebolt's modification of her memory. Remember how bizarrely she was acting in Umbridge's office? Harry said her eyes looked blank. Does she even remember WHY she has SNEAK written on her face anymore?

I think she got what she deserved, make no mistake. While it might serve as a warning to others for it to remain on her face, however, I'm betting she may not even remember what caused it to be there in the first place. Just a thought ...

Solitaire



Archangel - Aug 25, 2004 8:14 pm (#157 of 1080)
Well, she might have forgotten what she did at that time since Kingley used a memory charm on her. However, given that it was so obvious that she was the one who sold the DA to Umbridge, I'm pretty sure the other DA members would throw remarks at her in the Great Hall or while walking in the corridors which would eventually make her remember what she did.

Plus, she's always with Cho. I'm pretty sure that this topic have come up in their conversations. Cho might have even explained/recounted the whole story for her so that she'd know why she has "SNEAK" written all over her face. Smile



Solitaire - Aug 25, 2004 8:39 pm (#158 of 1080)
I'm sure she has been told ... but it would be rather like an amnesia victim having an incident from her life explained to her. She will KNOW what happened ... but the full import of it will not be understood or felt by her without her remembering the event itself and why it occurred. Just my take on it ...



Penny Lane. - Sep 21, 2004 6:15 pm (#159 of 1080)
I really don't see why they would tell her. She may have the words SNEAK written across her face, but isn't it in acne? It should just clear up in a bit. She might just think that its a really embarrasing form of acne. I don't see any benifits in telling her.



schoff - Sep 21, 2004 10:31 pm (#160 of 1080)
^Speaking from someone who must never have suffered from acne!



Jessalynn Quirky - Sep 22, 2004 4:34 am (#161 of 1080)
No acne for you? Lucky! If I were a witch, I'd probably be right there with Eloise Midgedon, trying to curse mine off!



Tomoé - Sep 23, 2004 12:47 am (#162 of 1080)
I'd probably been there too.

As I said back to post #82 : Marietta got her spots somewhere in April and still had them at the end of June, I don't remember any spots that lasted that long.



Doxy Bowtruckle - Sep 24, 2004 2:44 am (#163 of 1080)
Here's hoping Madame Pomfrey sent her home this summer with a long dose of medicinal potions to take.

I think that she will have learnt her lesson and try to rejoin the group with grovelling appolgies for the leaders/organisers.

Although this will cause some concerns for Hermione at first. But I would like to see Ron accepting the appology from Marietta and convincing the others that she should be given a second chance to prove herself. This could be the start of something for Ron here!!'Ship,ship!!

doxyB



Solitaire - Sep 24, 2004 6:23 am (#164 of 1080)
Well, I still do not think she can learn much of a lesson, having had her memory of the entire business modified. That has been my problem with the whole business of the lingering punishment. If Marietta only knows she screwed up because people keep telling her--but she doesn't actually remember what she did or why she did it--then there is no true piercing of the conscience or heart over what she has done.

It would be like hearing the story of what someone else did. She may be able to understand the problem on a theoretical level and be able to think/say, "Oh, my, I can't believe I did that." But there will be no real "heart conviction" or attack of conscience, since it is pretty hard to feel remorse for something one doesn't even remember having done.

Does this make any sense to anyone out there in Potter-land?

Solitaire

Edited to try and make more sense ... not sure I succeeded.



haymoni - Sep 24, 2004 6:39 am (#165 of 1080)
I get it.

She opened her mouth, got "Sneaked", realized what had happened, was mortified, covered her face, got taken to Dumbledore's office, now her parents will find out that she completely disobeyed them, and then...Why am I here? Why am I a Pizza Face? Meetings, what meetings?

Yes, Kingsley modified her memory and now all she knows is that she finked on her friends and has become disfigured as a result. I think it will just make her hate Hermione. But everyone in the school will know better - she is a fink and an Umbridge Supporter.



Doxy Bowtruckle - Sep 24, 2004 6:50 am (#166 of 1080)
AGHHH! Deepest appologies for forgetting the memory charm.

continues banging one's head with bottle of Skelligrow*

She must have asked how she came to be that way though, covered in pimples.

Maybe she doesn't care, maybe her mother has been told the whole story of events.


rubs head, very bruised now*

DoxyB



Chemyst - Sep 24, 2004 4:30 pm (#167 of 1080)
Umbridge may not have to use veritaserum if she could promise a Head Girlship. In the letter that Percy wrote to give Ron advice (under the guise of congratulating him for becoming a prefect,) he says, I shall say only this – a student who shows himself willing to help Professor Umbridge now may be very well placed for Head Boyship in a couple years! At the time Marietta "sneaked," Umbridge seemed unstoppable. It is quite possible that Marietta over-estimated Umbridge's power, and disastrously under-estimated Hermione. (After all, if Hermione were really that smart, she'd be Ravenclaw, right?) Marietta could be a real social climber. Perhaps the reason she was friends with Cho in the first place was that Marietta wanted to be associated with gorgeous athletic types. That is a shallow basis for a friendship, and apparently the friendship wasn't strong enough to keep Marietta from putting Cho at risk since her name was on the member list too. Not only did she betray the DA, she also erred in trusting Umbridge.

Even if we don't know exactly how the memory charm worked, I can't see an auror like Kingsley modifying memories for any longer than necessary. Although he is willing to resort to subterfuge in hiding Sirius, he seemed more ethical than to permanently destroy a student's memory. There is always the possibility of multiple jinxes having a multiplied effect. Hermione's jinx = 4, Kingsley's jinx = 3, and 3 x 4 = the longevity of a 12. ??? 'Just a thought.



Solitaire - Sep 24, 2004 6:04 pm (#168 of 1080)
Okay, Chemyst ... I didn't think that maybe his "memory charm" had an expiration date. I have always assumed them to be relatively permanent. Hence the damage that is done when people have tried to break them.

I will agree that Kingsley is a good guy and far too ethical to do any real damage. But if he wiped that information out of her mind, I am willing to bet that firsthand memory of it cannot be restored without more spells. If it has been restored and she remembers (on her own, without having just been told) what happened and why, then I say fine ... let her take her lumps (or bumps, in her case). But if she truly has no memory of what happened or why, then I must say I feel sorry for her at this point.

As for Umbridge, I believe she is gone from Hogwarts (didn't Dumbledore give that order to Fudgey-wudgy?), and I hope with all my heart that she will NOT return ... unless it is to wash dishes or clean bedpans.

Solitaire



MzWhizz123 - Sep 24, 2004 6:44 pm (#169 of 1080)
I have a nasty feeling that we will, indeed, be seeing more of Delores in the future. Although despicable, I think that she is too strong a character to have disappeared for long--sort of like some putrid fungus.

She might be doing something demeaning, like washing bedpans, but I don't trust that she is through with DD and Harry yet. After all, she IS in league with Voldie!



MzWhizz123 - Sep 24, 2004 6:46 pm (#170 of 1080)
Sorry, to get back on the subject, I agree with Chemyst that Marietta is an opportunist.



Prefect Marcus - Sep 24, 2004 6:51 pm (#171 of 1080)
Well, there seems to be differring levels of memory charms. There is the "total memory wipe-out" which Lockhart tried to zap Ron and Harry with. There is the "minor detail modification" that was performed on the camp-site owner at the Quidditch World Cup.

As Voldemort informed us in GoF, no memory charm is absolutely final. Even the strongest charm can be broken by brute force. The weaker ones can easily be broken just with the proper inducement. The campsite keeper's memory kept slipping through the fog just on the stimulation that odd things were happening. These caused him to remember the other odd things, things he supposedly had been made to forget.

Another thing to consider is that Kingsley didn't put a great deal of energy into that spell. He couldn't, otherwise Fudge and Umbridge would know what he did.

So I think when you take all these threads and add them together, you get Kingsley putting a light memory charm on Marietta that lasted during the confrontation in Dumbledore's office, perhaps even through the night. But it likely was broken by the sight of her nasty zits, the cold-shoulder of her former friends, and the rumors she would have heard.



TomProffitt - Sep 24, 2004 7:28 pm (#172 of 1080)
That fits very well with my view, Marcus.



Chemyst - Sep 24, 2004 8:33 pm (#173 of 1080)
Thanks for supplying a great defense, Marcus. Now I don't have to write a reply to Solitaire. I'll just say ditto.
(I would have missed that "available energy" angle; it a good one.)



Solitaire - Sep 25, 2004 12:09 am (#174 of 1080)
Well, Marietta already knows she has the zits--she saw them pop out on her face in Umbridge's office, as she was telling her about the meetings--so it isn't going to be as though she has not seen them before. It is true that we do not know the extent of the memory modification, and Kingsley may only have modified a very limited part of her memory--such as the knowledge of six months worth of meetings.

Still, all of the memory charms we have heard about thus far wipe certain memories totally from the person involved and require some fairly complex charms to be broken. From what I read on page 78 of GoF (US ed.), the reason they had to keep performing memory charms on Mr. Roberts, the campground manager, was not because the charms wore off; it was because witches and wizards kept doing and saying "inappropriate" things in front of him. Each time it happened, another memory charm was needed to obliviate it. Then came the torturing by the DEs. I rather doubt that anyone wanted him to remember THOSE things--or indeed any of the other things he was not supposed to hear or see--at ANY point; so I kind of have a hunch that all of the memory charms performed on him were permanent.

We know that Bertha Jorkins began to be considered spacey and forgetful at a point which we can probably conclude was when Crouch modified her memory of seeing Barty, Jr. Indeed, that charm was sufficiently strong that breaking it rendered her useless for Voldemort to possess, which tells me that some mental damage was done both in the casting and the breaking of the charm. And I have no doubt that breaking it also involved physical torture from Voldemort ... just because he was Voldemort.

I'm not suggesting that Kingsley's charm would have been as serious as the one placed on Bertha. First, it was only noticed by Harry and Dumbledore, apparently, which means he didn't speak; based on Hermione's experience in the DoM, not speaking the spell seems to "soften" a spell's effect somewhat. Second, I don't think Kingsley wanted to do anything more than absolutely necessary to stop Marietta from talking further. However, until JKR tells us herself that there are memory charms that "wear off" after a certain time period, I do not think we should just assume that as if it were a fact.

Indeed, since the damage appears to have been done to Marietta's face, she really wouldn't have much to lose by contacting Umbridge or Fudge again and telling them that she remembers now what she was going to tell them the previous day, would she? In fact, it would be the perfect revenge, if--as you suggest--she is being cold-shouldered by her friends. Yet, she doesn't appear to have done anything further. I figure it's because she can't remember the entire situation very clearly.

Solitaire



Prefect Marcus - Sep 25, 2004 8:14 am (#175 of 1080)
Solitaire,

My impression of the memory charms is that they do not completely and totally remove memories. If they did, then no amount of fancy, powerful spells could recover them. What is gone, is gone. You can't get something from nothing.

I see the charms as sort of "pushing away" memories. You make the moemory harder to recall. A light push will cause the memory to be just beyond reach, but fairly easy to recover. A very hard push will place it so far away that only extraordinary efforts can bring it back.

I suspect Kingsley gave Marietta a "light push". So light, in fact, that if Dumbledore and Kingsley hadn't intervened, Umbridge would have broken through by brute force.



Catherine - Sep 25, 2004 2:19 pm (#176 of 1080)
I like your memory charm explanation, Marcus.

It's like a misfiled document; not destroyed, but just not immediately accessible.

P.S. Nice to see you posting again.



Solitaire - Sep 25, 2004 2:28 pm (#177 of 1080)
What about Lockhart's memory charms? If they had been only temporary, wouldn't his victims have come looking for him a long time ago--as soon as they began to read about THEIR exploits in HIS books? Yet they never do. I can't believe they would all be generous enough to let him claim their exploits as his own AND grab all the gold along with it, if they remembered anything.

Of course, you are free to believe as you do. I simply believe differently--as I am free to do. I think the entire purpose of the memory charm is to either remove or modify a memory of something. I cannot believe that anyone wanted Mr. Roberts remembering the torturing incident or the conversations about bludgers.

Likewise, I do not believe Kingsley really wanted Marietta remembering about the meetings in a few hours or even in a few days. It is possible that her memory charm was sufficiently mild that he could restore her memory with a countercharm. But we do not know that, nor do we know he ever attempted to restore the modified memories. We also do not know that any of the other memory charms cast in the books have simply worn off their victims. Until I read that they have, I will have to continue thinking as I do.

Solitaire



Chemyst - Sep 25, 2004 4:21 pm (#178 of 1080)
When Umbridge was "inspecting" Professor McGonagall, the class was studying vanishing spells. McG explains: "The vanishing spell becomes more difficult with the complexity of the animal to be vanished. The snail, as an invertebrate, does not present much of a challenge, the mouse, as a mammal, offers a much greater one. This is not, therefore, magic you can accomplish with your mind on dinner..." OP, 15

Just as there are levels of vanishing spells, it would seem probable that there are different levels vanishing, muddling, obscuring, obfuscating, and obliterating memory. So, "what about Lockhart's memory charms?" you ask. Lockhart was highly skilled in this narrow area of magic. I think that all Lockhart's memory spells as well as the one cast on Bertha by Crouch were higher-level spells intended to be permanent. For Marietta, however, Kingsley had no real need to make her memory loss permanent. The DA had already been exposed, Umbridge had the signed list. The important thing now was to enable Dumbledore to escape before Umbridge's blind allegiance to the ministry could compromise The Order.

Moreover, as the story is told from Harry's point of view, Harry is not certain what charm was used; it may not have been a memory-removal charm. He describes a whisper and gentle draft as of birds wings. This sounds nothing like the violent rupture and rock-fall of Lockhart's attempt to cast the "Obliviate!" charm. And in fact, Marietta was behaving more like a puppet than a person who'd had a selection of memories removed. When DD told Minerva to thank Kingsley for being so quick on the uptake, he used the term "modify," not "erase." And despite wearing a balaclava on the train home, she must have recovered enough to complete the school year. Final exams require something beyond nodding the head.

On a side note, while I was looking up quotes for this post, I found it curious that Lockhart was admitted to St. Mungo's 4th floor for unliftable and incorrectly applied charms, and not to the ground floor for artifact accidents such as wands backfiring... Does anyone want to start a *Lockhart Misdiagnosed* theory?



Solitaire - Sep 25, 2004 5:34 pm (#179 of 1080)
Maybe he wasn't misdiagnosed. He obviously applied his memory charm incorrectly, given the fact that he intended it to be applied to Harry and Ron instead of himself. And if he was placed in the ward for unliftable charms, then perhaps memory charms aren't considered unliftable. Perhaps they are generally intended to be considered permanent.



Prefect Marcus - Sep 25, 2004 5:47 pm (#180 of 1080)
In order for Voldemort to break the memory charm that Crouch put on Bertha, he had to apply such force that it left her broken. Are you suggesting that St. Mungos' apply the same force to retrieve Lockhart's?



Solitaire - Sep 25, 2004 6:12 pm (#181 of 1080)
No, I am suggesting that perhaps when people cast memory charms, they should consider them as permanent ... because they may NOT be able to be removed.

Frankly, I don't think Lockhart deserves to be cured all the way anyway. I think he abused his power as a wizard and his punishment fits his crimes. Hopefully, he can relearn enough life skills to lead a reasonably normal life without his old memories. I think a Lockhart with a wand is a dangerous thing.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Mona on Thu May 19, 2011 12:37 am; edited 5 times in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 59
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Posts 182 to 240

Post  Mona Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:33 pm

Tomoé - Sep 25, 2004 6:49 pm (#182 of 1080)
Maybe memory charms are considered unliftable because the effect of the counter-curse are worst than the curse itself.



Solitaire - Sep 25, 2004 6:59 pm (#183 of 1080)
I think that is very likely, Tomoé. It is a case of the cure being worse than the sickness. And knowing Voldemort, he doesn't care if there isn't anything left of the person afterwards.

When I looked at the Lexicon information on memory charms and spells, it seems to me that their intent is to modify or remove portions of memories. I take that to mean modify or remove for good, since it doesn't say it is temporary ... and since all of the examples given are of a kind that wizards would want to last permanently.

Solitaire



Chemyst - Sep 26, 2004 1:38 am (#184 of 1080)
He obviously applied his memory charm incorrectly I'm a little fuzzy on what you mean by applied. The text indicates that Lockhart executed the charm perfectly and with full force, and only the brokeness of the wand saved Ron and Harry. Lockhart's condition is a result of equipment failure, not wizard error. But this is a Marietta thread so back to topic –

The Lexicon details the Obliviate! charm. This is the standard used on muggles and was Lockhart's spell of choice. In GF, recipients of the Obliviate charm are described as unconcerned and placid. Marietta becomes vacant and blank. (At the World Cup, Mr. Roberts became peaceful, but was still able function distributing maps and making change.) In no place do we find the Obliviate charm being whispered or described as a gentle draft. (The wizard who performed it on Mr. Roberts said it sharply and used a wand.)

In addition to these differences, the text makes it quite plain that Kingsley exhibited a civil respect for the students. After Umbridge had tried to shake Marietta, Kingsley used his low voice and the power of suggestion to tell Umbridge that she wanted to calm herself. It does not seem likely that Kingsley would permanently charm a student's mind where the cure is worse than the sickness if better options that can wear off were available. Neither does it seem likely that the only memory charm that exists in all the wizarding world is One Size Wipes All.



Solitaire - Sep 26, 2004 6:51 am (#185 of 1080)
When I said that Lockhart applied the charm incorrectly, I was being facetious. The fact that it was accidentally applied to himself rather than his intended victims can be construed as an incorrect application.

In the end, until we are given more specifics from JKR, I suppose we are all entitled to consider memory charms as we choose. Since all of the charms I've read about to this point have involved information being permanently wiped from the victim's mind, I shall continue to consider them as intended to be permanent.

The Wizard who Obliviated Mr. Roberts' memory did not have to worry about it being overheard by inappropriate persons, since no other Muggles were standing right there. Kingsley was obviously unable to perform this particular charm out loud in front of Fudge, since it would have been a dead giveaway that he was NOT on the side of the Ministry in this affair. However, he is a powerful wizard and can obviously cast certain charms and spells without words--since he obviously did. Whether or not he used a wand is not known. It was very crowded in the office, so perhaps he simply held it down at his side; we are not told.

Finally--as I've said before--I simply cannot see the point of casting a "wearing off" memory charm on Marietta, since she could simply go to Umbridge again when the affected part of her memory returned. But that is old road and it has been sufficiently covered. Either you believe it or you do not. I do; you do not.

Until I know from JKR that some memory charms are intended to "wear off," I will continue to think of them as intended to be permanent, regardless of whether or not they are uttered aloud. Cheers! Smile

Solitaire



Phoenix song - Sep 26, 2004 9:26 am (#186 of 1080)
It does strike me that there was a difference in the known memory charms that we've seen and in the charm that we've seen performed on Marietta Edgecombe.

The known memory charm performed on Mr. Roberts in the GoF:

" 'Obliviate!' he said sharply, pointing his wand at Mr. Roberts.

"Instantly Mr. Robert's eyes slid out of focus, his brows unknitted and a look of dreamy unconcern fell over his face. Harry recognized the symptoms of one who had just had his memory modified." (GoF, Ch. 7, pgs. 77-78)

The suspicious memory charm performed upon Marietta Edgecombe:

"As Dumbledore spoke, Harry heard a rustle behind him and rather thought that he felt something brush against his side, a gentle something like a draft or bird wings, but looking down he saw nothing there." LATER...

"Everyone in the room was gazing at the top of Marietta's face. Only her eyes were visible between the pulled up robes and her curly fringe. Perhaps it was a trick of the firelight, but her eyes looked oddly blank. And then-to Harry's utter amazement-Marietta shook her head." (OoP, Ch. 27, pgs. 615-616)

We know that Kingsley performed a memory modifying charm upon Marietta. " 'He was remarkably quick on the uptake, modifying Miss Edgecombe's memory like that while everyone was looking the other way--thank him for me, won't you Minerva?' " (OoP, Ch. 27, pg. 621)

What we don't know is that the SAME memory charm that permanently modifies a memory is the one that was used upon Marietta. Since the memory charm was performed in a drastically differing manner than the permanent one, it may be that the effects of the memory charm are not the same. We can also see that the symptoms of the memory charm were different. Mr. Roberts looked dreamy and unconcerned. Marietta looked blank. If the symptoms are different, and the execution is different, then it is possible that the charm was different. Therefore it is possible that the permanence of the spell is different as well.

We also know that JKR values loyalty and bravery above all other characteristics. It doesn't seem beneficial for JKR to have Hermione teach Marietta a lesson in loyalty and then have the lesson negated by the permanent removal of the instigating action.

I've also considered the possibility that the permanence of a "memory charm" may lie in the intent in which the memory charm is placed. The word modify means: 1. To change in form or character; alter. 2. To make less extreme, severe, or strong. It seems to me that there could be varying degrees of modification based upon the wizard's intentions. If his intention were a temporary or less drastic "modification", then I would think that this would be possible.

I agree that we will not know that a memory charm can be temporary until JKR gives us evidence, but I don't think that we should discount its possibility either.

Barbie



Mrs Brisbee - Oct 1, 2004 2:18 pm (#187 of 1080)
Whether or not Marietta can ever remember her actions, and whether or not she turns out to be just someone who made a mistake or a scumbag tattletale, what I want most is for her to be treated fairly.

The only person we know to have actually talked to her about what she did is Cho. No matter what her actions it doesn't seem fair to not find out her version of events. (I realize this might not be possible given the memory charm, but then she should be given the benefit of the doubt). I can't help but be reminded of Crouch, Sr sending Sirius to Azkaban without a trial because it was so obvious he was guilty, and Snape hating Lupin because he was so sure Lupin was in on the deadly "joke" Sirius played on him. While Marietta isn't innocent--she did rat out the DA--there might be something there to mitigate her actions. Harry, his friends, and the other DA members aren't going to know unless they ask.

If Marietta does come back for her final year at Hogwarts, I can see her being harrassed by some of the more immature DA members, hexing her when teachers aren't looking--just like James and Sirius at school, hexing people they didn't like just because they could. It will be interesting to see how that goes down, since Harry hates bullying so much he felt disgust for his father and sorry for Snape after he saw that little incident in the Pensieve.

I think this will play out in book 6, and learning to treat Marietta fairly will be an important lesson for all the kids in the DA.



Gerald Costales - Oct 2, 2004 4:49 am (#188 of 1080)
Marietta is the current outcast. Snape was the outcast for the Marauder's.

Even as an adult Snape is still bitter about the way James, Sirius, and Lupin treated him. That bitterness is a factor in the death of Sirius. Harry should have been able ask Snape to check on Sirius, but Harry felt forced to get information through Umbridge's fireplace and ended up talking to Kreacher. Kreacher's lack of information caused Harry to panic. And you know the rest.

Forgiveness is an important theme in the Books. How the current student's treat Marietta will be important. Marietta is unlikeable. But, Marietta still deserves to be treated with kindness and fairly.

Remember Dumbledore wanted Sirius to treat Kreacher fairly and Sirius didn't. Kreacher eventually betrayed Sirius. And know it was more complicated than that, but kindness and forgiveness will still prove to be important. ;-) GC



Steve Newton - Oct 2, 2004 5:48 am (#189 of 1080)
Forgiveness is a good thing. But, Marietta betrayed her friends. She was willing to cause them great harm. She knew of expulsion. (Probably didn't know that the cruciatus curse would be involved.) In the next few months such a betrayal would lead to deaths among the DA. This is not forgivable.



Penny Lane. - Oct 2, 2004 11:07 am (#190 of 1080)
I don't think Marietta should be forgiven. She KNEW that telling Umbridge could - and probably would - lead to expulsion for all of the people in the order.

Expulsion from Hogwarts is not just expulsion from school, it is expulsion from the ENTIRE wizarding world. She was willing to ruin the lives of her friends for her own personal gain. I can not see any logical reason that Cho should even still talk to Marietta.

Marietta listened to Harry's story of Voldemort. She knew perfectly well that turning in her friends to Umbridge was more than just expulsion as well. Lives could be at stake as well, if people didn't learn basic self-protection spells.

The wizarding world is fighting a war right now. Marietta should not be forgiven, she knew what was at stake. Now, that brings me to the question of "Why wasn't Miss Edgecombe placed in Slytherin?"



Gerald Costales - Oct 2, 2004 12:18 pm (#191 of 1080)
The only defense for Marietta is age, immaturity and inexperience. Umbridge probably promised Marietta that no one would be harmed. And Marietta being naive and desparate believed Umbridge.

Cho also mentioned that Marietta's mom was in the Ministry. Marietta must have had a real sense of fear for the safety of her mom.

Marietta and Cho have no memories of when Voldermort was in power. Voldermort's first rise to power is ancient history to them.

Neither are totally innocent. And it would take a very understanding person to forgive them both. ;-) GC



Phoenix song - Oct 2, 2004 12:43 pm (#192 of 1080)
I don't think that Marietta has done something that would make her unforgivable. I agree that she has done something terrible. I agree that she should never be completely trusted again, but I don't think that she's an "Unforgivable" case. As has been pointed out before, some would consider what James had done to Snape as being a normally unforgivable action. I think that Harry is a compassionate person, and he would be willing to forgive Marietta if she was repentant enough. We don't know all of the pressure that she may have felt, and many of us are forgetting that she was young and quite possibly naive.

We should also remember that Sirius set Snape up to be unwittingly killed by one of his best friends, Lupin. This is a case of someone doing something that could have had lethal, mortal consequences. Not only would a student have been killed, his friend would have been a murderer, and Dumbledore would have taken the responsibility for knowingly allowing a werewolf to attend Hogwarts. Surely if he can be redeemable then Marietta is redeemable as well.

I'm not excusing her behavior, because it was appalling and could have been disastrous. But I think that we can all try to place ourselves in her situation. I also think that we do not know her side of the story. We need to remember that to err is human, but to forgive is divine.

So, I think that Harry can forgive Marietta. (But I don't think that she should ever be his secret keeper! LOL)

Barbie



Hermy-own - Oct 2, 2004 3:44 pm (#193 of 1080)
I have to agree with Gerald and Barbie on this one. Excellent posts!

"Now, that brings me to the question of "Why wasn't Miss Edgecombe placed in Slytherin?"" -- Penny L.

Penny, the fact is we do not know enough about Marietta Edgecombe to answer this question. For all we know she could be the model Ravenclaw student who, on one unfortunate occasion, succumbed to the influence of Professor Umbridge.

I am not entirely sure why you would want to ask this question in the first place; however, I will hazard a guess and say it is related to the idea that Slytherins are inclined to save their own necks. In this case, Marietta acted without regard for her fellow students; she did what she thought was best for herself.

Is this where you are going with your question?

Hermy.



rambkowalczyk - Oct 2, 2004 3:48 pm (#194 of 1080)
I like the analogy between Marietta and Sirius that is if we can forgive Sirius for putting Snape's life in danger we should be able to forgive Marietta.

I wonder if Marietta will be a bitter adult like the way Snape is now. If she is hexed or shunned by the DA, will she accept responsibility for her actions or will she think poor me no body likes me. No point in being nice anymore.



total hatred - Oct 2, 2004 4:13 pm (#195 of 1080)
Acceptable but the circumstances are different. Marrietta did it to save her mother from being sacked by Fudge. Sirius did it to teach Snape not to poke his nose on their activities



Neville Longbottom - Oct 2, 2004 4:23 pm (#196 of 1080)
I agree that she deserves a second chance. Now, I don't like Marietta Edgecombe. But in these books, many characters became second chances, including Snape, who was once a Death Eater and therefore did probably worse than Marietta. I agree that she shouldn't be trusted easily again, but I also would feel sorry for her, if she would wear the SNEAK mark forever. She's still a schoolgirl who had to make a decision between her mother and her friend. And I just don't like it that she's still marked, while Umbridge could simply run away.



Steve Newton - Oct 2, 2004 4:25 pm (#197 of 1080)
Total, I don't recall it being said anywhere that Marietta was trying to save her mother from being sacked by Fudge. Where was this?



Solitaire - Oct 2, 2004 6:13 pm (#198 of 1080)
total hatred: Acceptable but the circumstances are different. Marrietta did it to save her mother from being sacked by Fudge.

I started this post a while ago and was interrupted by an emergency. I just discovered I never sent it, so I am retooling a bit ... I see Steve has asked the question I was going to ask: Where in the book does it say her mother was about to be sacked? I got the idea from the scene in the book that Fudge didn't even know who Marietta was--until Umbridge informed him that she was the daughter of Madam Edgecombe, who worked in the floo network office of the Department of Magical Transportation.

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't even know who Madam Edgecombe was, let alone that she worked for the Ministry (yes, this is just a guess, not proven). If the headquarters of the Ministry of Magic is even remotely like the typical government bureaucratic headquarters I've seen, there are probably so many people who work there in various departments, divisions, and offices that the Big Cheese--or should I say the Big Fudge--couldn't possibly know all of them.

No one has argued for mercy for Marietta any more ardently than I have--particularly in light of her modified memory and potential inability to remember anything about the DA. That said, I must say that Marietta didn't seem too pleased at being dragged to the original Hog's Head meeting by her friend Cho. Then Cho set her robe on fire at the first meeting, and the book says Marietta glared at Harry like it was his fault. Cho tells Harry that Marietta's parents have forbidden her to do anything that might upset Umbridge, since her mom works at the Ministry--but nothing was said about the DA. Mum would only have known about it if Marietta told her--in which case SNEAK would have appeared even sooner.

I kind of have to agree that Marietta knew she breaking the "contract" that they'd all signed and did it anyway. No, she did not realize the contract was jinxed; but she knew that signing it was joining into a contract with the others. Cho didn't hold a wand to her head and force her to sign it, nor did anyone else. She could have said up front that she did not feel comfortable joining, given her mom's job, etc.; but she did not.

Even at the point where she snitched, she could have just talked to Harry and Hermione and said she no longer felt comfortable going to the meetings and was going to stop; but she could have still maintained her "contract." Instead, she went secretly to Umbridge and ratted out the group. I DO feel she got what she deserved there.

My only quibble all along was whether she even remembers, at this point, the chain of events that led her to having SNEAK written across her face in boils and zits. At some point, I do feel her punishment should be lifted. But I also feel she needs to understand that what she did could have had serious consequences. Had she done something similar in the "outside world," it could have been fatal to those who were betrayed. She needs to understand the seriousness.

I would like to see that issue addressed, so that she is more prudent in the future with regard to the lives and safety of her friends and herself. This lesson needs to be UNDERSTOOD by her and everyone else to be of value.

Solitaire



Penny Lane. - Oct 2, 2004 6:52 pm (#199 of 1080)
Even if Marietta doesn't realize that the DA exists, she still should have to live with something. She caused MAJOR problems, her tattling could have been fatal to Harry, to Cho, to anyone else in the DA. Even if she doesn't realize that the DA exits anymore, she still remembers being in the Office, being quizzed by Umbridge and Dumbledore. Cho has probably filled her in on the details by now, which is sad.

Lockhart no longer knows why he's in St. Mungo's, or what he did to people. I think Marietta should have the spots so that EVERYONE knows that she is not trustworthy and only acts in her own selfish interest. Maybe they will dissapear by graduation. I think that would be a suitable amout of time.



Gerald Costales - Oct 3, 2004 6:29 am (#200 of 1080)
Second chances and mercy, etc.

Hagrid was given a second chance by Dumbledore after being expelled at Hogwarts. Everyone thought that Hagrid had released the beast that turned Moaning Murtle into stone. Hagrid was even sent to Azkaban when the Chamber was reopened. And it took 50 years before the truth came out.

We don't know the story about Snape's conversion from being a Death Eater, but like Hermione, I believe Snape deserved a second chance.

And one of the worst people in the book Wormtail was spared by Harry, because it was what Harry thought his father would have done.

In one of the other threads the emotional investment we put into these characters was brought up.

Marietta is a young woman who made a terrible mistake. I get a sense in the posts that Marietta's betrayal really brings out a strong emotional reaction to many readers.

But, if we value forgiveness and mercy than Marietta can be forgiven and should be forgiven. It may be a long time before any trust is restored in Marietta, though.

The choices the characters make in how they treat Marietta will reveal what they really are and what they value. Harry has strived to be good and has done the right thing. If anyone forgives Marietta it will be Harry. ;-) GC



Gerald Costales - Oct 3, 2004 6:54 am (#201 of 1080)
Solitaire (re: post #198)

"My only quibble all along was whether she even remembers, at this point, the chain of events that led her to having SNEAK written across her face in boils and zits. At some point, I do feel her punishment should be lifted. But I also feel she needs to understand that what she did could have had serious consequences. Had she done something similar in the "outside world," it could have been fatal to those who were betrayed. She needs to understand the seriousness.

I would like to see that issue addressed, so that she is more prudent in the future with regard to the lives and safety of her friends and herself. This lesson needs to be UNDERSTOOD by her and everyone else to be of value."

I believe that since it took Harry a summer to process Cedric's death, then after a summer of reflection Marietta will be able to ask forgiveness. Sometimes the stupid things we do happen so quickly. Marietta really didn't think it through.

It will be interesting how JKR handles it. Whether Dumbledore speaks to Harry directly or speaks to the entire school about the aftermaths of the departure of Umbridge. Or Hagrid could talk to Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Similar to the time Hagrid scolded Harry and Ron on how they were treating Hermione when Hermione told McGonagall about Harry getting the Firebolt. ;-) GC



Solitaire - Oct 3, 2004 7:50 am (#202 of 1080)
I agree with the "second chances issue," Gerald. One might say that Dumbledore and Hogwarts have been the land of second chances, given the examples you cite.

I suppose some would say Snape still bears the "mark" of his misdeeds; it is just not generally visible to the world, as Marietta's is.

Harry bears the marks of ticking off Umbridge, and they will probably never go away--despite the fact that he has been proven correct and she has been proven foolish and possibly criminal.

Harry may wonder about the wisdom of giving traitors second chances, after he gave Wormtail a second chance and he used it to help bring Voldemort back to life and power. Still, Harry has been the recipient of second chances for a couple of serious infractions (the flying car, sneaking into Hogsmeade, inflating Aunt Marge, running away--I don't mention many of the other incidents, because there were usually life-threatening or life-saving circumstances involved), so he will hopefully lean toward being merciful.

Hermione has certainly been the champion of second chances thus far; it will be interesting to see if she feels Marietta merits one.

I would say that Marietta's misfortunes have served to inform the students at Hogwarts of some important lessons: First, there are consequences to betrayals. Second, don't take on responsibilities you cannot fulfill or do not fully support; if you drop the ball, others could be in serious jeopardy. Third and most importantly, don't mess with Hermione; you may live to regret it.

Solitaire



Leila 2X4B - Oct 3, 2004 9:39 pm (#203 of 1080)
I know there is no where in the book that states word for word that she tattled because of fear for her mother. However, there is no where in the book that states that she did it for personal gain. Actually, since all of our information came from Umbridge we do not know how the information came from her. For intent and purposes,the info could have come from any number of scenerios. She could have been threatened to tell. Umbridge knew who was there at that first meeting and could have been looking for the weak link and try to press that person for info. We do not know to what she succumbed to. She could have been crucioed herself.

Leila



Solitaire - Oct 3, 2004 9:59 pm (#204 of 1080)
On page 612 of OotP (US ed.)--BEFORE Marietta's memory was modified, so she could have denied it, since she was standing right there--Umbridge tried to get Marietta to tell Fudge what happened, but she was afraid to talk. Umbridge then said that SHE will tell him what Marietta says.

She proceeded to tell that Marietta came to her office shortly after dinner "and told me she had something she wanted to tell me. She said that if I proceeded to a secret room on the seventh floor, sometimes known as the Room of Requirement, I would find out something to my advantage. I questioned her a little further and she admitted that there was to be some kind of meeting there. Unfortunately at that point this hex came into operation and upon catching sight of her face in my mirror the girl became to distressed to tell me any more."

It doesn't sound like Umbridge hunted down Marietta. Also, I rather doubt that her mother or anyone else had threatened her to tell about the group, because if she had told her mother or anyone else about the group's existence, the curse would have broken out sooner.

Whatever her reasons--and they may simply have been fear of getting into trouble--it sounds like Marietta came to Umbridge of her own volition. She was nailed by the curse, and she knew it, which is why she stopped talking at that point.

Solitaire



total hatred - Oct 4, 2004 2:50 am (#205 of 1080)
I see the point but the big question is why did she had done it? Even though Umbridge doesn't hunt her, Toadsley's growing influence is pressuring her to save her own skin. She knows the consequence if ever Toadsley will ever found out that she has joined an illegal group. She might be expelled and Toadsley will give her parents a major headache



Mrs Brisbee - Oct 4, 2004 4:45 am (#206 of 1080)
Maybe Marietta didn't do it because of threats, or because she thought she had anything to gain (in fact, there was a good chance she would get in serious trouble too, as she had been going to the meetings for over half a year).

She never believed Harry's story about Lord Voldemort being back, and I think she finally decided that Harry was just too much of a disruptive nutcase to ignore. She may have started seeing the DA in a more sinister light after Harry's Quibbler interview was printed. Seamus had been convinced by the interview that Harry had been telling the truth, and Marietta picked his first DA meeting to go to Umbridge. In fact the mood in the school had shifted at that point to most people believing that Voldemort was back, thanks to the Quibbler interview. I think the idea that the DA would be growing in numbers was what finally tipped the balance for Marietta, and she decided to take action.

Of course, it was a bad decision. And it had bad concequences, resulting in Umbridge being put in charge of the school. Marietta does need to be held responsible for her actions, but she may very well regret them, especially now as the Ministry admits Voldemort is back. How many months/years does she deserve to be punished? I think she should have a second chance. The members of the DA should at least talk to her before they condemn her, and make sure they are treating her fairly.



Leila 2X4B - Oct 4, 2004 5:23 am (#207 of 1080)
The whole point of my post was this. Why, of all things, are we trusting Umbridge at her word. Just because we know that Umbridge is foul, does not mean the Marietta held the same view. Percy called Umbridge a "delightful" woman. Perhaps, she saw this little group as something else. We do not know what was going through her head when she made that choice either. There are any number of possibilites of why and how Marietta came to get that hex upon her face. Sometimes, it is just hard to do something that you feel will get you in trouble with your parents. In PoA, Harry worried that he would go to Azkaban for blowing up his aunt. What if Marietta held that same fear?

Leila



Gerald Costales - Oct 4, 2004 5:28 am (#208 of 1080)
Solitaire (re: post #204)

"Umbridge then said that SHE will tell him what Marietta says."

If Umbridge had used some force or influence on Marietta, Umbridge wouldn't be revealing it in front of Fudge. Umbridge didn't reveal she sent the Dementors. Umbridge can't be trusted.

The whole truth about Marietta hasn't been revealed. ;-) GC



Solitaire - Oct 4, 2004 6:15 am (#209 of 1080)
There is just something conciliating in the tone of Umbridge's comments and behavior toward Marietta, similar to the way she acts toward the Slytherins--UNTIL the memory charm, when she gets angry at Marietta's unwillingness to speak (and inability to tell her story after the charm). This makes me think that Marietta sought out Umbridge. I can't help it. It's what I think happened.

Personally, I think Marietta was ticked by Cho's growing interest in Harry--because she didn't believe Harry's story, because she didn't like him, because she didn't like the idea of Cho being with Cedric's "rival," because she didn't have a boyfriend and was jealous that Cho had one, or any other "because"--and she simply decided to put a stop to it all.

The fact is that Marietta's nose was usually "out of joint" whenever Harry was around Cho. I believe this indicates that she didn't like him and she didn't want Cho around him, either. Hating your best friend's boyfriend--well, girl friendships have broken up over less. But if someone else (Umbridge) became the barrier to Cho and Harry seeing each other so much, then she would have gained her point and no one would be the wiser.

Having taught kids in the 11-17 age range and closely observed their behaviors for the past 19 years--especially the behavior among girlfriends--I think the above is a fair representation of what MIGHT have been going on. Yes, it is pure speculation. But I think it is as good a reason as any other we have heard for Marietta to blow the whistle.

Solitaire



Gerald Costales - Oct 4, 2004 6:00 pm (#210 of 1080)
Solitaire

"Having taught kids in the 11-17 age range and closely observed their behaviors for the past 19 years--especially the behavior among girlfriends--I think the above is a fair representation of what MIGHT have been going on. Yes, it is pure speculation. But I think it is as good a reason as any other we have heard for Marietta to blow the whistle."

I will bow to your experience with this situation.

But, if Marietta returns she must have some symbolic meaning whether it's don't cross the DA or what I wish forgiveness and mercy.

Marietta and for that matter Cho maybe become just minor behind the scenes characters. Under the circumstances Marietta may not be returning at all, would you whether pimple faced or pimple free. GC



Solitaire - Oct 4, 2004 6:45 pm (#211 of 1080)
Thanks, Gerald. As I said, it is still speculation. I just think it make sense, having seen similar behavior before.

As for "symbolic" meaning for Marietta, do you mean she is there for some purpose, or lesson? Perhaps her fate teaches some lessons: If you betray someone, be prepared to pay the price ... Don't take on a "cause" if you don't really believe in it ... Be careful whom you trust with your secrets ... ???

Solitaire



Gerald Costales - Oct 5, 2004 5:14 am (#212 of 1080)
"Be careful whom you trust with your secrets ... ???" Solitaire

This statement applies to Wormtail as well as Marietta.

But, the lesson we should learn from Marietta should be forgiveness and mercy. Marietta can't be as evil as Wormtail. (Wormtail was an adult and Marietta is still a teenager.)

Marietta deserves a second chance. And if Marietta doesn't remember what she did, you should be able to cut Marietta some slack. ;-) GC



TomProffitt - Oct 5, 2004 5:58 am (#213 of 1080)
Most books involving magic and Dark Lords tend to have very clear lines between good guys and bad guys. Life isn't like that and neither is Jo Rowling.

Albus Dumbledore and Lord Voldemort are the two poles. Everyone else lies somewhere in between.

I think our little Kangaroo Court has run Marietta unfairly off towards Lord Voldemort's pole. A grievous error in judgment does not make one a Death Eater. Frankly, Sirius Black was capable of murder at sixteen. As prejudiced as Severus Snape is, he still got that one right.

Marietta has a lot better chance of growing into a good respectable person than Sirius Black. We should hope that Flitwick and Dumbledore (and Harry and the DA) bring her back into the fold and guide her on the correct path.

Even in the worst case scenario Marietta wasn't a prime candidate for the Inquisitorial Squad, much less a Death Eater. We need to hear her unobliviated explanation for what she has done before we pack her off to Azkaban.



Solitaire - Oct 5, 2004 6:15 am (#214 of 1080)
I agree, Tom and Gerald. And if you look at several of my previous posts on this thread, you will see that. I still have serious doubts that she even remembers much about the entire fiasco. Being told about it isn't the same as remembering it.



Mrs Brisbee - Oct 5, 2004 12:53 pm (#215 of 1080)
I think Gerald Costales and Tom Proffitt put it very well in their posts. What Marietta did at age 16, bad though it was, should not doom her forever and ever. Her role in book 6 I think will be to give the DA members the chance to either bully her as punishment for her transgression, or find it in themselves to forgive her. The world isn't black and white, and there are far worse things out there than Marietta Edgecombe. It's good to have a little perspective, and sometimes a little mercy too.



Solitaire - Oct 5, 2004 6:04 pm (#216 of 1080)
I suppose much will depend on Marietta herself and whether she acknowledges her mistake and attempts to apologize and ask forgiveness. I would like to think our Trio and the rest can find mercy in their hearts.



eggplant - Oct 16, 2004 8:43 am (#217 of 1080)
To those who think a breakout in acne is too severe a punishment for Marietta let me ask you something: During World War 2 what do you think would have happened to a member of the French Resistance who was caught betraying her comrades to the Nazis? Do you think she’d get acne or a bullet in the brain?

Eggplant



TomProffitt - Oct 16, 2004 8:52 am (#218 of 1080)
As despicable as Umbridge was, she isn't exactly an occupying enemy conqueror.



eggplant - Oct 16, 2004 9:02 am (#219 of 1080)
"As despicable as Umbridge was, she isn't exactly an occupying enemy conqueror."

She most certainly was an occupying enemy conqueror of Hogwarts, she ran the place, and she had already tried to kill Harry and was about to start torturing him! Rowling said more than once that they were at war and in war traitors are dealt with harshly. This is no longer kid stuff, fun and games, this is life and death.

Eggplant



TomProffitt - Oct 16, 2004 11:54 am (#220 of 1080)
Can't see it, Eggplant. Marietta has been dealt with harshly enough. We can't go lining our potential allies against the wall. Whatever errors may have passed, those we can bring to our aid should be dealt with justly and fairly, not with vengeance in our hearts. Churchill did not ally with Stalin out of mutual respect, but mutual need.

The Wizarding World must find ways to unite, not ways to assign blame, nor should it fail to gather allies when mercy will bring them into the fold once they have gained understanding.



Tomoé - Oct 16, 2004 3:10 pm (#221 of 1080)
eggplant -> Rowling said more than once that they were at war and in war traitors are dealt with harshly.

That's the key word, "Rowling". Rowling is not a character in the book, Marietta never encounter her and I don't think she would mind her much as a Muggle who come out of nowhere claiming Voldemort is back.

It seems since the Hog's Head meeting that Marietta didn't believe Harry. Her mother work for the MoM, they get the Daily Prophet at home, all her sources told her Harry was a attention seeker who turned her best firend's boyfriend unfortunate blunder into a tragic setup in which he was the ununderstand hero who now need more support from the wizarding world that he never had.

Plus, Harry asked Cho at the Yule ball last year and she refused for she had already say yes to Cedric. According to the attention seeking jerk, Cedric died like a loser and he fought Voldemort heroically to bring his body back. And now, Cho goes out with Harry. Doesn't this sound like the attention seeker make all that up to go out with Cho? Things go wrong at Valentin Day and next things you know Harry publish a interview in which he report his exploits, reviving Cho affection for the boy. Enough is enough, the game went to far, Harry and his make up "war" have to get out of Cho's life.

It turned out in the end that Harry wasn't lying, that Voldemort was indeed back to life, but how could she have known? She shouldn't have believed the papers? That makes Hermione as wrong as Marietta as she believed the papers when they said Sirius wanted to kill Harry and make sure Harry couldn't fly his Firebolt.



MickeyCee3948 - Oct 16, 2004 7:38 pm (#222 of 1080)
Tom Proffit if MMWP had signed a pact such as Hermione's maybe Harry's parents would still be alive. I understand that war makes strange bedmates. But, if your bedmate turns traitor you don't slap her hands and then embrace her again. She has to pay for her treason to the group. Even her best friend would have suffered for her actions if they had all been caught. REMEMBER IT'S ALL ABOUT CHOICES.

Mikie



TomProffitt - Oct 16, 2004 7:55 pm (#223 of 1080)
It's about the choices of the good as well as the bad and the misinformed.

It is important to remember the intent of the guilty based upon their knowledge at the time of the offense. When we have an opportunity to make an ally out of a potential enemy the choice should be obvious.

We cannot allow a thirst for vengeance, or even justice, to throw obstacles into the path of our ultimate victory. What good would it have done to say the Soviet Union got what it deserved for their part in the 1939 invasion of Poland if it allows Hitler to control Europe for fifty years?

What good to punish all of the Wizarding World who chose to believe Fudge and not Harry if it will allow Lord Voldemort his victory?

Their is also a time to choose mercy and to be lenient.



Solitaire - Oct 16, 2004 8:15 pm (#224 of 1080)
What if Marietta's actions had led directly to someone being expelled ... or seriously injured ... or killed? Would Hermione's precautions then have been justified?

Marietta's actions did lead directly to Dumbledore's exit from Hogwarts. If Dumbledore had been at Hogwarts when Harry had his vision of Sirius being held captive, Harry probably would have gone to him about it. Dumbledore would have been able to check on Sirius at once, and things might have gone a different way. Sirius might not have died--at least, not yet.

Marietta's actions certainly contributed to the chain of events that culminated in Sirius's death. Well, that's how I see it, anyway!

Solitaire



Tomoé - Oct 16, 2004 8:16 pm (#225 of 1080)
But for Marietta, the only war was in Harry's delusional head, when Peter betrayed the Potters the war was all over the place. She didn't believe Harry, all her relyable source told her not to and she had no reason to do otherwise. She came to the DA because of Cho, that Potter boy didn't impress her much and one day she decided to end that non-sense. On Marietta's point of view, the DA was a illegal army of teens who wanted to fight innocent people they pretend were DEs. She had to told Umbridge about it.

On our omniscient reader point of view, Marietta betrayed her co-DA-members, broking her word and ending a illegal but legitim defense association, helping Voldemort and the MoM in their quest to hide the truth. But that was never what Marietta intended, there was no war after all and Harry was an attention seeking alarmist.

Edit : I agree with Solitaire, Marietta is on the top of my "who is responsive" list.



TomProffitt - Oct 16, 2004 8:34 pm (#226 of 1080)
I do not absolve Marietta from guilt. I merely declare that there are many others much more deserving of our wrath. Percy Weasley has probably contributed to much more harm than Marietta Edgecombe, and with less reason for doubt, but I save my anger for Fudge, Umbridge, and the Death Eaters.



Solitaire - Oct 16, 2004 8:43 pm (#227 of 1080)
Tomoé, you are probably right about Marietta's being influenced by the adults of her world. Her mother--as an employee of the Ministry of Magic--would probably have sent her owls, contacted her via the floo network, etc., admonishing not to get involved "in anything to do with that irresponsible, attention-seeking Potter boy!" I can just hear it!

I think you also mentioned that she didn't like Cho being involved with him, either. Possibly she was jealous and felt that Harry threatened her friendship with Cho, especially if Marietta herself didn't have a boyfriend. Maybe she was indignant on Cedric's behalf, thinking it was too soon for Cho to be seeking another boyfriend, let alone Harry Potter, of all people!

It is obvious from all of JKR's descriptions of Marietta's reactions and facial expressions that she did not want anything to do with Harry or the DA from the beginning. Too bad she couldn't have had the courage of her convictions--as Seamus did--and stayed out of it all. There would have been no repercussions. No one, including Harry, held any grudge against Seamus when he came to Harry and admitted he'd been wrong. Far from giving him the cold shoulder, Harry welcomed him into the DA.

Another poster--sorry I can't remember who--said in either this thread or Hermione's that it was all about CHOICES. Marietta made a series of poor choices, and now she is reaping the consequences. Yes, I hope she is SNEAK-free when school starts up again. As long as she is, I won't think too harshly of Hermione.

Solitaire



Steve Newton - Oct 17, 2004 4:55 am (#228 of 1080)
The influences on Marietta are only excuses. If she didn't like what the DA was doing she could have stopped participating. She didn't do this. She sold them out. What happened to her is tame compared to what I would have done.



Czarina II - Oct 17, 2004 5:05 am (#229 of 1080)
Steve, are you saying there are no such thing as influences? Of course they're excuses. An excuse can have merit, despite all the connotations. My reasons for coming to university are just excuses, but I would hardly consider them trite.

Marietta didn't stop participating in the DA for reasons which we the readers do not know. We shouldn't judge her when we don't understand her motives. They would likely make perfect sense.



Steve Newton - Oct 17, 2004 5:13 am (#230 of 1080)
Of course there are influences. I just don't care what they are.

I am not judging her personhood but she got off easy for her action.



Solitaire - Oct 17, 2004 7:09 am (#231 of 1080)
We can give Marietta the benefit of the doubt and ASSUME that she has always been an obedient child who listens to her parents and accepts their word and authority. We can FURTHER ASSUME that her mother flooded her with owls and utilized the floo network--as a witch who was helping police it--keeping the pressure on her to follow Umbridge's rules and to avoid any wild schemes that might get her or Mom into trouble, especially if it involves that crazy Harry Potter. We can give her the benefit and believe that something like this went down.

So what? Marietta still showed up for the meeting at the Hog's Head (presumably against Mother's wishes), and when Hermione suggested that they all write their names on the Parchment, she clearly said, "... so if you sign, you're agreeing not to tell Umbridge--or anybody else--what we're up to." How much plainer could she be? If Marietta didn't want to be in the group, she didn't have to sign the paper. No one was holding a gun--or even a wand--to her head. No one forced her to sign. She crumbled to peer pressure, even though I am betting Cho would still have been her friend if she had not signed.

Finally, no matter what the reasons--or excuses--for her betrayal, it has been proven that Harry was telling the truth, Voldemort is back, and certain individuals named as DEs by Harry really ARE DEs. Despite the fact that Harry has been completely vindicated, has Marietta come to Harry to apologize for her behavior or to admit she was wrong to believe the propaganda about him? Has her mother done either of these things? If so, JKR has not thought them important enough to write about, even though she did think it important to tell us Marietta was wearing a balaclava on the train.

By the way, I don't think reasons and excuses are the same thing at all. Most reasons are sound, logical arguments, causes, or evidences for pursuing courses of behavior. Excuses tend to be flimsy apologies or arguments offered after the fact in order to escape some sort of judgment or punishment.

Solitaire



Penny Lane. - Oct 17, 2004 9:59 am (#232 of 1080)

We can FURTHER ASSUME that her mother flooded her with owls and utilized the floo network--as a witch who was helping police it--keeping the pressure on her to follow Umbridge's rules and to avoid any wild schemes that might get her or Mom into trouble, especially if it involves that crazy Harry Potter. We can give her the benefit and believe that something like this went down.


Actually, we can't assume anything. Marietta may have sold out her friend Cho, and all the other members of the DA to prevent a blemish on her record. We DON'T know why Ms. Edgecombe went to Umbridge, but we do know that she had the CHOICE of telling Umbridge everything, something, or nothing. Even if Umbridge had threatened Marietta with something like dentention she shouldn't have betrayed the DA like that. Her actions could have further separated the houses. The Gryffindores and Hufflepuffs could have reacted in a manner of "Oh, well, what can you expect from a Ravenclaw - they don't respect loyalty or bravery".

If the DA had been caught, it would have been likely that the majority of members were expelled. That would mean that many kids - OTHER than Harry Potter would have to make life desicions. Esencially, Marietta was able to ruin the lives of all those people. I should think a small case of acne is far from enough punishment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Newton - Oct 17, 2004 10:28 am (#233 of 1080)[/b]
"the other members of the DA to prevent a blemish on her record."

Is this an intentional pun?



eggplant - Oct 17, 2004 12:11 pm (#234 of 1080)
Yes, Marietta thought Harry was delusional and Dumbledore was senile, and yes she believed every word in the Daily prophet, and yes from her point of view her actions were correct, but the point is her point of view was WRONG, disastrously wrong! When you make an error of such colossal magnitude you can expect unpleasant repercussions. I’m not demanding bloody revenge I’m just impatient with those who sob that Hermione was being mean to give a few spots to someone whose treachery could have killed them all.

However I agree with tomproffitt when he said “Percy Weasley has probably contributed to much more harm than Marietta Edgecombe, and with less reason for doubt”. To tell the truth I hate Percy more than Marietta, I hate Percy more even than I hate Umbridge because Umbridge was never a friend, Percy once was, or claimed to be.

Eggplant



Paulus Maximus - Oct 17, 2004 1:56 pm (#235 of 1080)
"but the point is her point of view was WRONG, disastrously wrong!"

And now she knows it as well as anybody else.

I think I feel an apology to Harry coming on.

And I think that Harry will tell Hermione to reverse the spell, if it hasn't already been reversed.



Solitaire - Oct 17, 2004 3:15 pm (#236 of 1080)
Penny Lane, I think you misunderstood me. I was pointing out--in the face of comments by others that we don't know what kind of influences were working on Marietta--that we can ASSUME all we want and give her ALL of the benefits of a gazillion doubts, she still did the wrong thing.

Eggplant, I don't know how much harm Percy actually could have done, because most of the worthwhile characters liked him far too little to trust him with any information. He is such a self-serving, sycophantic little apple-polisher that he has lost all credibility with his family. Other than the internal harm he has done to his family by breaking their hearts, I think the major harm he has done has been to himself.

I actually think we can see the progression into what he has become, starting back when he was "Big-Head Boy" in Book 3. It was completely apparent in GoF that he was far too impressed with his own importance--despite the fact that his boss couldn't remember his name--and I was not really surprised to find that he had defected from his family and gone over to the side of ambition. Now, THERE is a Slytherin at heart, if ever I saw one!

Solitaire



Czarina II - Oct 17, 2004 7:03 pm (#237 of 1080)
Of course Marietta's point of view was wrong. We know that because we were in the graveyard with Harry in GoF. Marietta does not have that benefit. WE know certain parts of the story because we are priviledged in a way that the characters in the story are not. They don't know what is going on. They react according to how JKR wants them to react and how a normal character in the situation would likely react. Marietta is no different.

Most of us, if we were the character of Marietta, would at least be tempted to do what she did. And we are all making logical assumptions, considering that JKR didn't show us the scene where Marietta squealed to Umbridge, or any scenes afterward dealing with Marietta's spots, or any interaction between Marietta and Hermione. For all we know, Marietta DID apologise! Hermione might not have mentioned it, though that is unlikely. It is not out of the question. And if I were Cho, I would defend my best friend over Harry. I honestly did not like Harry in OoP. If I were at Hogwarts, I would think he was a git to whom all the staff gave preferential treatment.

The Houses all have qualities they chiefly admire. Gryffindors put bravery and loyalty above all; Hufflepuffs, loyalty and hard work; Ravenclaws, intelligence and ambition; Slytherins, ambition and bravery (or bravado, in the case of Malfoy). Ravenclaws are wild cards. They are individualistic. Family would be more important to them than acquaintances. Are we forgetting that just because Harry is the centre of the book-universe doesn't mean that he is the centre of the characters' universes? Marietta doesn't know Harry personally and he's not that likeable.



eggplant - Oct 17, 2004 7:38 pm (#238 of 1080)
Czarina II , you say “ Most of us, if we were the character of Marietta, would at least be tempted to do what she did”, well I’m not a hero or a saint but I wouldn’t be tempted to do what she did. Granted Marietta didn’t have as full a understanding of what was going on as we readers do, but she had enough to know that Umbridge was a poor excuse for a human being, and yet she helped her. As for Cho, I lost all sympathy for her when she defended a lowlife snitch like Marietta. And I liked Harry in OoP, he certainly acted better than Ron did in GoF, and better than I would have if I’d endured half the living hell Harry did.

Eggplant



Penny Lane. - Oct 17, 2004 9:51 pm (#239 of 1080)
I'm sorry Solitaire, I think I may have actually misread what you meant.

No, that pun was not intended.

Czarina II, you said to make sure that we werent' looking at it just though Harry's POV. Well, I'm not. Marietta did not endanger just Harry. She put the lives - yes the lives - of the ENTIRE DA at risk. Even if she didn't believe Harry's story about what happened in the Graveyard, she still was willing to let mulitple students be expelled. Not just harry. ALL the members of the DA would have suffered, including her Best friend Cho. I know I wouldn't have kept a friend around who tried to get me expelled. There's no way.



Solitaire - Oct 17, 2004 10:20 pm (#240 of 1080)
I agree, Penny. I think Cho is incredibly forgiving. Then again, perhaps Marietta has asked Cho's forgiveness, and we simply haven't been privy to that scene. She doesn't seem to have asked Harry's forgiveness, however. Since we are seeing through Harry's eyes, I think this little detail would have been important enough for us to witness.

In a very real way, Marietta went to Umbridge with critical information about Harry and the DA just as Wormtail went to Voldemort with critical info about the Potters and the Order. Both traitors also suffered disfigurement for their sins. And just as Voldemort was his own victim in that attempt on Harry's life, so Umbridge became the victim of her own dastardly little plot against Harry.

Not as serious as Wormtail's betrayal, I agree, but serious enough. Does anyone else see a parallel between the generations here?

Solitaire


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Mona on Thu May 19, 2011 12:38 am; edited 4 times in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 59
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Posts 241 to 300

Post  Mona Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:36 pm

Leila 2X4B - Oct 18, 2004 5:24 am (#241 of 1080)
I guess that I always felt that Marietta did not realize the type of person Umbridge really was. I think that she never assumed that telling meant that Sirius would die or that they would really get into that much trouble. I think that she just told Umbridge to, perhaps, end the Harry and Cho nonsense. I really and truly believe that had she known the complete consequences of her actions that she would have chosen differently. Plus, as I said before, we are putting an incredible amount of faith in the words of Umbridge. She is the one who is telling us what happened. Why should we trust her? She has been not so trustworthy until that point, so why should we believe her vision of events now?

Leila



Solitaire - Oct 18, 2004 6:23 am (#242 of 1080)
Well, if Marietta had known the consequences to herself, I agree she would have chosen differently. Frankly, I believe she knew well enough that telling Umbridge would probably have resulted in Harry's expulsion--and possibly Hermione's. In fact, she was probably hoping that's how it would end. She may have decided that the other kids would just get detentions and warning letters to their parents, not having broken any rules or gotten into any trouble up to this point.

Even if that is how she worked it out in her little pea-brain, however--and I'm only speculating--it was mean and conniving. Marietta is at worst conniving, manipulative, and selfish. At best, she is immature, unaware, foolish and irresponsible. tsk! tsk!

Solitaire

Edit: Having said all of the above, I believe she should have learned her lesson, and I hope her spots are gone by the time we see her in the fall.



Paulus Maximus - Oct 18, 2004 6:48 am (#243 of 1080)
"Of course Marietta's point of view was wrong. We know that because we were in the graveyard with Harry in GoF. Marietta does not have that benefit. WE know certain parts of the story because we are priviledged in a way that the characters in the story are not."

I was referring to the Daily Prophet following the Battle of Mysteries, which "published" Harry's account of the graveyard scene. As of the end of the OP, everyone knows that particular part of the story, so we aren't exactly "priveleged in a way that the characters are not."

So, now that Marietta knows that she was wrong, what is she going to do?



Leila 2X4B - Oct 18, 2004 7:04 am (#244 of 1080)
What can she do? Few know exaclty what happened and that Marietta betrayed the DA, but I assume that word has gotten around. To alienate her and not forgive could lead her to choose a path that is far more sinister. To forgive is to offer her redemption. I hope that they choose wisely.

Leila



Paulus Maximus - Oct 18, 2004 10:08 am (#245 of 1080)
She can apologise to Harry, for starters...



Solitaire - Oct 18, 2004 10:15 am (#246 of 1080)
I agree with Paulus here. I think an honest admission of fault and a sincere apology would go a long way with Harry.



Kelly Kapaoski - Oct 18, 2004 10:29 am (#247 of 1080)
She can appologize once the memory charm wears off



Hermy-own - Oct 18, 2004 11:03 am (#248 of 1080)
"She can appologize once the memory charm wears off"

Would this really be in her best interests? If she has genuine remorse for her actions, why would she need to wait for the pimples to disappear before apologising?

Besides, what if Hermione has decided to remove the charm only after Marietta acknowledges her mistakes and asks for forgiveness? Ms Edgecombe could be waiting for a long time ...

Hermy.



Kelly Kapaoski - Oct 18, 2004 11:05 am (#249 of 1080)
remember she doesn't remember going to any of the meetings since Kingsley put a memory charm on her in dumbledores office



Hermy-own - Oct 18, 2004 11:33 am (#250 of 1080)
Again, can we really say this? We do not know of Shacklebolt's intention for that particular memory charm--whether he wanted to temporarily becloud the memory, or to permamently erase it.

Surely, Marietta would have been curious as to why her face was lavished with pimples. Had Cho (or any other Ravenclaw student in the DA) put two and two together, they would have known why Marietta was "SNEAKed," and would have likely told her. So, I doubt it is too far-fetched to assume that Marietta could have learned of her disloyalty. If this is true, then Marietta is in the position to seek forgiveness.

Hermy.



Mrs Brisbee - Oct 18, 2004 5:03 pm (#251 of 1080)
Solitaire said: "In a very real way, Marietta went to Umbridge with critical information about Harry and the DA just as Wormtail went to Voldemort with critical info about the Potters and the Order"

Well, except that Wormtail was a seasoned spy who ratted his "friends" out to a known megalomaniac mass-murderer. Peter Pettigrew knew exactly what he was doing and what the consequences would be. He was Evil, and he knew the score.

To be fair to Marietta, that toad Umbridge was a ministry official in good standing, and the MoM denied Voldemort was back. Marietta would have to decide whether the MoM people were being truthful, or Harry (with no hard evidence to back up his story). Marietta made a choice, and she chose wrong, and she suffered the consequences.

Still, I would say she was closer to being misled than Evil. The whole thing just goes to show how well Fudge's campaign of misinformation was succeeding.



Solitaire - Oct 18, 2004 7:28 pm (#252 of 1080)
I was not drawing a parallel between the degrees of offense. Here is what I said:In a very real way, Marietta went to Umbridge with critical information about Harry and the DA just as Wormtail went to Voldemort with critical info about the Potters and the Order. Both traitors also suffered disfigurement for their sins. And just as Voldemort was his own victim in that attempt on Harry's life, so Umbridge became the victim of her own dastardly little plot against Harry.

Not as serious as Wormtail's betrayal, I agree, but serious enough. Does anyone else see a parallel between the generations here?

As far as Marietta being misled and not knowing the consequences of her actions, she knew perfectly well what the consequences would be and she acted anyway.

"Any student found to have formed, or to belong to, an Organization, Society, Team, Group, or Club that has not been approved by the High Inquisitor will be expelled."

The above is in accordance with Educational Decree Number Twenty-four."

I think this spelled out pretty clearly what would happen to the DA members if Umbridge found out about the DA.

Solitaire



Mrs Brisbee - Oct 19, 2004 5:33 am (#253 of 1080)
Solitaire, I guess what I'm saying here is that I don't see a strong parallel between Marietta and Peter Pettigrew. We know why Wormtail betrayed his friends, and his reasons were self-serving. Marietta seems to have done it because she felt a need to put a stop to the DA and Harry's "lies". She faced expulsion too. She believed the Ministry's line that both Harry and Dumbledore were making the whole thing up to get attention and power. Her motives are very different from Pettigrew's. Pettigrew knew what exactly was going on and who the good guys were and who the bad guys were. Marietta, along with a lot of other people, had been duped by the MoM into believing there was no real danger.



Hermy-own - Oct 19, 2004 3:02 pm (#254 of 1080)
As a member of the DA, Marietta was at risk of being expelled. However, after exposing Harry and the DA, it is likely she would have gained immunity to this or any other form of punishment. And, had things gone according to plan in front of Fudge and Dumbledore, I'm sure Umbridge would have gone as far as rewarding her. Perhaps she would have been offered a role on the Inquisitorial Squad.

Solitaire, I have to agree with you on this one; I, too, see a parallel between the ages. We could spend all day debating the particulars, but the fact remains that both Pettigrew and Marietta betrayed their comrades. Both have paid the price. (Something tells me there is more coming Peter's way, though.)

Hermy.



Penny Lane. - Oct 19, 2004 3:48 pm (#255 of 1080)
There is a difference though. Peter betrayed his friends out of fear. Marietta betrayed her peers - not her close friends. Also, We don't know Marietta's motivation yet.



Solitaire - Oct 19, 2004 6:48 pm (#256 of 1080)
Once again, I am NOT comparing the SERIOUSNESS of the betrayals or the reasons for the betrayals. I simply said there had now BEEN betrayals in both generations--since there have been--and I thought some of the parallels were kind of interesting:

Peter was a member of the Order, and he ratted out fellow members of the Order. Marietta was a member of the DA, and she ratted out her fellow members.

Peter sought out Voldemort, the enemy of those he betrayed. Marietta sought out Umbridge, the enemy of those she betrayed. Whether she personally felt Umbridge was an enemy is, in my opinion, beside the point; she was quite well aware that Harry and the other DA members considered Umbridge the enemy, so ratting to her was betrayal.

Both Peter and Marietta were disfigured as a consequence of their betrayals. Peter's disfigurement was self-inflicted when he cut off his own finger to stage his "murder" at the hand of Sirius. Marietta's was not deliberately self-inflicted, but she was the one who activated the disfigurement by her betrayal.

In order to hide after he betrayed the Potters and caused Sirius's arrest, Peter transformed into a rat and hid among the Weasley family. Marietta also tried to hide after her betrayal. She hid her face first behind her robes and later behind a balaclava.

And now for the real evil-doers ... Acting on Peter's information, Voldemort went to the Potters' home. There he killed James and Lily, but he met his doom when he tried to kill Harry. Acting on Marietta's information, Umbridge tried to get Harry expelled and Dumbledore arrested. Instead, she wound up a victim of her own evil little machinations and looked pretty stupid. When she tried later--after McGonagall, Hagrid, and Dumbledore were all out of reach--to use the Cruciatus curse on Harry, Hermione intervened and Umbridge's own evil nature and behavior caused her to be carried off by the Centaurs.

I realize you disagree, and that's fine. This is simply how I see it, and I felt some others might agree in general and help refine some of the parallels. Smile

Solitaire



Gerald Costales - Oct 24, 2004 8:24 am (#257 of 1080)
The outcast for Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs was Snape. And look what bitterness has turned Snape into. The outcast for Harry, Ron, and Hermione's generation is Marietta. Should history be repeated and bitterness turn Marietta's life onto a sinister path.

Snape became a Death Eater and redeemed himself. Should Marietta be forced to side with the Slytherins (who would certainly use Marietta against the others) for comfort. I doubt Marietta will return to finish at Hogwarts, would Marietta be forced to go to Durmstrang or more likely be home schooled or tutored.

The question isn't forgive Marietta after she apologies, but "forgive us our trepasses as we forgive those who trepass against us". True forgiveness is unconditional.

If the Secret Power in the MoM is love, than what lesson is being learned by witholding Marietta mercy and compassion? I believe God is Love (don't know if I should be saying this). And Love is also forgiving.

In a World where terror exists, it really takes faith to believe Goodness will win out. ;-) GC



Czarina II - Oct 24, 2004 9:22 am (#258 of 1080)
I'm going to repeat what I said on the Hermione thread.

I think how we all feel about the Hermione-Marietta-parchment issue really depends on how we ourselves were brought up and how we acted (or act) in high school. We all have different personalities and we were all probably in different places on the adolescent social ladder. Some of us probably put our family before friends, others vice versa. We see this situation differently. Just like the 'ship thread, it has become a rather sensitive issue.

Perhaps we can discuss Marietta further as a character in the overall plot, and not regarding DA specifically? For instance, why did JKR create a new character to then act as a defector from the DA? Why not pick a character we already knew? Was Marietta more of a way to separate Cho and Harry?



Solitaire - Oct 24, 2004 1:14 pm (#259 of 1080)
Was Marietta more of a way to separate Cho and Harry

I think this is quite likely. I believe Marietta might well have been jealous. It happens frequently with girls, when one moves past the other socially. If Marietta did not have a boyfriend, she may have resented hearing Cho talk about Harry all the time (as lovestruck girls are wont to do) ... or even spend time with him.

Then again, perhaps Marietta just plain didn't like Harry and decided Cho should not be hanging out with him--thus making decisions FOR her friend about whom she should and should not like.

Either way, I suspect that Marietta had whatever misgivings she did have well before she signed the jinxed parchment. Too bad she didn't have the courage of her own convictions and abstain from joining. She'd have saved herself and everyone else a heap of trouble.

Solitaire



Czarina II - Oct 24, 2004 8:49 pm (#260 of 1080)
"Either way, I suspect that Marietta had whatever misgivings she did have well before she signed the jinxed parchment. Too bad she didn't have the courage of her own convictions and abstain from joining. She'd have saved herself and everyone else a heap of trouble."

Perhaps Marietta changed her mind about the DA part-way through the schoolyear, or perhaps it was even a twenty-four-hour thing? Teenagers can be tempestuous. Should we really judge a character we know nothing about so harshly?

Besides, I would not like Harry if I were Marietta. He treated Cho very rudely and Cho was Marietta's best friend. Although everyone is saying that Cho would have been expelled along with the DA, if the jinx hadn't taken place, Marietta might very well have pleaded for leniency for her friend. Umbridge was quite kind to those who supported her. She would no doubt see Marietta and Cho as innocent victims who would end up with a reprimand and detention with the blood-quill, so I don't think Marietta was necessarily being a bad friend. She was trying to protect Cho, too.



Solitaire - Oct 24, 2004 9:18 pm (#261 of 1080)
When was Harry rude to Cho before the "SNEAK" incident? And just because Cho would not have been expelled along with everyone else doesn't make Marietta's actions less deplorable. In fact, I think they make her seem even more selfish. Just as long as she gets her friend away from HP and the two of them are spared expulsion, who gives a fig about the others? **shudder**

Because Marietta betrayed the DA, Dumbledore disappeared and Umbridge became Headmistress. It was Marietta's fault that this happened when it did. It might have happened anyway, but it was her fault that it happened at that time. This triggered a rather interesting chain of events. Because Dumbledore was not around when Umbridge went after Hagrid, McGonagall stepped in ... and we all know what happened there. Because Hagrid was away and McGonagall was in the hospital and DD was not around when Harry had his vision of Sirius trapped in the Ministry ...

Indirectly, Marietta's actions caused a lot of harm to a lot of people. I realize some do not agree, but these are my feelings about it.

Solitaire



Steve Newton - Oct 25, 2004 5:48 am (#262 of 1080)
Czarina II, do you have any text to support your position that Marietta was trying to protect Cho?



Czarina II - Oct 25, 2004 10:39 am (#263 of 1080)
Not at the moment, I'm afraid. I just think that we know absolutely nothing about Marietta save her actions in OoP. All we know about her background is:

1. She is in Ravenclaw, sixth-year in OoP.

2. Her mother works for the Ministry.

3. She is best friends with Cho Chang.

Not a lot to go on, so all we're really doing when we look at her actions is inferring based on our own assumptions/beliefs/wishes/values. Evidently, she is not the brightest nor the nicest girl at Hogwarts. The brightest title falls to Hermione and the nicest is too subjective to be awarded. (Although Hermione is academically bright, not all-around bright.) I don't think that we should be judging Marietta based solely on her actions because we really have no idea of her motivations or even what she really did, considering that most of her actions occur off-page. In law, it is not enough just to have the guilty action -- we must also understand state of mind. We have little or no evidence for the latter.



Steve Newton - Oct 25, 2004 11:20 am (#264 of 1080)
" In law, it is not enough just to have the guilty action -- we must also understand state of mind."

A good thing that we are not the law. We don't have to understand state of mind.



Mrs Brisbee - Oct 25, 2004 12:43 pm (#265 of 1080)
Czarina II asked: "why did JKR create a new character to then act as a defector from the DA? Why not pick a character we already knew?"

I think this is a really good question. Does anyone remember Marietta having even one spoken line?

Some possibilities for why Rowling would create a brand new character to take on the role of defector:

1. Rowling wanted to create someone we had no preconcieved notions about and never get any firsthand opinions from because she knew it would be several years before her next book came out and she wanted to give us something so we could argue endlessly about whether Marietta is the Scion of Evil or Tragically Misunderstood Idiot.

2. Marietta was created as a neutral character to avoid making the betrayer plot device too redundant, as we already have fake-Moody and Wormtail, and who knows maybe an actual friend is scheduled to betray Harry and Co. in the future.

3. Marietta is the Iconic Skeptic. She represents the WW that believes the government line about everything being a-okay in a kind of dumbplay that shows what kind of damage getting fed misleading information and believing in it can do.

I'm partial to the third idea. Anyone have any others?



Penny Lane. - Oct 25, 2004 12:53 pm (#266 of 1080)
Marietta's actions were selfishly motivated. We don't know if she thought long and hard about what she was doing or not. The fact remains that she turned in her friend Cho, and a bunch of other students. The D.A. was not learning illegal curses such as Avada Kevadra. They were only an illegal study group that met to learn and practice the things they were reading about in their textbooks. Umbridge's rules may have forbidden it, but do you really think that all of the Hogwarts instructors were completly clueless to the fact that 20 some students were heading to a less frequented area in the castle?

Marietta's state of mind is not a concern. As there is a WAR going on in the wizarding world, she can still be considered a risk. She can apologize, but she should have to wear the spots as a warning to the other students that she can't be trusted. If she only remembers going to the first DA meeting, than she won't know where they currently meet. Of course Cho has told probably told her by now all about it. Maybe we just shouldn't trust Ravenclaw girls.

I hope this fiasco teaches the trio a lesson about being careful. They have, in the past, been reckless. I hope they look carefully at people before trusting them with secrets. If they just trust everyone they meet with out any sort of motives for why that person can be trusted, they could well end up with a spy in their midst. Or another Peter Pettigrew.

Marietta is lucky that she only was dealing with Umbridge though. I don't feel sorry for her spots. If she had gone to Lord Voldemort with information, he would have killed her when she was done. For all we know, Umbridge may have suspended her as well for having ANY involement with Potter.



Leila 2X4B - Oct 25, 2004 12:59 pm (#267 of 1080)
Penny, I guess the idea of...

Marietta is lucky that she only was dealing with Umbridge though. I don't feel sorry for her spots. If she had gone to Lord Voldemort with information, he would have killed her when she was done. For all we know, Umbridge may have suspended her as well for having ANY involvement with Potter<end quote>

is that she likely did not see Umbridge and Voldy in the same light. She could very well have trusted Umbridge and thought Harry was the dangerous one. Perhaps she was just looking out for Cho and felt since the relationship between Cho and Harry was getting more intense, simply going to the meetings wouldn't "protect" her. I feel sorry for her spots, at least until I feel like she did it with bad intentions. As long as I feel that her motivations lay not with getting Harry killed, and more with whom she trusted, I feel sorry for her "punishment".



Bash - Oct 25, 2004 1:13 pm (#268 of 1080)
Yes, I was shocked to see that the pustules hadn't gone completely by the end. And one of the Griffindor team girls said that "Madam Pomfrey has never yet failed," that statement needed revising! Hopefully St Mungo's know a cure.



Steve Newton - Oct 25, 2004 3:54 pm (#269 of 1080)
"And one of the Griffindor team girls said that "Madam Pomfrey has never yet failed,"

I took that to mean that she had not really tried. She approved.



Penny Lane. - Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm (#270 of 1080)
There is more to worry about then just Marietta's spots. Cho, as a member of the DA may in the future be privy to crutial information. Since she likes to tell her friends stuff, maybe seeing the spots in the distant future will remind her to keep her mouth shut.



Mrs Brisbee - Oct 25, 2004 6:25 pm (#271 of 1080)
Solitaire pointed out on either this thread or Hermione's that the parchment was a magical contract, sort of like the Goblet of Fire, so that it is quite likely that Marietta's spots are unremovable by any wizarding normal means. This clears up why Madame Pomfrey couldn't remove them, which had been bugging me too. She simply could not.

(Wow, got to be impressed with Hermione's jinxing skill. I wonder if "magic contract" is one of the things you learn in Ancient Runes? Still sounds N.E.W.T. level to me.)



Solitaire - Oct 25, 2004 9:34 pm (#272 of 1080)
Mrs Brisbee, I vote for number one:

Rowling wanted to create someone we had no preconcieved notions about and never get any firsthand opinions from because she knew it would be several years before her next book came out and she wanted to give us something so we could argue endlessly about whether Marietta is the Scion of Evil or Tragically Misunderstood Idiot.

I am sure this is the reason. JKR knew she would be busy, what with one thing and another, and she figured this was one of the ways she could keep us occupied.

I also happen to believe that's why she had Petunia know about the Dementors and why she tossed us those little bones about McClaggan and "the Lion Man." I think JKR secretly sneaks over to this site and reads all of the stuff about which we "argue endlessly." She probably figured these four items were enough to occupy us through the birth of her next baby.

Solitaire



eggplant - Oct 25, 2004 10:22 pm (#273 of 1080)
“I don't think that we should be judging Marietta based solely on her actions”

That is absolutely crazy. Actions are the only just way to judge Marietta, or anyone for that matter. You may have a very good reason for chasing me around while you swing a bloody ax; but you know what, at the moment I’m not very interested in your motivation, I just want you to stop.

Eggplant



Mrs Brisbee - Oct 26, 2004 4:25 am (#274 of 1080)
Marietta certainly inspires impassioned debate. It is truly amazing...



rambkowalczyk - Oct 26, 2004 5:02 am (#275 of 1080)
Solitaire, You were making comparisons between Peter and Marietta. You stated that Peter sought out Voldemort. But this isn't quite true. I will concede that when Peter discovered that he was secret Keeper he did go to Voldemort but previous to that he was spying for Voldemort for over a year. At the shrieking shack Peter said that if he didn't help Voldemort he would have been killed. I took this to mean that Voldemort had threatened Peter long before James' death. Originally Voldemort sought out Peter not the other way. By the time Peter became secret keeper he was beaten down by Voldemort.

By the same analogy Umbridge may have approached Marietta knowing she was the friend of Harry's girlfriend. Umbridge may have expressed concern that Cho might be making a mistake (which echoed Marietta's opinion) and may have made a vague reference that her mother's job might get a bonus if Marietta could help Umbridge. I believe (without any proof) that Umbridge approached Marietta shortly after the Quibbler came out. At first she made no threats but week after week of "tea" may have caused Marietta to break down. Maybe the trigger was when Umbridge sacked Trelawney and Marietta realized Umbridge had definite power over people's lives.



Steve Newton - Oct 26, 2004 5:13 am (#276 of 1080)
rambkowalczyk says:

"At the shrieking shack Peter said that if he didn't help Voldemort he would have been killed. I took this to mean that Voldemort had threatened Peter long before James' death."

I took this to be Peter's rationalization. Sort of another word for excuse.



Solitaire - Oct 26, 2004 6:17 am (#277 of 1080)
I'm with Steve on this one. We don't really know that Voldemort sought out Peter, and Peter didn't actually say he sought him out. I suppose it's possible Peter sought him out, not really considering the full and ultimate impact of his actions. Only after the fact did he realize the extent of what would be expected of him (this assumes a lot of stupidity on Peter's part). Of course, he was too cowardly to resist.

HOWEVER, given his despicable behavior with regard to Sirius--staging his own murder and framing Sirius for it, the Potters' deaths, AND the deaths of all the Muggles AFTER the Potters had died and Voldemort was toast, so to speak--I'm tempted to believe that Peter was pretty reprehensible all on his own. Voldemort wasn't holding his feet to the fire to make him do the last two things. I'm afraid I must cast my vote for Peter as a slimeball.

Solitaire



Czarina II - Oct 26, 2004 7:17 am (#278 of 1080)
"Actions are the only just way to judge Marietta, or anyone for that matter. You may have a very good reason for chasing me around while you swing a bloody ax; but you know what, at the moment I’m not very interested in your motivation, I just want you to stop." -- eggplant

Now, at what point does Marietta chase anyone with a bloody axe? I think Mrs Brisbee is right -- we are getting too passionate about this issue.

But if we are to judge people solely on their actions, we would find that just about everyone is a despicable, selfish git. Shall we start judging Harry Potter based solely on his actions? Hermione? Dumbledore? Snape? McGonagall? Voldemort? (After all, why put in the whole backstory about Tom Riddle if we are just supposed to deduce that Voldemort is pure evil, murdering innocent kittens?) That applies to the real world as well. There is no point to a court of law if we assume from someone's actions that they are guilty or not, or that they deserve the ultimate punishment. In literature, readers are removed from the story. When someone is chasing us with a bloody axe, no, we don't question their motives! After we've eluded them and the police have caught them, now their motive must be questioned.

So Marietta deserves a chance to tell her side of the story. All we've heard is Umbridge's version, along with Harry's extremely limited point of view. Hopefully, we get that in the next book. If JKR doesn't give us a further explanation, I will assume that yes, Marietta is just a silly idiot who deserves her punishment. Until then, I can't be sure.



rambkowalczyk - Oct 26, 2004 7:19 am (#279 of 1080)
I wasn't in anyway suggesting that Peter wasn't a slimeball just saying that his defection to Voldemort took a long time.

Since this is the Marietta thread I'm trying to suggest that Marietta didn't just pop in to see Umbridge but that Umbridge was working on her long before she broke.



eggplant - Oct 26, 2004 7:52 am (#280 of 1080)
“if we are to judge people solely on their actions, we would find that just about everyone is a despicable, selfish git. Shall we start judging Harry Potter based solely on his actions?”

Well, ah, I don’t quite know how to put this but it seems you hang around a more disreputable crowd of people than I do. But to answer your question, yes, Harry Potter like everybody else should be judged solely on his actions.

Eggplant



Hermy-own - Oct 26, 2004 8:46 am (#281 of 1080)
Now, now...let's all play nicely, shall we?

Who would have thought Marietta could stir such a hornet's nest?! I can imagine Rowling reading this discussion and snickering. **waves at JKR**



Penny Lane. - Oct 26, 2004 10:57 am (#282 of 1080)
Look. If we were to judge Harry based on his actions, he would still come out better looking than Marietta. Harry may appear reckless and self centered, but he has never sold out any one of his peers. No matter how awful Malfoy way, Harry never tattled. Harry never thought twice about sacrificing himself to save Hermione from the Troll, never thought about how hee might die if he ran after Voldemort himself. All he knew is what had to be done.

If we look at Harry's more recent actions, we can see that he isn't a fame seeker, as he doesn't walk around preening himself. If someone were to watch Harry - actually watch him, I'm sure it would be obvious that he is not arrogant and would NEVER sell out his friends for more power.



Mrs Brisbee - Oct 26, 2004 11:22 am (#283 of 1080)
I have another question about Marietta that doesn't concern the never-ending-merry-go-round-Evil-Traitor-vs-Tragic-Idiot-debate. Smile

Marietta is in several important scenes in OotP: the meeting at the Hog's Head, the first DA meeting, the last DA meeting before Christmas, and Dumbledore's office with Umbridge after she snitched. She also makes a cameo on the train at the end. In none of these scenes does she ever have one spoken line. I think this is really weird. After all, she owns an important plot point, one that even involves her being a tattletale, yet we never hear her speak.

Is there any literary or mythological significance to a character with no voice?



MickeyCee3948 - Oct 26, 2004 1:21 pm (#284 of 1080)
Solitaire - 2 Votes for Peter the slimeball.

CzarinaII - I for one believe we may never know what happens to Marietta. I doubt that she will be back at Hogwarts unless the zits disappear and JKR has some future role for her in the last two books. She did appear in several scenes of OotP but as mentioned has never spoken a word much like so many walk on roles in television and movies. One or two appearances and bye-bye.

I am amazed as some of the rest of you are that this discussion seems to have taken on it's own life. I think I see another book here built around Marietta and why she turned aganist her friends and comrades.

Mikie



legolas - Oct 26, 2004 1:44 pm (#285 of 1080)
Do witches go in for dermoabrassion? That may be one way to aleviate her spots.



Paulus Maximus - Oct 26, 2004 3:01 pm (#286 of 1080)
"he has never sold out any one of his peers."

Unless you count leading his peers into a trap, against the better judgment of at least one of them...

...twice...



Penny Lane. - Oct 26, 2004 4:30 pm (#287 of 1080)

Unless you count leading his peers into a trap, against the better judgment of at least one of them...


Yes, but they could have said no. They made the choice to go along with him.



wwtMask - Oct 27, 2004 5:25 am (#288 of 1080)
Come now, Paulus, I think that's stretching it a bit too far. It's not like he made a conscious decision to betray his friends to the DEs. It was a mistake, yes, but not betrayal, even if all of them disagreed with him. They had a choice; Harry didn't force them at wand point. I challenge anyone to seriously question Harry's loyalty to his friends.



Solitaire - Oct 27, 2004 6:19 am (#289 of 1080)
I thought Harry tried to get Neville, Ginny and Luna to stay behind ... didn't he?



Paulus Maximus - Oct 27, 2004 7:07 am (#290 of 1080)
Harry's loyalty to his friends is unquestionable... but he would do well to accept the judgment of at least one of them... Twice she had warned him that he was walking into a trap, and twice he ignored her and walked into the trap anyway...

Anyway... back to Marietta. SHE would do well to listen to her friends, too. Unless Cho had also decided to rat on the DA...



wwtMask - Oct 27, 2004 11:05 am (#291 of 1080)
"Unless Cho had also decided to rat on the DA... "

I can hear the anti-Cho elements chomping at the bit for proof of that Smile

I feel sorry for Marietta, though not because I think she was stuck between a rock and a hard place. She, unfortunately, made a choice that, regardless of intention, can't be easily forgiven or forgotten. Most of us don't make mistakes that have such dire consequences. I think she ought to feel lucky that she has such a stalwart friend and that she has, so far, remained under Harry's radar. If he weren't so caught up in blaming himself, Snape, and Dumbly for the death of Sirius, he might realize that she precipitated Dumbly's removal from Hogwarts, thereby beginning those fateful chain of events at the end of the book. I'd hate to see what happens if he ever makes this connection...



Solitaire - Oct 27, 2004 6:34 pm (#292 of 1080)
I believe Harry will make the connection eventually, if he hasn't already. He was probably still somewhat in shock and certainly still in mourning at the end of the book. I believe the trio and Ginny, all of whom had grown fairly close to Sirius, were hurting.

While I do not suppose it ever gets easier, Harry has grown rather used to his yearly rendezvous with Voldemort. However, this is the first time the others (except Ginny and, to a smaller extent, Ron) have been in such close and deadly proximity to him and/or DEs. In their shoes, I'd be a blithering idiot.

Do you suppose that the members of the DA will feel more strongly about Marietta's betrayal once it is generally known (if it isn't already) that six of their members encountered DEs--and Voldemort--in the Ministry? This will certainly make the importance of the DA hit home a lot harder, and the other kids may begin to see Marietta's betrayal in a more serious, treasonous light than they currenly do.

Solitaire



Liz Mann - Oct 28, 2004 7:15 am (#293 of 1080)
Including Cho, hopefully. Marietta betrayed her too. Unless of course part of the deal between her and Umbridge was that Cho wouldn't get punished.

In none of these scenes does she ever have one spoken line.

Just like Crabbe and Goyle. (Except when Harry and Ron were impersonating them.)



Gerald Costales - Oct 28, 2004 7:50 am (#294 of 1080)
I doubt Marietta will be returning to Hogwarts even if unblemished.

Can't agree with Marietta being the "Scion of Evil" or "Tragically Misunderstood Idiot". The truth must be in between these two extremes. I think Marietta tilts more to the "Evil" side but she is not neccessarily "Evil".

Betrayal is just such a strong emotion. And I admit it, I and all of us have strong emotional attachments to these characters. JKR has created such vivid characters that we would recognize them in real life. But, is Marietta Judas? Did she betray Harry with a kiss, so to speak?

I doubt Marietta is going to hang herself. But, if she returns and asks forgiveness, how do you treat her? Cut Marietta some slack. Don't trust her, just forgive her and move on. Remember the real "Scion of Evil" is Voldermort. There's just too much emotional energy being spent on Marietta. Time to move on and the only way to do this is to forgive Marietta. Also, don't forget what Marietta did and be more careful in the future. ;-) GC



Solitaire - Oct 28, 2004 9:37 am (#295 of 1080)
Gerald, she is probably not evil in the same sense as Umbridge or Lucius Malfoy. I don't really know whether I'd classify her as malicious or just very selfish; I'd have to know more. What she did could have had dire consequences, yet she chose to ignore them in order to take care of herself. Sounds more like a Slytherin than a Ravenclaw.

If she admits her mistake and asks forgiveness, I think most will forgive her. I doubt she will ever again be trusted with anything important, however--by anyone.

Solitaire



Prefect Marcus - Oct 28, 2004 9:48 am (#296 of 1080)
No, Marietta is not evil. I think she is just a mixed up kid. She is torn between loyalty to her parents, her friends, and those in authority above her. I think she is to be pitied more than reviled.



Penny Lane. - Oct 28, 2004 10:18 am (#297 of 1080)
Why should we pity someone who only cared about herself. We don't pity Percy, even though he would have acted in a similar manner had he been at Hogwarts. Marietta should be forced to wear her "Scarlett Letter" so to speak as a reminder to ANYONE who might think about trusting her.

She's more than a mixed up kid. Wasn't she 15 when she chose to align herself with an obviously incompentant instructor? 15 year olds can be tried as adults in some situations. Also, she knew that the majority of people were there to study and practice for their OWLS. She knew that everyone present would be expelled under "Education Decree (insert number here)" This knowledge that 20 some of her peers would have to seek education elsewhere should have been a deterent. She wasn't just playing with the lives of Harry and Hermione. Her actiions would have affected everyone in the school.

Also, how stupid could you be? If someone at my high school had caused 20 students to be expelled, I doubt that person would ever be able to show up in school again. Granted, this is the muggle world where people don't have wands and "Jelly Legs Curse's" but muggle teenagers sure now how to tear down people with words (and other ways that I won't discuss here)



Prefect Marcus - Oct 28, 2004 12:10 pm (#298 of 1080)
Penny,

I still lie awake nights thinking of some the absolutely bone-headed mistakes that I made when I was a teenager, and I left my teens thirty years ago!

She was faced with a set of conflicting priorities and obligations. Is it not right to obey your parents? It is not right to obey those in authority over you? Is it not right to be loyal to your friends? Is it not right to keep a promise? What if the promise was to always obey the school rules versus a promise not to reveal a group in violation of school rules.

We all face these little paradoxes in life. They are what keeps us jumping. Should we condemn Marietta because she chose to obey her parents and go against peer pressure?

Actually, the person I blame the most is Cho. I get the impression that Cho somewhat twisted Marietta's arm into going. Marietta showed from the very first day that she didn't really want to be part of D.A.. Cho said as much. Yet her loyalty to Cho brought her there. Peer pressure was making her do things she felt uncomfortable doing. She was going against her parents, going against the school authorities, and going against the Ministry.

Could she have dropped out of D.A.? Certainly. That is what she should have done. But it is far easier for us to make that judgement from where we sit, as opposed to the information she had at the time. Maybe she had wanted to several times, but Cho talked her out of it each time. So eventually she said, "The only way I can get out of this is if I go to Umbridge. Sure, Cho will end up being in trouble, but she is the one insisting that I do something I don't want to do."

"Do not condemn a man until you have walked a mile in his mocassins."



Steve Newton - Oct 28, 2004 12:14 pm (#299 of 1080)
I don't recall any mention of pressure from her parents.

That Marietta was weak does not excuse her.



Prefect Marcus - Oct 28, 2004 12:18 pm (#300 of 1080)
Her parents (at least her mother) worked at the Ministry if memory serves, and told her to follow Umbridge.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Mona on Thu May 19, 2011 12:39 am; edited 5 times in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 59
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Posts 301 to 370

Post  Mona Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:38 pm

Mrs Brisbee - Oct 28, 2004 12:19 pm (#301 of 1080)
I'm thinking that if Marietta does return to Hogwarts, it will provide a perfect opportunity for some of the less mature DA members to go all James on us, and hex her whenever they can simply because they can. So she might be good for a few more plot points even if she has never spoken a word...



Steve Newton - Oct 28, 2004 12:23 pm (#302 of 1080)
I remember taht her mother worked at the Ministry. I recall no mention of any communication. I wouldn't see that it would make any difference if their was.



Penny Lane. - Oct 28, 2004 12:45 pm (#303 of 1080)
I would think that Marietta was in contact with her mother, but if she had told her mother about the DA, wouldn't her face have broken out before she went to Umbridge?

Marietta seems more like the unpopular girl who is trying to "get back" at the cheerleaders because of .. well why ever those people do things like that. I guess because they are jealus or something.



Liz Mann - Oct 28, 2004 1:08 pm (#304 of 1080)
I agree with Prefect Marcus. What are you supposed to do in a situation like that? However, we don't know that that was why she did it. I'd like to know more about what was going through Marietta's head and what her motives were. I got the distinct impression that she didn't like Harry. Did she go to Umbridge to try and get Harry in trouble? Did Umbridge guess she knew something and threaten her with the blood quill? Did she simply lose her nerve? Someone should ask J.K. that some time.



TomProffitt - Oct 28, 2004 1:44 pm (#305 of 1080)
Voldemort, the Death Eaters, the Order of the Phoenix, and the DA are all secret organizations kept in the quiet background in the OotP. Up until Marietta joined the DA she had had no contact with any of it. How is she going to be able to take the DA seriously when she never really wanted to be there in the first place and has no prior experience on which to base the validity of Harry's claims?

Yes, there are things available to Marietta to suggest Harry's honesty, but he is making extraordinary claims. I can understand her doubts. Ratting out your friends was one of the big conflicting pressures I recall growing up. The real feeling of being a traitor to either your parents or other authority figures who urge you to turn in those who do wrong versus betraying your friends.

I recall being a boy scout in my late teens and watching the senior scout present roll up a "fake" joint for the amusement of himself and the youngest boys there. I knew that he had done something terribly wrong that betrayed his position of responsibility, but I was unable to bring myself to turn him in (and settled for quitting the troop instead).

I think Marietta faced a similar Hobson's Choice. "Who am I supposed to trust?" Her parents? Umbridge (who I am certain she despises as much as everyone else)? Cho (who is not thinking strait because she has a crush on Harry)? Harry (he makes some very outlandish claims)?

She did the kind of thing every parent desperately hopes their kids will do. She trusted in an adult when she believed her schoolmates were in the wrong. And it was a very terrible mistake.

I don't believe Jo has given us near enough information about her character to condemn her or exonerate her. I will give her the benefit of the doubt until Jo reveals more information to us.



Steve Newton - Oct 28, 2004 3:31 pm (#306 of 1080)
I justs listened to the part of OOTP where the DA is started. It does say that both of Marietta's parents work at the Mininstry. The impression that I get is that they had told ME to back Umbridge before the DA was formed.



Mrs Brisbee - Oct 29, 2004 6:50 am (#307 of 1080)
TomProffitt, that was a very good post. I too can see how Marietta could have gotten to the point where she felt she needed to rat out the DA without ascribing evil intentions to her.



Steve Newton - Oct 29, 2004 6:58 am (#308 of 1080)
In fact, if she had problems with the organization, all she had to do was stop coming. The decision to become a traitor was hers. No matter what hypothetical pressure was brought to bear.



wwtMask - Oct 29, 2004 8:00 am (#309 of 1080)
Since I'm not so far removed from the age of the kids in the books (in fact, I'm technically the same age that Harry et al. would be now), I think I can say without any reserve that Marietta's betrayal was pretty much inexcusable in the eyes of her peers. It is generally considered to be cowardice or brown-nosing to tattle on your peers (except in the most extreme circumstances) and it's something that can get you hurt in more than one way. In my schools, they had "anonymous" tip lines that were supposed to make it easier to tell on people but, to my knowledge, they were hardly ever used. With the way the students of the other houses react to how the Slytherins often use the teachers to their advantage, the same sentiment must hold at Hogwarts as well. If we believe that to be true, then we have to ask ourselves what would be so strong as to break the so called "code of silence"?

I find it very difficult to believe that parental pressure was the primary reason here. Besides possibly sending regular owls to Marietta with vague warnings not to cross Umbridge, what other kind of pressure could the Edgcombes exert? They had no reason to suspect their daughter of even talking to Harry, much less participating in the DA.

Besides, if she really wanted to show loyalty to her parents and the Ministry, she had six months in which to betray the DA. The fact that she stuck around for so long suggests that she was either a spy , does not have the courage to stand up to her friend, or she was in a position to use her knowledge to her own advantage. There is an outside chance that she just didn't like Harry and wanted to get rid of him, but that could've been accomplished quite easily and earlier by ratting them out at the first illegal meeting of the DA. She might also have been looking out for her friend, but getting Cho expelled is an awfully funny way of doing so. As unlikely as it is, she might even have thought the group was dangerous, but after a few months it would be obvious that the DA existed for the exact purpose as it was intended and not to be a private child army. She might have been a spy, but that would imply that she was reporting to someone and, since a Sneak didn't write itself on her face for six months, that's unlikely. I am forced to believe that she thought to turn her knowledge into an advantage.

Without her I doubt Umbridge would have had more than a suspicion that the DA continued on and it was obvious that, without a traitor, the DA would operate indefinitely under her nose. I wonder if, as someone else suggested, she used the info as a "Get out of jail Free" card, or if she went to Umbridge of her own free will. That answer, I think, will reveal if Marietta is another Peter Pettigrew in the making or was just between a rock and a hard place.



Gerald Costales - Oct 29, 2004 9:37 am (#310 of 1080)
". . . she used the info as a "Get out of jail Free" card, or if she went to Umbridge of her own free will. That answer, I think, will reveal if Marietta is another Peter Pettigrew in the making or was just between a rock and a hard place." wwtMask

At this point none of us have any clue to Marietta's motives or intent. What was her frame of mind? If you heard some bad news and were very emotional, would your judgement be as sound?

Some people mature early and have sound judgement and are responsible beyond there age. Some people never grow up. We don't know enough information to judge either Marietta or Cho. Though, I agree that Marietta only joined the DA because of Cho, Marietta at 15 should have been able not to join the DA. And at 15 Marietta should have quitted and just left the DA.

Facts as of yet unknown to us made Marietta become a traitor. When we know those facts, we can judge Marietta fairly? And Marrietta is innocent until proved guilty.

I doubt many people will trust Marietta again. But, if DA wants to move beyond perscuting Marietta forgiveness is necessary. Otherwise the DA is just wasting time and energy better spent defeating Voldermort and the Death Eater. ;-) GC



Steve Newton - Oct 29, 2004 9:48 am (#311 of 1080)
Gerald, I sort of disagree. Marietta was a traitor. No facts can change this. Wait a minute. Unless what she did was undercover work. I don't believe it for a second.



MickeyCee3948 - Oct 29, 2004 10:35 am (#312 of 1080)
wwtMask - Very well put, earlier this week I'm afraid that I upset a few poster's with my put down of Marietta but if I had used your eloquence I am sure noone would have been offended. And by the way I agree with you.

Mikie



Solitaire - Oct 29, 2004 11:10 am (#313 of 1080)
wwtMask points out yet again some very clear reasons why many of us believe Marietta is indeed a traitor. The timing of her betrayal is what is so crucial. Having attended the meetings for six months, she knows that there is nothing "covert" going on; no takeover strategies are being hatched. It is also pretty obvious that Dumbledore is not involved, since he never shows his face at the meetings.

The meetings are simply an opportunity for the kids to practice what their negligent teacher SHOULD have been allowing them to practice in class.

As for persecuting Marietta, is there any evidence that this has happened? Marietta bears the "badge" of her betrayal, but this would have happened to anyone who betrayed the DA; it wasn't something done to her in retaliation, and I can't remember having read anything about anyone bothering her further.

I am curious about whether the curse can ever be lifted. The commentary on magical contracts makes it seem like they are unbreakable. Remember that even Dumbledore could not change the GoF business and excuse Harry from participating. It was considered a binding contract, and Harry had not even entered it himself!

If Hermione no longer has the parchment Marietta signed, this could also present a problem. If she needs the parchment to lift the jinx--and Umbridge has the parchment--things could get sticky.

Solitaire



Kelly Kapaoski - Oct 29, 2004 11:17 am (#314 of 1080)
If Umbridge has the parchment it can easily be obtained by either Nymphadora, Alastor or Kingsly. although mad eye would probably start hexing people because he is extremely paranoid



Mrs Brisbee - Oct 29, 2004 11:22 am (#315 of 1080)
I tend to veiw this situation as very complex. I find it perfectly understandable that Marietta's peers would veiw her batrayal as inexcusable, and at the same time I can see how she might do it without having to ascribe her motives to evil intent. I don't see that acknowledging the DA's feelings as legitimate means that we need to veiw Marieatta as the pint sized version of Peter Pettigrew.

As Gerald Costales points out, we don't know Marietta's exact motives. We can surmise, based on what evidence we have (and come up with wildly different theories). I see her as someone who is very weak willed. She went to the first meeting, but it was clear she didn't want to be there. She signed the paper after Hermione said to do so would mean she was agreeing to keep the DA secret. She voted Harry to be leader of the group. She attended meetings for over six months, and obviously kept it all secret. So why suddenly change her mind? After the Quibbler interveiw there was a shift in how the school (and the WW) saw Harry. They were starting to believe his version of events. If her view didn't shift at the same time it makes sense that she would start to see the DA in a more sinister light. She chose the same day as Seamus's first DA meeting to betray the group, and I don't think that was coincidence. Harry stopped being a quiet nutcase and the DA was taking on more members, and that's what I think made her decide to do what she did.



I doubt many people will trust Marietta again. But, if DA wants to move beyond perscuting Marietta forgiveness is necessary. Otherwise the DA is just wasting time and energy better spent defeating Voldermort and the Death Eater. ;-) GC


I agree with you here. The DA really has far far more important things to worry about than Marietta. Magnanimity could serve the DA well here, so they can focus on the things they need to.



TomProffitt - Oct 29, 2004 12:17 pm (#316 of 1080)
"In fact, if she had problems with the organization, all she had to do was stop coming." --- Steve (I think it was Steve)

But this is not what "responsible" adults try to teach their kids. The point I was trying to make ( and I suspect Jo of similar feelings) is that the "accepted" theory of adults are always right in moral issues compared to kids is just plain bunk.

Marietta did what I think most parents would want their kids to do. When in a moral dilemma brought about by pressure from her best friend, Marietta confided in a school official.

The sad truth of reality is that very often the adults have got it wrong and the kids have got it right. In a literary sense, Marietta was a vehicle to convey this truth to us. We would be better off to teach our children how to make good decisions than to teach them to blindly trust authority figures.



Liz Mann - Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm (#317 of 1080)
Because the authority figures are not always in the right themselves.



wwtMask - Oct 29, 2004 1:09 pm (#318 of 1080)
If the aftermath of the Quibbler interview did, indeed, cause Marietta to turn traitor, I really have to question her motives and thoughts on Harry and the Voldemort situation. Why was it ok to go to DA meetings with him for 6 months, during which the WW thought he was crazy, but not OK after many people were beginning to believe him? If she did not approve of him and his message, which he made quite plain from the start, it would have been child's play to get rid of Harry a week after Decree number whatever went into effect. It is simply difficult for me to understand what she stood to gain by turning traitor. Unless... [cue the conspiratorial Ron Weasly voice]

Consider the situation. The Quibbler article is causing people to question the Ministry; people are starting to believe Harry. Who is in place to do something about that but Umbridge herself. Knowing what we do, she was more than willing to take any opportunity to discredit Harry. It's not unlikely that she started nosing around, and maybe she stumbled upon Ms Edgecombe. But there's a problem I have with that: with all the ill will towards her and the general code of silence, especially for hated teachers, she should never have been able to get to Marietta. The DA was as perfectly concealed as can be. And yet, Harry was on the verge of getting expelled so soon after the interview, an event that the Prophet would have trumpeted to completely discredit him. It is all far too convenient for my tastes. It is possible that Marietta was waiting for the best moment, when she could get the best out of her betrayal. [end Ron voice]

Then again, she could just have been in trouble and used the info to get out of it. All I do know is that she could have gone to Umbridge earlier but didn't, and it smacks of traitorous intent from the beginning.



Solitaire - Oct 29, 2004 3:39 pm (#319 of 1080)
First of all, I realize we have only Umbridge's word for what happened (and she is a big, fat lying toad), but there is something about the way Marietta chose to reveal the existence of the DA and whereabouts of the meetings which sounds like she was trying to rat them out without actually telling Umbridge anything.

This sounds very much to me like she is trying to adhere to the letter of the contract (Don't tell anyone!) without actually preserving the spirit of it (If Umbridge finds out without my actually saying anything, then I haven't broken the agreement). The interesting thing is that she might have gotten away with it, if she'd stopped right there and hadn't said anything further. It was not until she mentioned the meeting that the hex came into operation.

It looks an awful lot to me like she knew darn well she was breaking a contract. She was simply unsure whether or not there would be retribution for doing so--or how much she could say before whatever the retribution was "kicked in." The moment she realized there was indeed retribution--and of a kind clearly visible to all she had betrayed--she clammed up!

BTW, wwtMask ... I like your [Ron voice] style! ;-)

Solitaire



Elanor - Oct 29, 2004 11:07 pm (#320 of 1080)
Very good point Solitaire! I never thought to Marietta from that point of view and it does make sense. If you're right - and I think you are - well she definitely is a hunderhand person. Besides, I think that the most interesting part is that she is not a Slytherin. If Jo shows us mean actions from a non-slytherin student, then she may soon show us good actions from Slytherins students. It may be a way to tell us again that things are not "in black and white" in the WW but that they are in various shades of gray.



Sir Tornado - Oct 30, 2004 5:34 am (#321 of 1080)
Or Solitaire, she could've been telling Umbridge about the meeting AGAINST her wishes and against her better judgement. That could account for her being vague at the begining.



Liz Mann - Oct 30, 2004 7:10 am (#322 of 1080)
But then why did she do it?

I agree, Solitare, that we only have Umbridge's word for what happened and she could have been lying. If Umbridge's story is true then it does indeed sound as though Marietta's a dirty rotten snitch. But if Umbridge was lying then there could have been more to it. Perhaps she was threatened with the blood quill.



Prefect Marcus - Oct 30, 2004 7:12 am (#323 of 1080)
Liz Mann - But then why did she do it?

That we may never know. I suspect Marietta will now recede into the background. I doubt Rowling will mention her again. She might, but I think it unlikely.



Madame Pomfrey - Oct 30, 2004 7:48 am (#324 of 1080)
Maybe Umbidge had Marietta under the Imperius Curse.She certainly thinks nothing of using the unforgivable curses to her advantage.



Solitaire - Oct 30, 2004 8:27 am (#325 of 1080)
I think any and maybe even all of the suggestions about what Umbridge could have done once Marietta gave her the initial info--Proceed to a secret room on the 7th floor, sometimes known as the room of requirement, and you'll find something to your advantage--might be true.

But the one inescapable thing still remains: Marietta went to Umbridge. Having seen "The Toadstress" in action for six months, she surely had to know that Umbridge was out to nail Harry. If she was too dim to figure it out on her own from (1) the detentions he'd been given for practically nothing, (2) the fact that Umbridge had removed him from the Quidditch team and (3) taken his broom away, and (4) the knowledge that she was policing all incoming and outgoing mail, communications with her mother should have put her onto the trail. After all, her own mother was helping police the Hogwarts fires.

Even assuming Marietta had not heard of any of these things (surely 2 & 3 would have reached her, given the fact that Cho was on the Ravenclaw Quidditch team), she would have realized that Umbridge was not going to let her walk out of her office after dropping a couple of tiny hints. After all, I don't think the title Hogwarts High Inquisitor was any accident. Think: Torquemada. Umbridge was certainly the Hogwarts version of Torquemada. Interestingly, Torquemada was "of Jewish blood himself ..." and those he persecuted most viciously were the Jews. Hm ... I wonder if we can apply a parallel to Umbridge. Could she be a "part human"--the group she hates most viciously--herself?

Solitaire



Tessa's Dad - Oct 30, 2004 8:47 am (#326 of 1080)
I occurs to me that with Umbridge monitoring all mail that passes through Hogwarts, she may have found which students were being pressed by their parents to help the ministry. She could also have learned which students were asking their parents for advice. If Umbridge found that Marietta was dealing with a problem that involved Harry, I can see Umbridge going to Marietta and pressuring her into to helping the MoM.

I know that Umbridge states that Marietta came to her with the information. If Umbridge had pressured Marietta into helping, then Umbridge could just as well convinced Marietta that it was Marietta’s idea. This could make Marietta look like a hero in the MoM eyes. Umbridge could have used the Imperious Curse and lied about how Marietta came to her.

However this scenario was played out, I see Marietta as a very pliable piece of clay. Just waiting for some evil person to use her in their ways. How many teens in our world have been used by adults to work some misguided purpose? I am not attacking Marietta. Unfortunately, I’ve seen many teens used in some very bad ways.

I feel great pity for Marietta. She made a decision that turned out to have some very severe consequences. She wouldn’t be the first kid that made a foolish decision that ended up hurting other people.



Liz Mann - Oct 30, 2004 9:50 am (#327 of 1080)
Exactly. If Umbridge had pressured Marietta or used an Unforgiveable Curse on her, she isn't likely to say so in front of Dumbledore and the Minister for Magic (I wonder if Fudge knows about the blood quill). So she tells them Marietta came to her. She also knows that Marietta isn't going to say, "No I didn't!", because Umbridge has so much authority at Hogwarts that the consequences of doing that could be horrible for Marietta (detention with the blood quill).



Solitaire - Oct 30, 2004 9:59 am (#328 of 1080)
Because Marietta's betrayal set in motion such a critical series of events (Dumbledore's leaving, Umbridge's replacement of him as HM, the sacking of Hagrid and injury of McGonagall ... leading to Harry's inability to be able to tell an adult he trusted about Padfoot, the trip into the forest, the kids' flight to the Ministry, Sirius's death, Harry's possession by Voldemort, etc.), it seems logical to me that JKR would have revealed any mitigating circumstances in Marietta's favor at the end of the book. There is usually some sort of resolution, even if it is only to let us know via Dumbledore that there is more to the situation than meets the eye and we need to reserve judgment. The fact that she did not do this leads me to continue to think of Marietta's betrayal as just that--a betrayal she chose to commit of her own volition--until we are told otherwise.

Solitaire



Sir Tornado - Oct 30, 2004 12:05 pm (#329 of 1080)
Intresting thoughts really... but my thoughts on this issue are aptly explained here and here

In a nut shell, I don't think Marrietta's broken any rules at all and didn't deserve to be punished.



Penny Lane. - Oct 30, 2004 1:09 pm (#330 of 1080)
Seriously. You really think that Marietta didn't break any rules? I think she should be glad she's not at a muggle school. To betray people like that is just plain wrong. I equate her with the upopular person that is very common at High Schools in the U.S. who seems to live to be mean to cheerleaders. No one can figure out why these people are so hostile in their actions to popular people, but they are. Marietta deserved what she got, and she should be forced to wear her marks. She needs to remind people that she is not to be trusted, she could have killed her classmates, and she could have expelled them all. If she didn't like what they were doing, no one told her she had to come to the meetings. She could have calmly gone on with her buisness of studying for exams without tattling. She probably realized that she was stupid and was failing DADA and could possibly boost her grade a bit.

I don't feel sorry for her, she got what she deserved. There is no reason that she should be considered a great person in the eyes of a parent either. She betrayed her friends by tattling, and then wonders why people don't like her? Seriously, that is the dumbest thing I ever heard. If I knew her in real life... wow.



Solitaire - Oct 30, 2004 1:14 pm (#331 of 1080)
First, Sir Tornado, no one said she broke any rules. She did, however, break a contract. She agreed not to tell, and she told. Period.

Second, she was NOT FORCED to join the DA. She has a mouth. She can say no. I do not recall Cho--or anyone else, for that matter--holding a wand to her heart and threatening to AK her. If she can't stand up to Cho and say, "Gee, Cho, I realize you really feel a need to do this after what happened with Cedric. However, my mom works for the Ministry, and I really don't think this is something I'd like to do," then God help her if Voldemort ever gets hold of her. She will sell out anyone for anything in a New York minute!

Frankly, your posts only serve to reinforce my feelings about the entire thing.

Solitaire



Sir Tornado - Oct 30, 2004 1:40 pm (#332 of 1080)
Penny, the DA was illegal. If it's members were expelled, that would be in accordance with the law of the school. Legally correct.

Solitaire... I think it's obvious that Marrietta DID NOT want to join the DA. She was forced to do so by Cho. I think we all agree to atleast that? Now, there comes a time in everyone's life that you can't do something you truly want to do. You have to give in to peer pressure. I think it was due to pressure applied by Cho that Marrietta decided to agree to join the DA. I think it's obvious that she distrusted Harry and that she did not believe a word about Voldemort comming back. And no Solitaire, Cho didn't actually put her wand and threatened to AK Marrietta. Sometimes, you can't refuse your friends.

However, as far as Marrietta telling Umbridge about the DA was concerned; I repeat, we do not know full facts. Most importantly, we haven't heard HER version of events. Knowing Rowling and her twists, I daresay it would be intresting to hear them (if indeed we are to see Marrietta again). But I must ask a question here. Why did Harry never ask Cho or Marrietta the reason for betraying them? And what right does Hermione have to curse her fellow classmates? Why didn't Hermione tell them about the Hex she put on the parchment? Surely, she should've told the DA members exactly what they were signing... in fact she decieved them; she is guilty of Omission.



Eponine - Oct 30, 2004 1:51 pm (#333 of 1080)
Just because an action is within the scope of "rules" doesn't mean it's right.



Sir Tornado - Oct 30, 2004 2:00 pm (#334 of 1080)
Yes, I never said what Marrietta did was "right". But what she did certainly wasn't punishable; atleast not legally.



Penny Lane. - Oct 30, 2004 2:05 pm (#335 of 1080)
Actually, since they are fighting a war, what Marietta did was a "War Crime". Therefore, rules change.



Solitaire - Oct 30, 2004 2:08 pm (#336 of 1080)
While I DO agree that Marietta didn't want to join, I'm sorry, but I CANNOT agree that she was forced. Good heavens! She will be in her final year at Hogwarts if she returns! If she can't stand up to pressure and refuse to do something she believes is wrong by now, the girl has bigger problems than spots on her face.

As for not being able to refuse your friends ... sure, you can. I see kids do it all the time. I refused my friends, too, when I felt it was the right thing to do.

Seamus refused to join the DA--in addition to thinking Harry was a total nutcase--yet he managed to stay friends with Dean Thomas, who not only joined but also managed to stay friends with Harry. Harry was disappointed and probably a bit ticked at first, but he forgave Seamus and welcomed him into the group. He probably appreciated his honesty. Kids are funny that way. They can accept it if you refuse to do something--if you're honest about it. But they hate traitors.

As for Hermione, well ... she told the kids that by signing their names, they were AGREEING NOT TO TELL UMBRIDGE OR ANYONE ELSE. Maybe they didn't realize they were in danger of being "spotted" if they told, but they shouldn't have been telling, anyway! Welcome to the real world, where there are consequences for breaking a trust.

Solitaire



Sir Tornado - Oct 30, 2004 2:15 pm (#337 of 1080)
Seamus refused to join the DA--in addition to thinking Harry was a total nutcase--yet he managed to stay friends with Dean Thomas, who not only joined but also managed to stay friends with Harry. Harry was disappointed and probably a bit ticked at first, but he forgave Seamus and welcomed him into the group. He probably appreciated his honesty. Kids are funny that way. They can accept it if you refuse to do something--if you're honest about it. But they hate traitors. -- Solitaire

I think Seamus and Marrietta are two different personalities. As are Cho and Dean. Besides, NOT all kids can stand up to pressure you know. But does that weakness make them liable to have spots on their faces?

And we haven't even got to the memory charm Kingsley placed on Marrietta. Surely, that's obstruction of justice.

Actually, since they are fighting a war, what Marietta did was a "War Crime". Therefore, rules change. -- Penny Lane

Actually, there was no war "officially" on. So, rules don't change. Besides, DA were an illegal organisation. All their actions are therefore illegal.



Penny Lane. - Oct 30, 2004 2:19 pm (#338 of 1080)
The rules of friendship won't change no matter what though. She wasn't forced to join. She did make an agreement by signing a contract, and she did break the terms of said contract by approaching Umbridge and disclosing information that she had promised - in writing - not to disclose. By breaking the contract she effectively punished herself.



Sir Tornado - Oct 30, 2004 2:23 pm (#339 of 1080)
But there is a flaw in that argument. When she signed the agreement, the DA was legal. When she broke the agreement, the DA was illegal. If the DA was deemed to be illegal, the contract automatically becomes so too. Illegal contracts don't count. So, technically speaking, Marrietta did not break the contract.



Solitaire - Oct 30, 2004 2:29 pm (#340 of 1080)
I think people pretty much stand where they stand on this issue. I doubt there is much that has not been said about it, and I don't think anything anyone says at this point is going to change anyone else's mind. Like many (I realize some hope she STAYS spotted), I hope there is a way to clear Marietta's face. I'd prefer if it were done "ON Camera"--with her apologizing to those she betrayed. That would show that she actually accepted responsibility for what she did and truly was sorry.

She may return spotless, but if she never apologizes or asks forgiveness, she will never again be trusted by peers who know her.

Solitaire

Edit: Marietta DID break the contract. Whether the contract was legal or not isn't the issue. She broke a magical contract, and there are consequences. Consider the GoF. It was illegal for someone under a certain age to enter the tournament. But Barty put Harry's name in, and the Goblet chose him. Dumbledore said it was a contract and had to be honored. Period. A contract is a contract.



Sir Tornado - Oct 30, 2004 2:42 pm (#341 of 1080)
But then, well, I accept that Marrietta betrayed DA, but can you honestly punish someone without a fair trial?



Solitaire - Oct 30, 2004 2:48 pm (#342 of 1080)
The Wizarding Community apparently can. For evidence, I cite Sirius Black's 12-year stint in Azkaban without a trial and Hagrid's expulsion from Hogwarts--with no pardon offered--even after it was crystal clear he was not guilty. The WW apparently plays by different rules.



Sir Tornado - Oct 30, 2004 2:51 pm (#343 of 1080)
Exactly Solitaire. And Sirius Black DID NOT betray Lily and James though every one thought so. Deja Vu?



Solitaire - Oct 30, 2004 3:00 pm (#344 of 1080)
I doubt it.



Sir Tornado - Oct 30, 2004 4:03 pm (#345 of 1080)
But you can't be sure till we have heard Marrietta's side of the story, can you?



Steve Newton - Oct 30, 2004 4:05 pm (#346 of 1080)
Unless Marietta was imperioed it makes no difference what her side of is. She betrayed her friends. As Sirius would have said to Peter, she should have died.



wwtMask - Oct 30, 2004 4:16 pm (#347 of 1080)
I think it's fair to say that Marietta is indeed guilty. After all, she has SNEAK on her face, just as Hermione had intended for anyone who snitched. Drawing a parallel between Marietta and Sirius is a stretch of the imagination that I just can't make.

Someone suggested that she may have been under the Imperius Curse. I can't really buy that. First off, I highly doubt that Umbridge would resort to such extreme measures on someone who is cooperating with her. Since Marietta revealed just enough to be useful, she didn't need to force anything else out. Also, if she had been imperioed, why didn't Umbridge know more? Under the curse, I think Marietta would've told her anything she wanted to know, regardless of the spots. Yet we see Umbridge setting up a sting to catch the DA in the act. She would not have needed that if Marietta had revealed all she knew.



timrew - Oct 30, 2004 4:27 pm (#348 of 1080)
So what this argument boils down to, is that Marietta has legal or illegal spots on her face?

Who cares? She deserves them either way!



Penny Lane. - Oct 30, 2004 5:04 pm (#349 of 1080)
I KNEW I wasn't the only one!

This all came out of an arguement over whether or not the spots were too harsh a punishment. I believe that she got what she deserved, and even got off rather lightly. Most seem fall under the Marietta deserves pity catagory.



Solitaire - Oct 30, 2004 5:33 pm (#350 of 1080)
Not I, Penny. I think she is guilty, and I see no parallel at all between her and Sirius. Sirius was suspected because Peter set him up and betrayed him. The people who accused Sirius of murdering Peter and the Muggles in the street were only reporting what they saw--and what they saw was not really what happened, as we know.

Marietta is not suffering because someone misinterpreted what he saw or heard. No one thought he heard her squeal and punished her for what he thought she did, as was the case with Sirius. Marietta activated the jinx upon herself when she squealed.

Solitaire



Penny Lane. - Oct 30, 2004 7:08 pm (#351 of 1080)
I don't see any parallel between her and Sirius either. If anything, she is more like Peter the Betrayer. But there really isn't a strong correation there either, as Peter was actually friends with the members of the Order, as opposed to being there because one person wanted him to go.



DJ Evans - Oct 30, 2004 7:18 pm (#352 of 1080)
Solitaire; ummmm, I think it is safe to say that you've taken Marietta off of your Christmas card list this year? (sorry just couldn't resist there!! )

Sad to say that Marietta just isn't a character that I've paid that close of attention to really, so I can't take any hard stand on her one way or another. But I have kept up with this thread some and in scanning the last couple of days worth of posting (which there have been quite a lot of here lately) I can see where both sides are coming from I think.

I do know that there are people out there that have weak personalities or are shy/quiet types. These types do stand a greater risk of being "talked" into doing things that they would rather not do. As maybe Marietta was? A lot of "bad" clubs/gangs/organizations feed on these types I'm sure. Just as most likely LV had quite a few of these within his DE's maybe.

Then you might have a situation where Cho had "something" on Marietta (or her family) & got her to join the DA by using that against her.

As far as Marietta telling Umbridge about the DA's? I can see at least 3 different ways that could have come about. First off the simplest explanation -- Marietta just flat out told Umbridge. Second explanation is Umbridge is the type of person that wouldn't think twice about using any means of a spell/enchantment to achieve her ultimate goal. Third explanation is I could see Umbridge putting a trick question to Marietta to trip her up. Like: "Have you ever been caught joining a secret club?" Well, if you answer yes then you're caught or if you answer no -- does that mean yes you've joined a secret club but just have never been caught? (Note: I'm using that just as an example, but you get the drift.)

Quirky Thought Alert Here: And last, has anyone ever thought that Marietta might have been "faking" the spots on the train for the trip home? Maybe to try and get back at Hermione some?

As I said, I haven't paid that much attention in my reads of HP on Marietta and so maybe I really should have kept my post to myself. So if I'm way off base and everybody totally disagrees with me here, well you've got my permission to ignore it all. Just please -- no rotten tomatoes?

Later, Deb



wwtMask - Oct 30, 2004 10:06 pm (#353 of 1080)
I don't doubt Umbridge might use any means to achieve her ends, but how would she even know to use them on Marietta in the first place? Besides Cho, there's not really anything linking Marietta to Harry, and the Cho link is tenuous at best. She would have done better to use illegal means on people, like the Weasley children, who are undoubtedly in close confidence with Harry. I think the scene in Umbridge's office gives us a good look at how she uses her power: she will resort to "any means necessary" only in the extreme case. Otherwise, she could have gotten Harry far in advance of that.

I actually like the idea of Marietta faking to make Hermione look like the bad guy, though I wonder how many people actually know that Hermione is responsible for the spots. She might also have been looking for pity. Or, maybe the pimples themselves have been burst, but she still has dark spots where they were (as happens with most pimples). If that's the case, I think SNEAK will be gone or very faint by the time term starts.



Solitaire - Oct 30, 2004 11:28 pm (#354 of 1080)
Deb, I didn't think of her faking the spots, but I did consider that she might have been wearing the balaclava out of embarrassment, even if the spots were already gone ... too afraid to show her face, etc. And yes, she is off my Christmas card list.

Cho doesn't strike me as the blackmailing type, really. And since Cho and Marietta were still speaking at the end of the book, Marietta probably did not claim that Cho had coerced her into joining the DA.

Solitaire



Czarina II - Oct 31, 2004 4:04 pm (#355 of 1080)
I see parallels between Marietta and Seamus in OoP. Neither trusted Harry at the beginning of the year. Marietta chose to join the DA against her will/better judgement and betrayed it. Seamus chose not to join (wouldn't be surprised if Hermione asked him in September) and then only later did he see the error of his ways and join forces with Harry. It was how they handled their situations that was different. Marietta went along with her friend; Seamus went against his. Both changed their minds. It would be an interesting question to ask an English class, anyway.

I wish JKR would give us clues about Marietta! We need to put this discussion to rest. Who cares if Marietta deserved her punishment or not? We don't have anything but speculative evidence until HbP comes out. Marietta as a character -- or a plot device, since that is what she really is at this point -- is much more interesting.



Solitaire - Oct 31, 2004 4:53 pm (#356 of 1080)
If Seamus had been asked by Hermione in September and knew of the group (pure conjecture, I realize), at least he didn't betray them, even if he and Harry were at odds. That shows strength of character.

Czarina, the fact that we are expending this much energy and passion on Marietta tells me how much we need a new book and new situations about which to ruminate and disagree!

Solitaire



MickeyCee3948 - Oct 31, 2004 5:55 pm (#357 of 1080)
Here, Here Solitaire!

Mikie



Catherine - Nov 1, 2004 10:32 am (#358 of 1080)
I will agree that HBP needs to hurry up and settle some of these questions and debates all over the Forum!

I will throw in my knuts to say that I do not see a parallel between Sirius and Marietta in the scenario suggested by Sir Tornado. Sirius was not imprisoned for betraying James and Lily. Very few people in the wizarding world even knew that Sirius was (supposedly) the Potters' Secret Keeper. Sirius was imprisoned for supposedly murdering over a dozen people.

The DA was illegal. If it's members were expelled, that would be in accordance with the law of the school. Legally correct. --Sir Tornado

Well, that kind of reasoning seems to be exactly what we see in the Ministry as a whole. Everyone cites nitpicky little passages (gee, that sounds like us here on the Forum! ) to try to "prove" their point. It seems like the "letter" of the law" is more important than the intent.

Well, Marietta's intentions brand her as a SNEAK. She didn't go to Professor Dumbledore, or her own Head of House, Professor Flitwick about the DA. She went to an authority figure who was known to be against both Dumbledore and Harry Potter--Delores Umbridge. She didn't say, "I'm so worried, Professor, that we're in over our heads and involved in an illegal society that could get us expelled." No, she went to Umbridge, and said that Umbridge would find something "to her advantage."

I also notice that Marietta's timing is interesting, as after nearly six months of DA meetings, she only decides that Umbridge should be given this information after the article in The Daily Prophet appeared (and the interrupted date with Cho on Valentine's Day that facilitated it) and Dumbledore's interference with Umbridge's attempt to kick Trelawney out of Hogwarts and by installing Firenze as a Divination teacher. These two incidents publicly undermined Umbridge's authority.

If Marietta was truly caught between the proverbial "rock and hard place," she had other authority figures to rely upon other than Delores Umbridge. Her choice in telling Umbridge is, well, quite telling.



wwtMask - Nov 1, 2004 11:17 am (#359 of 1080)
Absolutely Catherine! And your point about her choice of authority figures cuts right to the core of the discussion. Why not go to the Ravenclaw head teacher? Or, in this case, Dumbly would probably have been far better suited. But if her motive was to hurt Harry, Umbridge was the only person to go to, since the entire staff of Hogwarts had shown wariness and barely concealed resentment towards Umbridge (outright hostility, in some cases). If she had gone to another teacher, there is no doubt that the DA would have been forcibly disbanded, but, knowing the teachers and Dumbly, they would have been spared expulsion and it would have been hushed up so that Umbridge would never find out.

The more I think about the details of the entire affair, the more convinced I become that Marietta had planned to rat out the DA for some time before actually doing so. I also think Harry was a main reason for her actions. There is a possibility that she was doing it for personal gain. Percy did say something to the effect that anyone who made themselves useful in discrediting/getting rid of Harry would be in line for Head Boy/Girl. Either way, the notion that Marietta was somehow forced is starting to look to me like, if I may borrow Hagrid's expression, codswallop.



Sir Tornado - Nov 1, 2004 11:59 am (#360 of 1080)
If Marietta was truly caught between the proverbial "rock and hard place," she had other authority figures to rely upon other than Delores Umbridge. Her choice in telling Umbridge is, well, quite telling. -- Catherine

Actually, it isn't that telling as you might think. For over 8 months, the Daily Prophet was slandering Harry AND Dumbledore. Anyone, especially a 16 year-old girl would be brain washed by reading just that. And Harry wasn't making matters easy for himself by refusing to talk about it. (Let me clarify that I don't blame Harry here). It was obvious that Marrietta did not like nor believed Harry. When Harry's story did appear, it was in quibbler, a magazine known to publish rubbish. Not everyone was convinced by that... (Remember the letters Harry recieved?). In short, anyone believing Newspapers wasn't going to get a positive image of either Harry or Dumbledore. So, that could answer why Marrietta didn't go to DD

Umbridge on the other hand was praised by Daily Prophet. Marrietta Edgecombe's mother; who worked at the MoM must have praised Prof. Umbridge at home, instructed Marrietta to go to Umbridge if she had some problem et cetra... That would've created a positive image of Umbridge in Marrietta's eyes. Now, I know Umbridge was an EVIL person... but we know that she was an evil person only because we read the stories form Harry's POV. Had we read the story from Draco's POV, we could've thought she was a wonderfull person... I mean, we know she behaves horribly to Gryffindors and Harry, but she might be behaving well with the students of other houses... In that circumstances, how was Marrietta to judge whose intent was right and whose intent was wrong? She thought Umbridge was the good guy and Harry was a nutter...

Hence she told DA's secret to Umbridge instead of telling it to DD... She was after all just 16...



wwtMask - Nov 1, 2004 12:18 pm (#361 of 1080)
Even if she didn't trust Dumbly and thought Harry was crazy, why did she go to Umbridge as opposed to her Head of house? We've seen time and again that students generally trust their Head of house with big problems.

I also don't see how she could be blind to Umbridge's true nature, especially with the testimony of people besides Harry. Everyone in the DA tended to agree that Umbridge was, at the least, an incompetent teacher and, at worst, a paranoid abuser of power. The entire DA can't be crazy too. Add to that the way Umbridge progressively became more outwardly dictatorial, something that you'd have to be blind to miss.

She may have been biased because of the Daily Prophet, assuming she even made a habit of reading the Prophet at all. She may even have been encouraged to play up to Umbridge by her parents. The Quibbler interview may even have spurred her to action. But bypassing what would have been the normal and obvious avenue for revealing her information, that of her Head of House, in favor of a teacher who has been openly in conflict with Harry and has the power to get rid of him is more suggestive of her motive than even the timing of her betrayal.



Catherine - Nov 1, 2004 12:34 pm (#362 of 1080)
Hence she told DA's secret to Umbridge instead of telling it to DD... She was after all just 16... --Sir Tornado

She is just sixteen, but she is also a year away from being "of age" in the Wizarding World. She is nearly the age Cedric was when he was killed by Voldemort.

I can see your point about Marietta perhaps believing the Daily Prophet, although this suggests to me that your previous arguments about Cho "forcing" Marietta to join the DA has less merit. Obviously Cho doesn't have that much influence on Marietta, if Marietta refuses to see that Voldemort is back, that he killed Cedric, and that Cho believes Harry. I don't think you can have that both ways.

Marietta, even if she thinks that Dumbledore is crazy and that Harry is an attention-seeking prat, did not have to go to Umbridge. She could have gone to Snape (no Harry fan there) or to Professor Flitwick (her own Head of House). She only went to Umbridge, finally, when Umbridge's power and influence were seriously threatened at Hogwarts by the article in The Quibbler and by Dumbledore's refusal to dismiss Trelawney from the castle.

She didn't go and tell on herself by confession, or express concern for safety or rules. She told Umbridge that Umbridge would find something "to her advantage."

One could infer that Marietta thought that Umbridge needed an "advantage" now, and that Marietta was on Umbridge's side.



Prefect Marcus - Nov 1, 2004 12:40 pm (#363 of 1080)
Once again, I am caught without my reference volumes.

Does not Educational Decree #24 state that any violations were to be brought to the attention of the High Inquisitor? It is in OoP chapter 17, I believe.



Sir Tornado - Nov 1, 2004 12:41 pm (#364 of 1080)
I think she went to Umbridge because Umbridge worked in MoM. As did her mom.

EDIT: Yes, Marcus is right



Catherine - Nov 1, 2004 12:58 pm (#365 of 1080)
Sir Tornado, I'd like a quote.

I went to Chapter 17, and read Educational Decree Number Twenty-four. There is no requirement in that text that violations be brought to the notice of the High Inquisitor.

Sir Tornado, if you read this differently, I would like the quote, as I must have missed it elsewhere in the book. Maybe it was in a different Educational Decree?

EDIT: I went back and reread all the Educational Decrees from OoP, and there is no mention that violations should be brought to the notice of the High Inquisitor.



Leila 2X4B - Nov 1, 2004 1:31 pm (#366 of 1080)
I want to add my 2 knuts here. She may not have gone to her head of house, but she did go to the only professor that would have taken her worries seriously. Everyone except Snape had favored Harry. She possibly went to the teacher who wasn't blinded by Harry in her opinion.

Leila



Catherine - Nov 1, 2004 1:36 pm (#367 of 1080)
She may not have gone to her head of house, but she did go to the only professor that would have taken her worries seriously.--Sleeping Beauty

Oh, I rather doubt that, actually. McGonagall had already warned Harry to be careful of Umbridge. I'm sure many teachers would have been concerned that so many students were at risk of expulsion, and would have disbanded the group secretly.

You are assuming that Marietta confessed worries, or that she was worried. We don't know this. We do know that Marietta told Umbridge that she would be "at an advantage" at a time when Umbridge needed an advantage.

She possibly went to the teacher who wasn't blinded by Harry in her opinion. --Sleeping Beauty

Harry didn't blind anyone. He opened eyes to the truth. Umbridge may be blind, but it's by her own thirst for control and power.



Leila 2X4B - Nov 1, 2004 1:38 pm (#368 of 1080)
However, Marietta did not know that is how the other teachers felt. Sometimes I feel that we are blinded by what we see from Harry's pov and not what others outside of his circle would believe.

Leila



Sir Tornado - Nov 1, 2004 1:44 pm (#369 of 1080)
Ok, Catherine, I may be wrong about the quote (Don't have OotP with me right now) But the points I made in Post 360 still stand true.

And I agree with Leila.



Catherine - Nov 1, 2004 4:08 pm (#370 of 1080)
Sir Tornado,

I think you make a valid point that Marietta may have been influenced by the bias of The Daily Prophet. I just don't think that we can say, as you did in earlier posts, that Cho forced Marietta into the DA. Perhaps Marietta's mind or will is weak. I would be willing to accede to that.

Sleeping Beauty makes a good point that we see things from Harry's point of view, so we are not inclined to take Marietta's view into account. I have tried to do this, and still reach the conclusion that she could have gone to Flitwick or to Snape or McGonagall, even if she were unwilling to go to Dumbledore. And, well, after all, the books are Harry Potter and.....

Marietta waited six months to tattle. She certainly had the opportunity to observe the activities of the DA, and even to benefit from them. She knew that the DA was not trying to take over the Ministry, and was not putting students in danger.

When she went to Umbridge, she didn't raise issues of student safety. Rather, she told Umbridge that Umbridge stood to benefit from invading the meeting.

Marietta certainly took long enough to express her qualms. I do find it interesting that she only tells when Umbridge really needs to prove herself at Hogwarts. Other students with parents who work at the Ministry who had a parent tell them NOT to join an illegal Defense group stood up to Umbridge. Hermione saw Harry threatened with the Crucio spell, and still managed to "not" tell her what she wanted to know.

I really do think that, compared to the mental and physical anguish felt by Harry, Hermione, Ron, Ginny, Neville, and Luna, Marietta's spots are not such a big deal, as far as the "big picture" goes.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Mona on Thu May 19, 2011 12:40 am; edited 5 times in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 59
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Posts 371 to 413

Post  Mona Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:41 pm

Eponine - Nov 1, 2004 5:10 pm (#371 of 1080)
I agree with Catherine. I think Marietta's timing is interesting. Six months is quite a long time to participate in a group if she felt uncomfortable with it.



Urvi Bhimani - Nov 1, 2004 5:25 pm (#372 of 1080)
Maybe she told her mother about it and she forced Marietta to tell Umbridge?



Catherine - Nov 1, 2004 5:59 pm (#373 of 1080)
Maybe she told her mother about it and she forced Marietta to tell Umbridge? --Urvi Bhimani

Well, maybe.

Maybe she did. I really do think that, so far as we know from JKR, that choices have come into play. At this moment, I think that Marietta went voluntarily to Umbridge, and chose to betray her friends, but I can also see a plausible scenario where Umbridge the Toad "made" a student tell her something under duress.

So far, the only characters we've seen to actually use the Unforgiveable Curses are Voldemort and the Death Eaters, unless you wish to include Harry's little transgression at the MoM, which was not the least bit effective.

So, right now, I'm saying that Marietta WAS a SNEAK, and CHOSE to be one, alas earwax.



Sir Tornado - Nov 1, 2004 7:50 pm (#374 of 1080)
Catherine, in your post, you compare Marrietta's actions to Hermione's. You can't do that can you? They are two different people... with different qualities. They are bound to make different decisions.

What I've been trying to say here is this:

I do think that Marrietta seems to be a traitor and DESERVES to be punished.

However, you can't hand out punishments untill the accused has a chance to defend himself/herself in a fair trial.

It was thus, unfair to punish Marrietta BEFORE they've heard her view and her side of the story. What really bothers me is that no one -- Harry, Ron, Hermione -- even cared to ask Marrietta why she betrayed the DA.



Tessa's Dad - Nov 1, 2004 8:21 pm (#375 of 1080)
I don’t see the Sneak Pimples as a punishment. I look at them in the same light as the red dye used in moneybags stolen from banks. The police want to find the money? Just look for the people with red dye all over their bodies. Want to find the student that ratted on the DA? Look for the Purple Pimples.

Hermoine’s little trick with the parchment saved us a lot of time trying to find the rat. If there had been no pimples, and Umbridge had told no one where she found information, we’d still be debating on the subject of who was the guilty party.



Solitaire - Nov 1, 2004 10:29 pm (#376 of 1080)
Maybe she told her mother about it and she forced Marietta to tell Umbridge

I don't see how, or she'd have had SNEAK written across her face before she talked to Umbridge.

I am curious about Mrs. Edgecombe, too. Isn't she supposed to be helping police the Hogwarts fires? How is it that Harry manages to talk to Sirius several times in the Gryffindor fire without getting caught by Mrs. Edgecombe? Until Umbridge nearly catches Sirius in the Gryffindor fire that night and later does grab Harry in the act of using her fire, we don't see any close calls. Is it remotely possible that Mrs. E just told Marietta to keep out of the line of fire--nothing more?

Before you write this off as a possibility, consider that obsequious, sycophantic little apple-polisher, Percy Weasley! He acted in his own behalf rather than support those his parents supported. Why may Marietta not have been acting in her own interests? She's a Ravenclaw, and they are supposed to be intelligent. Suggesting she doesn't know she is breaking a contract doesn't give her much credit. Is it possible she didn't credit a non-Ravenclaw with enough ability to do what Hermione did?

I agree that Catherine is on target. There is something to the way Marietta snitched. She did not identify herself as part of the group--just as one who had information about them. She also "sat on" the information until it was most useful.

Solitaire



Catherine - Nov 2, 2004 5:01 am (#377 of 1080)
Catherine, in your post, you compare Marrietta's actions to Hermione's. You can't do that can you? They are two different people... with different qualities. They are bound to make different decisions. Sir Tornado

So the rules aren't fixed? People can make different decisions? I thought you wanted Marietta to be legally correct. But I would agree that people do make different decisions. It is our choices that define us, not our abilities.

However, you can't hand out punishments untill the accused has a chance to defend himself/herself in a fair trial. --Sir Tornado

Well, actually, that does seem to happen quite a bit in these novels. But I would argue that Hermione did not "hand out" a punishment. Marietta activated the jinx herself.

What really bothers me is that no one -- Harry, Ron, Hermione -- even cared to ask Marrietta why she betrayed the DA. --Sir Tornado

This doesn't bother me at all! No, more seriously, I myself could be sympathetic to her plight if Umbridge had Crucioed her, or threatened her initially. There is no evidence as of OoP that this happened at all. Should it matter to Harry, Ron, or Hermione why Marietta chose to approach Umbridge and tell her that she should go to the Room of Requirement to find something to her advantage?



Steve Newton - Nov 2, 2004 7:41 am (#378 of 1080)
Sir Tornado says "However, you can't hand out punishments until the accused has a chance to defend himself/herself in a fair trial."

In the muggle world we have trials because we do not know what happened. In this case we do. No trial would be necessary.

Some seem to think that Marietta's mother told her to tell Umbridge. Aside from the fact that I see nothing in the books to indicate this I also don't see what difference it would make. She still sold out her friends. (I would also suggest that there is evidence that this did not happen. I think that if she had told her mother that the spots would have been activated then.)



Urvi Bhimani - Nov 2, 2004 1:30 pm (#379 of 1080)
Ah yes. I didn't take into consideration that her face would cover with SNEAK right after she told her mother.



Steve Newton - Nov 2, 2004 1:44 pm (#380 of 1080)
Actually, I didn't think of it either until I had started writing.



Sir Tornado - Nov 3, 2004 1:53 am (#381 of 1080)
I don't think Marrietta telling her mother about DA really counted. Cho seems to have told her parents. Luna also says that her father was supportive of her anyi-ministry actions. Dean gets Seamus to attend a DA meeting later on. The SNEAK curse doesn't get activated anywhere. I feel that it only activates in case anyone tell Umbridge.

Then again I feel that Hermione should have told everyone about the curse. Why didn't she? Isn't that deceiving? She did not mention all the causes and the punitive measures of the contract then.

This doesn't bother me at all! No, more seriously, I myself could be sympathetic to her plight if Umbridge had Crucioed her, or threatened her initially. There is no evidence as of OoP that this happened at all. Should it matter to Harry, Ron, or Hermione why Marietta chose to approach Umbridge and tell her that she should go to the Room of Requirement to find something to her advantage? -- Catherine

To find out if Marrietta had a valid reason for her betrayal. Cho seems to have talked to Marrietta and seems to have understood and accepted her reason. It is harsh to comment on anything before we know the entire story. And the entire story includes the offender's point of view.



wwtMask - Nov 3, 2004 5:30 am (#382 of 1080)
Hermione told them they'd be agreeing not to tell Umbridge or anyone else about what they were doing. Now anyone who happened to overhear them before the contract was signed would know about the DA, even if they weren't specifically told after it was formed. That's what I think may have happened with Seamus. I must be reading it differently because I don't remember anything suggesting that Cho told her parents.

I actually think it was better that Hermione kept it a secret that she jinxed the parchment. If anyone knew what to expect, they could work out a counter-jinx and, when they found it, could act with impunity. Besides, keeping your word and following contracts seems to be de rigeur in the WW. It's about time Marietta learned that there are consequences for breaking your word, if she didn't know already.



Solitaire - Nov 3, 2004 6:57 am (#383 of 1080)
It's possible that Harry told Seamus about the DA after he came up and apologized, or said he believed him, or whatever it was that he said (sorry--no book handy to check). I don't think Seamus necessarily disbelieved Harry from the start. I think Harry's (totally angry) responses to Seamus's questions and his comments about Seamus's mom's concerns were what set them against each other.

I remember how I was as a kid. It was okay for me to make unflattering remarks about my sister and parents ... but I'd better not hear anyone else making them! Seamus was being loyal to his mom, and for many, blood really is thicker than water, to use a tired, old cliche.

I didn't get the idea that either Luna or Cho told their parents. Luna knew her dad would support any anti-Ministry action, and Cho seemed determined that she needed to know what Harry had to teach after what had happened to Cedric--even though Harry did point out to her that Cedric knew everything he knew and it wasn't lack of knowledge or ability that caused Cedric's death.

Solitaire



Sir Tornado - Nov 4, 2004 1:39 pm (#384 of 1080)
I disagree with both of you... they conflict with the facts

Luna specifically says "My Dad is very happy about my anti-ministry action"

Isn't that enough to prove that Luna talked to her Dad?

If you disagree here, I feel you are being unfair.



Steve Newton - Nov 4, 2004 1:40 pm (#385 of 1080)
I can't recall the context. Where does she say this?



Sir Tornado - Nov 4, 2004 2:18 pm (#386 of 1080)
During the first DA meeting.



Catherine - Nov 4, 2004 2:33 pm (#387 of 1080)
Sir Tornado,

My book does not have the same quote you use. My Scholastic paperback says, "Well, my father is very supportive of any anti-Ministry action!" said Luna Lovegood proudly from just behind Harry..." (p. 395).

The word "any" implies a much different meaning that "my." Luna is assuming that her father would support her in an anti-Ministry effort. She is not saying that she has already undertaken such an act, or that she has told her father about her act of defiance.

It appears that you have either a very different version of OoP, or that you have misquoted.



total hatred - Nov 4, 2004 7:06 pm (#388 of 1080)
This is starting to be like the "who came first,egg or chicken debate". I have seen many arguments recycled many times over. I believe that it was already obvious that Marietta will be the one who will betray DA since it was founded. She was the only one not pleased to be there. While some member are questionable in their loyalty, Marietta showed displeasure to be there. It was due to Cho that she attended the meeting and Cho literally forced her.



Eponine - Nov 4, 2004 8:07 pm (#389 of 1080)
I just wanted to bring up a quote from just after everyone had signed the parchment.

"Hermione took the parchment back and slipped it carefully into her bag. There was an odd feeling in the group now. It was as though had just signed some kind of contract." UK hardback p. 309



Solitaire - Nov 4, 2004 9:40 pm (#390 of 1080)
Cho didn't literally force Marietta to do anything. There is no evidence that anyone pulled a wand or weapon on Marietta and threatened her with anything if she didn't join.

Cho may have whined, wheedled, and cajoled Marietta into going to the first meeting, but there was not time for her force Marietta to do anything. Hermione pulled the parchment out of her bag then and there--at the Hog's Head--so any threatening would have been heard by the entire group.

Frankly, I don't buy the forcing thing anyway. If Marietta had felt forced by Cho, I doubt she and Cho would have been so chummy at the end of the story.

Solitaire



Penny Lane. - Nov 4, 2004 10:23 pm (#391 of 1080)
Exactly Solitare. No one held a wand out to Marietta and said "You have to join the DA" No one even said "Marietta, you have to go to every meeting and glare at Harry."

I do however think that it might have been more like this.
Cho: Come to the DA meetting with me.
Marietta: I don't want to. I have a ton of homework, and I don't really want to be expelled.
Cho: You won't be expelled. No one knows about it. And come on... You have to go. It will be fun, and besides, I don't really know anyone there besides Harry. And you have to keep me from saying anything stupid. So, are you coming?

While no one forced her, she did give into her friend. Granted, this is NOT text evidence. I based it on how my friends and I acted at that age.



Leila 2X4B - Nov 5, 2004 5:09 am (#392 of 1080)
Penny, I agree. I think peer pressure is why she went, and stayed as long as she did. What do parents to do when they feel pressured into doing something illegal and/or somehing that makes us feel unsafe? We tell them to inform a grown up. She told one that she felt she could trust.

Leila



Penny Lane. - Nov 5, 2004 8:03 am (#393 of 1080)
See thats the thing. If she had felt uncomfortable, she didn't hve to tell a grown up. I'm sure there were other kids who knew about it and didn't tattle. If people are mean to her, it's her own fault - she made the wrong choice. It was a hard choice to make, and she can claim she didn't know any better, but she did betray a lot of people. She would have gotten 20 some students expelled. That right there tells me that she doesn't care about anyone but herself - or that she's dating/has a crush on a Slytherin.



Leila 2X4B - Nov 5, 2004 8:22 am (#394 of 1080)
I think she did care. She cared about Cho and others. How many times do kids let serious things pass under the guise of "not-tattling". The DA could well have been dangerous. It is lucky that Harry was running it and not someone untrustworthy. Marietta made the choice that any parent would hope she would make.

Leila



Steve Newton - Nov 5, 2004 8:28 am (#395 of 1080)
Leila, it sounds as if you think that Marietta was a traitor. She just had a good reason to sell out her friends.



Catherine - Nov 5, 2004 8:29 am (#396 of 1080)
She told one that she felt she could trust. Leila

I don't think it was about telling a trustworthy adult. Marietta did not go to Umbridge because she was troubled; at least, that's not what she said. She told Umbridge that Umbridge would find an advantage if she went to the Room of Requirement.

Did Marietta trust Umbridge enough to keep talking once the purple pimples appeared? Did she trust Umbridge enough to just nod her head when Umbridge assured her that wouldn't activate the curse further?

I feel very sorry for Marietta if Umbridge was the one adult she found trustworthy at Hogwarts.



TwinklingBlueEyes - Nov 5, 2004 8:33 am (#397 of 1080)
"Marietta made the choice that any parent would hope she would make."

As a parent I don't agree with that. Marietta made a bad choice.



Penny Lane. - Nov 5, 2004 8:43 am (#398 of 1080)
Edited by Denise P. Nov 5, 2004 10:29 am
As a parent to 2 cats... okay so that doesn't really work.

My parents always told me to tell if someone was doing something dangerous. As I aged, I realized that my parent's advice was counter-effective in our society and in my school. My point being, that Marietta is not five. She's 15. She is old enough to decide for herself if she wants to rat out her friends for a few house points and a member on the (was in inquisition team?) with Draco Malfoy, or if she would rather study with the DA and pass her DADA OWL.

Marietta did have months of D.A. membership to realize that what her fellow students were doing was NOT dangerous, and that is why I can't believe that she thinks it was.

I do wonder if, she told Cho that she went to Umbridge with the intention of only getting Harry in trouble. WHile she may have known that everyone would, she could have been trying to help Cho get over being dumped.

There is also the idea that I think might be valid of Marietta wanting to look cool for a Slytherin like Draco Malfoy. What better way of catching his attention than to cause the expulsion of "The Mudblood, Prince Potty, and the Weasel."



Leila 2X4B - Nov 5, 2004 10:03 am (#399 of 1080)
I do not see her as a traitor, just a little girl lost.

Leila



Steve Newton - Nov 5, 2004 6:14 pm (#400 of 1080)
Leila: QOTP, I understand what you are saying. Its just that to me it is just an explanation of why she became a traitor. Having a rational explanation is not justification.



Sir Tornado - Nov 6, 2004 2:12 am (#401 of 1080)
...or if she would rather study with the DA and pass her DADA OWL. -- Penny L

You are mistaken there Penny. Marrietta was in 6th year. She had already passed her DADA OWL.



Penny Lane. - Nov 6, 2004 8:51 am (#402 of 1080)
OH right! I kept forgetting that Cho and Marietta were older. That's strange - I wonder why J.K. Rowling had Harry fall for the older girl.

Well then. So Marietta is sixteen - that's old enough to be charged as an adult. Her actions speak WAY louder than words, and I think she did turn in the entire group very maliciously. She was old enough to make her own decisions, she's old enough to realize that Umbridge is a bad teacher and the majority of the almost 30 students at the meetings were there - at least initially - to study and practice for their OWLS.

Also, I find it hard to believe that NONE of the other clubs at Hogwarts didn't at least occasionally try out the occasional illegal spell or potion (assuming there is a potions study group -arhg). In the cases of most schools, all this stuff would be common knowledge.



Solitaire - Nov 6, 2004 9:37 am (#403 of 1080)
I'm with you, Penny. Most of the kids in the DA were studying for OWLs or NEWTs, weren't they? Weren't Fred, George, Angelina, and a couple of others in their 7th year? I believe there were a few 4th and 6th years, but most were in their OWL year. This puts her actions in an even nastier light. She knew they were concerned about the practical part of their upcoming DADA tests, and still she blew the whistle. You know, every time I read this thread, I like Marietta less!

Solitaire



Czarina II - Nov 6, 2004 11:05 am (#404 of 1080)
Leila -- I agree.

Solitaire -- Agreed.

Still, we know so little about this incident. I feel sorry for Marietta, since we're judgeing her so much. Personally, I think she is just a plot device.



Sir Tornado - Nov 6, 2004 12:13 pm (#405 of 1080)
Solitaire -- I incline to think that students joined DA because they wanted to protect themselves... NOT because they wanted to pass their exams.

Had they prepared the group for PASSING the OWLs; NEWTs, I wouldn't have supported them in the least... They have my sympathies ONLY because they were fighting Lord Voldemort; and had it been just another "Study Group", an illegal study group at that, I think they deserved to get busted (If that word is allowed here) by Umbridge.

Back to subject at hand. Do many people think that Marrietta was mature enough at 16? I don't think so. You have to fully grasp the situation before you make any comments (please don't take any offence) Ministry was using all it's might to slander Harry. The Daily Prophet was creating an image of Harry as an insane boy. Most of the school believed him to be crazy. Who would you believe had you been in her situation? It's easy to say that you won't believe anyone but Harry while you are sitting in front of the computer and know the entire story first hand. But it would've been VERY difficult for Marrietta to believe Harry; and I think she neither believed him completely neither disbelieved him completely. She must've been hanging somewhere in between. Ultimately, she must have decided that she didn't believe his story and went to Umbridge the only person SHE thought she could TRUST.

You have the benifit of both Harry's first hand account; and the hindsight. Marrietta had the benefit of neither. The only proof she had of Harry's story was in a magazine that told mostly far-fetched stories. Teenagers as far as I know tend to shift their opinions a lot. They are unsure and may make mistakes. Marrietta did just that... a mistake.



TwinklingBlueEyes - Nov 6, 2004 12:50 pm (#406 of 1080)
"Marrietta did just that... a mistake." You are quite right, she made a mistake, a bad one.

"Do many people think that Marrietta was mature enough at 16? I don't think so." Makes me wonder, how old you do have to be to be mature enough not to rat out your friends and fellow students?



Steve Newton - Nov 6, 2004 12:51 pm (#407 of 1080)
"Ultimately, she must have decided that she didn't believe his story and went to Umbridge the only person SHE thought she could TRUST."

Exactly, this makes her a traitor.



Sir Tornado - Nov 6, 2004 1:07 pm (#408 of 1080)
She went to the law; to the justice, to bring an illegal group down...



Steve Newton - Nov 6, 2004 1:16 pm (#409 of 1080)
Not illegal. They were breaking school rules, not laws. And it still makes her a traitor.



Sir Tornado - Nov 6, 2004 1:18 pm (#410 of 1080)
They were breaking Ministry Decrees Steve. Not just school laws. And unless I'm mistaken, decree is like a law. It is a serious matter. Besides, wouldn't you sympathise if someone defaults and gets an illegal group busted?



Steve Newton - Nov 6, 2004 1:50 pm (#411 of 1080)
Sure, I would sympathize, but, I wouldn't let her off. It wouldn't change that fact that she turned them in. Just because ME was rational, believed what she did was right(I guess she did), and had really good reasons doesn't change the fact that the was a traitor. People who do bad things often have good rational reasons for doing them. They still must bear the responsibility of their actions. Even in ambiguous situations.



TwinklingBlueEyes - Nov 6, 2004 2:02 pm (#412 of 1080)
Seems to me Marietta was breaking the law also, or decree, or whatever. As Dumbledore pointed out the first meeting wasn't illegal. So therefore, Marietta attending more meetings after the decree makes her a law-breaker too. Not to mention traitor.



Solitaire - Nov 6, 2004 2:12 pm (#413 of 1080)
Twinkles is correct. If Marietta had attended a few meetings and genuinely thought they were dangerous, why didn't she report them back then? If she was truly worried that the group was venturing into dangerous territory, why didn't she go to Dumbledore, the logical choice, since he was still Headmaster? She surely knew the kids respected Dumbledore and would have listened to him.

If she was afraid that Umbridge was on her tail and might get her into trouble, she could also have gone to her Head of House, Professor Flitwick, who would have advised her wisely.

The results (SNEAK) for going to either of these two might have been the same, but I'm willing to bet that the kids would have perceived her actions somewhat differently. The fact that she specifically CHOSE a Ministry toady who was hated by everyone, who was invading everyone's privacy, who was trying to get Dumbledore sacked, and who clearly hated and had it in for Harry speaks too loudly to be ignored.

The way I see it, Marietta could have been a spoiled brat who resented Harry's place in Cho's life ... or she could have been a self-serving sycophant who was trying to win Brownie points and get in good with Umbridge. If she was simply a weakling who buckled under pressure--well, it's a good thing they know it before they trust her with something REALLY important ... like their lives!

Solitaire

edited ... a lot!


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Mona on Thu May 19, 2011 12:41 am; edited 4 times in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 59
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Posts 414 to 470

Post  Mona Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Chemyst - Nov 6, 2004 5:49 pm (#414 of 1080)
Sir Tornado, over here in America, our most famous traitor is Benedict Arnold. At one point during the Revolutionary War, Arnold was in command of the American colonial forces at the fort at West Point. Arnold's contact with the British General Clinton was Clinton's adjutant, Major John Andre. One night when Andre was on a mission disguised as a civilian, he ran into an American patrol just as he was about to re-enter British lines back in New York. Andre was searched and secret plans were found in the heel of his shoe – along with a pass signed by Arnold. There are some strange twists and Arnold escaped, but he'd been exposed as a traitor.

What does this have to do with Miss Edgecombe? Arnold/Marietta was informing Clinton/Umbridge of plans in accordance with the desires/decrees of King George/MOM.

Did I mention Benedict Arnold is considered a traitor? General Washington called it "Treason of the blackest dye." Steve Newton is correct. Marietta is a traitor to the DA.

Interesting epilogue: Arnold's last wish as he lay dying back in England was to be dressed in his American uniform. May Marietta do as well.



Solitaire - Nov 6, 2004 8:59 pm (#415 of 1080)
Nice analogy, Chemyst.



Sir Tornado - Nov 7, 2004 12:00 am (#416 of 1080)
The fact that she specifically CHOSE a Ministry toady who was hated by everyone, who was invading everyone's privacy, who was trying to get Dumbledore sacked, and who clearly hated and had it in for Harry speaks too loudly to be ignored. -- Solitaire

You are mistaken there Solitaire... if you remember, EVERYONE did not hate her. All the Gryffindors hated her and the DA members hated her. But how can you comment about everyone else in the school?? Forget the Slytherins for a minute, there were still other Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws about whom, you have no evidence that they hated Umbridge.

And where did you learn, Solitaire, that Umbridge was trying to sack Dumbledore? I never saw any evidence of that! Please enlighten me on how you figured that out.

Thirdly, Umbridge worked for the MoM. She had been sent to Hogwarts to gag Harry. Don't get me wrong here. I am NOT defending Umbridge. But overall, EXCEPT setting Dementors and attempting to Crucio Harry and her detentions, she was doing what MoM had ordered her to do.

Chemyst, interesting anology. I'll comment on it tommorrow.



Steve Newton - Nov 7, 2004 7:15 am (#417 of 1080)
It looks as if some of this would be better place on the Umbridge thread.



Catherine - Nov 7, 2004 8:05 am (#418 of 1080)
Perhaps you are right, Steve. I responded to some of the last few posts on the Umbridge thread.

I think that the characterizations of Umbridge fit here, as long as we are discussing why Marietta would choose to go to Umbridge about the DA.

I made the comment in the Umbridge section that, contrary to Sir Tornado's assertion, I never got the sense that Umbridge was "ordered" to do anything. She seemed to be there of her own volition to help save the credibility of Fudge's Ministry.

This goes for both Marietta and Umbridge and in general: I dislike the argument that someone was "just following orders" or "obeying the rules."



Solitaire - Nov 7, 2004 8:59 am (#419 of 1080)
Tornado, I agree everyone doesn't hate her--only the people whose opinions matter to me hate her, so yes, that was a sweeping generalization.

I do believe she was trying to get Dumbledore sacked and get herself appointed headmistress in his place. I'll have to go through my book and find the references that led me to this conclusion. Since my online time is limited this morning, I'm not going to waste it doing that now; I'll do it later.

As far as I'm concerned, her behavior toward Harry was unconscionable. What incenses me more than almost anything else she did was her sending the Dementors after him and then voting against him in his hearing. She KNEW she had done the deed, and yet she sat there and pretty much called him a liar. Frankly, I'd be surprised if that's all she did without Fudge's knowledge. The woman is unprofessional, unprincipled, and evil. And yes ... that last one is a value judgment. The first two, however, are borne out by the facts of her behavior.

Solitaire



MickeyCee3948 - Nov 7, 2004 9:34 am (#420 of 1080)
I have gotten in trouble several times on this thread for speaking my mind, you would think that I had learned my lesson, but I haven't.

Marietta had many alternatives to the one she chose. Stop going, tell her house head, tell the prefect or tell Dumbledore. She was older, a sixth year and knew the mood of the school. Everyone in the school may not have been aganist Umbridge but Marietta unless she was in a sound proof cage when not in DA meetings could not have missed the tone and mood of the students. She knew she had signed an agreement to keep the DA a secret. She knew about the decrees that Umbridge had posted and knew that if the members had been caught(including her dear friend Cho)they would have been expelled.

However we all know the choice she made and it was the WRONG choice, whether it was treason, immaturity, coercion, self protection or a fear of mommy's anger it was the WRONG choice. I have read all 418 posts to this thread and NO ONE has been able to persuade me that she had a good reason to make that choice.

She made her choice and was punished for making the wrong choice. Unfortunately Harry, the other DA members who went to the DoM and the other members of Order also paid for HER choice. Harry with the loss of Sirius and the other five students and the members of the order with the injuries they sustained in the battle. Her punishment was minor to the price that Sirius and the others paid.

I'm sorry if I stepped on anyones toes. NOT!

Mikie



Solitaire - Nov 7, 2004 11:16 am (#421 of 1080)
Sir Tornado, for the reasons why I feel as I do about Umbridge trying to get Dumbledore sacked, please go here. I felt the information was more suited to Umbridge's thread.

Solitaire



Czarina II - Nov 7, 2004 11:17 am (#422 of 1080)
Chemyst, I like your analogy comparing Marietta to Benedict Arnold. There are many other historical figures who we could compare her to. However, who was a "traitor" and who was a "hero" or an "unfortunate citizen" largely depends on one's point of view and who is writing the history. I consider Benedict Arnold to be a bit of a fool, a traitor to his American comrades, but not a bad person. To the British, he was a hero, or would have been had the other guy not been foolishly caught. St Thomas More might be another example -- executed by Henry VIII as a traitor, canonized by the Pope as a martyr. It is quite possible for people to be both a traitor and a hero. Consider this: if Hermione was writing Hogwarts: A History, she would probably write that Marietta was a disgusting traitor (which she was, to the DA). However, if Pansy Parkinson was writing the book, she would call Marietta a brave hero (which she was, to the Inquisitorial Squad). If Mandy Brocklehurst was writing it, she would probably say that Marietta was caught in an unfortunate predicament and that she made was seemed like the best choice at the time, but turned out to be horribly wrong (which makes sense to someone who to our knowledge never participated in either the DA or the IS).

I suppose all that I'm trying to say is that we should really wait for the next book, which might resolve the plot point with Marietta. We are getting very worked up over nothing at the moment. (MickeyCee -- not to be offensive, and I'm not a moderator or anything, but that last line sounds a bit harsh.)

EDIT: I just thought I would point out that from a STRICTLY LEGAL point of view, Marietta was doing right to break the contract. The DA parchment was "illegal" under Umbridge's laws. I don't think this vindicates her in the slightest, but I just thought I'd point it out.



Sir Tornado - Nov 7, 2004 11:19 am (#423 of 1080)
She made her choice and was punished for making the wrong choice. Unfortunately Harry, the other DA members who went to the DoM and the other members of Order also paid for HER choice. Harry with the loss of Sirius and the other five students and the members of the order with the injuries they sustained in the battle. Her punishment was minor to the price that Sirius and the others paid. -- MickeyCee3948

I'm sorry, but Sirius' death wasn't because of Marrietta but it was because of Harry's stupidity. He, after defeating Centaurs and Umbridge could've gone to Snape and explained him the situation clearly. But for some reason, he chose to go to MoM himself. He made a WRONG choice just and Marrietta did. He paid for it. Marrietta had nothing to do with it.

I'm sorry, I wanted to answer all your posts -- especially Solitair's -- but I can't because of time restrictions. Being 5 on 1 really has disadvantages...



Solitaire - Nov 7, 2004 11:30 am (#424 of 1080)
Wasn't the parchment signed before Decree 24 went into effect?



Sir Tornado - Nov 7, 2004 11:34 am (#425 of 1080)
Czarina, I agree with you, we should just wait for the next book and see if there's a word on Marrietta.



Catherine - Nov 7, 2004 12:34 pm (#426 of 1080)
To respond to Solitaire's query:

Yes, the parchment was signed in the Hogs Head before the Ministry Decree went into place.



Madame Pomfrey - Nov 7, 2004 2:36 pm (#427 of 1080)
I agree with all who thinks ME a traitor.For me there is just no other way to look at it unless she was imperioed of coarse.Why did she attend 3 or 4 D.A meetings after the decree was made if she was so worried about it being illegal or whatever.She should have simply told the group she would no longer be attending and let the others make their own choices.The contract said nothing about not being able to get out if someone decided they wanted to quit only not to "snitch".On another note,I find it odd that nobody noticed that Marietta was missing during the last DA meeting especially Cho.



Steve Newton - Nov 7, 2004 3:01 pm (#428 of 1080)
On the train home from Hogwarts in OOTP Harry is playing chess with Ron. Cho and Marietta walks past. Ron's queen then takes Harry's pawn off the board. Was Cho or Marietta the pawn?



Madame Pomfrey - Nov 7, 2004 3:35 pm (#429 of 1080)
Wow..Steve.Very clever.Are you hinting that Marietta is the pawn and Cho is behind the DA'S disbandment?Maybe Cho imperioed Marietta.I dont know what it is about Cho but I dont trust her too much and I can't pinpoint why.Please,I'd like to hear your viewpoint on your above post.BTW,I bet I'll pay more attention to chess moves in the future.



Solitaire - Nov 7, 2004 3:36 pm (#430 of 1080)
Madame P, that has always bothered me, too. I guess Harry was so stoked about Seamus being there he didn't think about it. But I wonder how it is that Cho didn't notice Marietta was missing.

Edit: I still can't think what Marietta must have told Cho to satisfy the questions Cho surely must have had. I can't think of any excuse good enough for selling out all of one's classmates. And if Cho bought what she did tell her, it makes me wonder about Cho's gullibility and lack of perceptiveness.

Solitaire



TwinklingBlueEyes - Nov 7, 2004 3:51 pm (#431 of 1080)
Ok, that's three of us that think there is a little something "off" with Clo. But maybe that's better moved to her thread.

To answer your question Steve, I think Clo was the pawn and ME the opportunist. But that's just my take.



Chemyst - Nov 7, 2004 3:51 pm (#432 of 1080)
Czarina II, you are, of course, correct in saying that whether one is viewd as a traitor or not depends upon one's perspective. I was half-expecting Sir Tornado to come back with that very argument. Since the series of books under discussion here is titled, Harry Potter and the XYZ, Harry is the default setting. Marietta betrayed Harry.



Steve Newton - Nov 7, 2004 4:04 pm (#433 of 1080)
Madame Pomfrey, I don't think that the DA has disbanded. It will be back. However, you are giving me credit for more subtlety that I have shown. It never occurred to me that Cho could have been the driving force. I'll have to think that over. As TBE suggests, I thought that Cho was the pawn. Much confusion ensues.



TwinklingBlueEyes - Nov 7, 2004 4:07 pm (#434 of 1080)
Sorry, didn't mean to throw in a monkey wrench. But it makes sense to me. But then again, I'm special! LOL



Madame Pomfrey - Nov 7, 2004 4:16 pm (#435 of 1080)
I only meant disbanded at the time.I think they will be back also with Dumbledores blessing.As for who was the driving force I dont really know what to think..I'll have to read OOP more thoroughly for the sixth time... and take notes.



Solitaire - Nov 7, 2004 4:26 pm (#436 of 1080)
I'm not very good with the chess moves, but Marietta doesn't seem to like Harry, and she does not appear to like it that Cho likes Harry.

As they were winding up the meeting at the Hog's Head: Cho made rather a business of fastening the catch on her bag before leaving, her long dark curtain of hair swinging forward to hide her face, but her friend stood beside her, arms folded, clicking her tongue, so that Cho had little choice but to leave with her. As her friend ushered her through the door, Cho looked back and waved at Harry.

During the first meeting, Cho accidentally caught Marietta's sleeve on fire while trying Expelliarmus! in front of Harry: Marietta extinguished it with her own wand and glared at Harry as though it was his fault.

I don't know if those have any bearing on the chess/pawn business, but I just thought I'd toss 'em in.

Solitaire



Czarina II - Nov 7, 2004 6:13 pm (#437 of 1080)
Chemyst -- I agree, Marietta betrayed the DA. Until I hear otherwise, that is what I think.

Cho might very well have known what Marietta was going to do. For all we know, she and Marietta had concocted the scheme themselves. Cho would go to the meeting (Harry would hardly notice Marietta missing, since he didn't really know her) and act as though everything was hunkydory. Marietta, meanwhile, would go to Umbridge. Cho could be used as a decoy to keep them there long enough. The last DA meeting was the one where they were learning Patronuses and Cho kept wanting to "play" with hers (for lack of a better expression) and prolonging the suspense. Perhaps this was intentional, rather than simply naive. Presumeably, the plan was for Cho to run away with the other Ravenclaws (avoid suspicion) but Marietta would make provisions for her. Maybe Cho was going to keep the other Ravenclaw members from escaping, but they were too fast for her? Either that, or the opposite, since she was only mad at Harry and Hermione. The plan would have backfired, since Marietta apparently didn't get a chance to say very much.

However, we can't rule out Veritaserum (or a similar-type potion) or even the Imperious curse! I don't think that is the case, but it is nevertheless a possibility.



TomProffitt - Nov 7, 2004 6:43 pm (#438 of 1080)
There's nothing quite like writing a long post and then accidentally hitting cancel.

"Ron's queen then takes Harry's pawn off the board. Was Cho or Marietta the pawn?" --- Steve Newton

Who is the Queen? How can it be anyone other than Hermione? Who is the pawn? Belatrix(foreshadowing), Umbridge, Marietta, or Cho? Or does this represent the symbolic move of Hermione from Harry's pawn (trio member) to Ron's Queen ('ship)?

In light of the long heated discussion I request a poll of jurors:

The charges: 1)Treason against the Wizarding World. 2)Treason against Hogwarts & Albus Dumbledore. 3)Treason against the DA. 4)Violation of a magical contract. 5)Has appropriate punishment been administered?

My votes: 1) Not Guilty 2) Not Guilty 3) Insufficient Evidence 4) Guilty 5) Yes

I'll try to keep track and post the results later.



Sir Tornado - Nov 7, 2004 7:03 pm (#439 of 1080)
My votes are:

1) Not Gulity on the charge of "Treason against the Wizarding World".

2)Not Guilty on the charge of "Treason against Hogwarts & Albus Dumbledore".

3) Guilty on the charge of "Treason against the DA".

4) Not Guilty on the charge of "Violation of a magical contract". The contract became illegal the moment DA was made illegal. Illegal contracts hold NO legal value!

5) Has appropriate punishment been administered ---> No... the DA had no right to punish Marrietta... the punishment administered was unasked for!



TwinklingBlueEyes - Nov 7, 2004 7:03 pm (#440 of 1080)
In my opinion: Guilty of the first four the above charges. As to five, it has yet to be revealed. Does she still have spots at next term? Will she have forever, only JKR knows for sure, so Insufficient Evidence. :-)

...and the wind blew...



TwinklingBlueEyes - Nov 7, 2004 7:05 pm (#441 of 1080)
"was unasked for!" Hmm, butterbeer time!

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time...\

Edit: Sorry, didn't mean to double post.



Sir Tornado - Nov 7, 2004 7:05 pm (#442 of 1080)
TBE, how come you say Marrietta is guilty on the charge of "Treason against the Wizarding World"? That's impossible -- Marrietta helped MoM!



TwinklingBlueEyes - Nov 7, 2004 7:12 pm (#443 of 1080)
"TBE, how come you say Marrietta is guilty on the charge of "Treason against the Wizarding World"? That's impossible -- Marrietta helped MoM!"

Number one: I can say it because I think it, it is my choice. Number two: I can say it because that is what I feel, still my choice. Number three: If her actions help LV win, then the whole wizarding world, just as Dumbledore says, if we don't unite then we all are doomed or something like that, therefore, in my eyes, she is guilty of treason against the wizarding world.



Solitaire - Nov 7, 2004 7:37 pm (#444 of 1080)
It's okay, Twinkles! I agree with you. The fact that Marietta helped the MoM is proof of her treason, in my opinion! And yes, I can have and express that opinion. I don't require others to share it.

I think the Ministry (Fudge and Umbridge) have been concealing information. Look at the breakout from Azkaban. Even Cho points out, when she and Harry are in Hogsmeade, that when Sirius broke out, there were Dementors everywhere, looking for him. But now, ten escaped DEs are on the loose and there isn't a Dementor in sight.

Harry admits it's weird, as well. He was not sorry that there were no dementors nearby, but now he came to think of it, their absence was highly significant. They had not only let the Death Eaters escape, they were not bothering to look for them. ... It looked as though they really were outside Ministry control now. Yet in the article in the Daily Prophet, Fudge doesn't say anything about the Dementors having defected, does he?

I believe the MoM has been betraying the Wizarding World by withholding critical information and telling lies, so anyone who supports and helps them do it is, in my opinion, a traitor. I think she is guilty on all counts, and she herself administered the appropriate punishment.

Solitaire



Sir Tornado - Nov 7, 2004 7:41 pm (#445 of 1080)
OK. But if the Critical information was being concealed, how would a 16 year old girl know it is being concealed? How would she know if the information even exists. How did Marrietta help MoM conceal information? How can she be blamed for that?

I can't believe you are making Marrietta out as a traitor from almost every angle even when you haven't heard from her!



Solitaire - Nov 7, 2004 7:43 pm (#446 of 1080)
I think the fact that she clammed up when she saw SNEAK written across her face says it all. She knew she'd blown it ... and she knew why.



Sir Tornado - Nov 7, 2004 7:44 pm (#447 of 1080)
The problem with this is, of course that we see right and wrong from the outside, while Marietta is in the situation.

What about youngsters that joins criminal street gangs, but later regrets it and tells the Police?

To the gang members they are traitors and may very well be murdered, to others they are heros that have managed to break of of a bad life.

My point is not to say that the DA is a criminal street gang, only to say that the perception of right and wrong in Marietta's case is very dependent on your perception of what the DA is. And Marietta was trapped between two were diverse perceptions of the DA.

She face a difficult choice, and in most people's (including mine) eyes she made the wrong one, but we should realize that it was difficult.



Solitaire - Nov 7, 2004 8:04 pm (#448 of 1080)
I don't think she had such a difficult choice, Tornado. She could have--and SHOULD HAVE--gone to Harry and Hermione and told them she wanted to drop out of the DA. A person of honor and integrity would have done so. She should have TRIED to talk to them about her concerns--if indeed she truly had any (which I doubt)--before seeking out an "authority figure." She didn't even bother. Had she done so, Hermione might have informed her that she was still bound to secrecy by the contract, and that giving out info would activate a punishment she could not hide.

Marietta is due to enter her final year at Hogwarts, which means she will be viewed as an adult capable of making all kinds of important and possibly life-and-death decisions. As far as I can see, she is either extremely gullible, untrustworthy, and lacking in discernment and common sense ... OR she is very conniving and self-serving. The timing and manner of her betrayal suggest the latter to me.

Until we are given some exonerating information from JKR, I am going to continue to consider Marietta a traitor. Sorry.

Solitaire



Sir Tornado - Nov 7, 2004 8:06 pm (#449 of 1080)
So... if no one's getting convinced, I'll just shut up and continue the topic when HbPs out...



Catherine - Nov 8, 2004 4:40 am (#450 of 1080)
The contract became illegal the moment DA was made illegal. Illegal contracts hold NO legal value! --Sir Tornado

I'm not sure that Magical contracts work the same way as Muggle contracts.

In addition, the "contract" was an agreement to refrain from telling Umbridge or anyone else what the DA planned to do. I don't see how the Ministry decree made that illegal.

I wouldn't vote Marietta guilty of anything in the "legal" sense. She violated the trust of her peers, and suffered the consequence of her actions. It's over, as far as I'm concerned.



rambkowalczyk - Nov 8, 2004 6:45 am (#451 of 1080)
Treason against the wizarding world- not guilty. no proof that Marietta knew that by helping Umbridge that she was inadvertently helping Voldemort.

Treason against Hogwarts and Dumbledore-not guilty. I'll acknowledge that common sense would indicate that Dumbledore would allow a DA club. But students who have no clue what Harry has been going through would have legitimate reason to wonder just maybe Umbridge is right.

Treason against the DA- guilty Marietta knew the members would be in trouble. It was agreed that no one would tell Umbridge what they were doing. Although I believe it is possible that Umbridge may have put pressure on Marietta long before Marietta cracked/betrayed, I also believe that the deciding reason that Marietta did it was selfish. It may have been revenge against Harry, or a future promise of some perk from Umbridge. I don't think there is any proof of Marietta's motives or backstory at this moment.

Violation of Magical Contract- guilty In GOF, Harry was forced to abide by the terms of a magical contract that he never voluntarily entered. It appears that Magical Contracts are unforgiving.

Appropriate punishment- yes- assuming that the spots were gone by the beginning of summer unless there was some type of clause that requires Marietta to apologize for her actions.



Steve Newton - Nov 8, 2004 6:55 am (#452 of 1080)
As guilty as I think Marietta is, I don't see how she can apologize. Kingley's memory charm seems to have wiped out all memories of the DA.



Solitaire - Nov 8, 2004 7:16 am (#453 of 1080)
Steve, that was my initial concern. Unless she remembers on her own why she has those spots, they really are of very little value to her--although they might serve as a serious warning to anyone who tended to be a tattletale to watch out in the future.

Even assuming she has been told of the reason for the spots, second-hand knowledge isn't going have the same impact as the firsthand memory of why they appeared. If Marietta's memory has been fully restored and she remembers what happened and why, hopefully she will apologize to the DA--although it is equally possible that if she were truly conniving and betrayed them on purpose, she might decide to exact some revenge. If her memory modification is permanent, however, I doubt much good will come of having her continue with SNEAK permanently tattooed across her face in zits.

I do hope Hermione knows her counter jinxes as well as she knows her jinxes.

Solitaire



wwtMask - Nov 8, 2004 7:18 am (#454 of 1080)
The contract seems like a civil matter to me. The ministry decree made establishing and belonging to unapproved groups illegal, not the concealment of said groups. Nor did it state that agreeing to conceal the existance of unapproved groups was illegal. You may, perhaps correctly, infer that concealing or agreeing to conceal the existance of unapproved groups is illegal but, by the letter of the decree, that is not explicitly (or even vaguely) stated. One must create or belong to an illegal group to be at fault. Thus I believe that the contract, in and of itself, was perfectly legal with respect to the decrees. Any other issues ought to be scrictly for civil court.



Mrs Brisbee - Nov 8, 2004 7:40 am (#455 of 1080)
Marietta is certainly guilty of "treason" for betraying the DA, and she did violate a magic contract she signed (she knew she was signing a contract, even if she didn't know it was magical), so she's guilty of that, but she is not guilty of "treason" to the WW, or Hogwarts or Albus Dumbledore. Quite frankly I don't think any of this adds up to a case of state's treason.

I think it is a good question: how culpable are you for decisions that are made when you are deliberately denied vital information or are given misinformation? I'm thinking the MoM, Fudge, and Umbridge for their campaign to discredit Dumbledore and Harry, and cover up any information that says Voldemort might be back.



MickeyCee3948 - Nov 8, 2004 9:57 am (#456 of 1080)
Tom - Guilty on all counts and yes to question 5.

Mikie



Czarina II - Nov 8, 2004 11:25 am (#457 of 1080)
1. Not Guilty

2. Not Guilty

3. Guilty

4. depends on status of wizarding contracts, so no verdict -- evidence void and inadmissable until further notice

5. Yes, provided the spots aren't permanent permanent. Otherwise that makes Hermione a rather spiteful person. Imagine trying to explain the whole thing fifty years later!



Good Evans - Nov 8, 2004 12:27 pm (#458 of 1080)
Tom - my evaluation is as yours not guilty 1-3 insufficient evidence for 4 and yes for 5.

A slight twist - as I honestly don't beleive we have enough information and as has been pointed out, Cho had accepted her reasons. We dont know what prompted Marrietta to spill the beans at the time of the confession to Umbridge, Did someone (Umbridge or Malfoy?)have an inkling and confront her, and she just couldn't stand up to them? maybe legilimency has been used? Maybe her parents found out and told her if she did not confess they would do it and then she too would be in fear of expulsion. A bit worrying that her parents may threated her with telling on thier own daughter, but maybe they are that spineless??? There is no evidence for this but none to the contrary either.

The point is we dont know, and I am inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt at this point. I have a fifteeen year old and bearing in mind this is comparable to marietta's age I disagree with those who have talked about adult actions. Some fifteen / sixteens are very "young" and not in the slightest control of their "own mind"

I still think there may be something in her "jealousy" over Harry and Cho and that she may redeam herself (see much earlier post). So holding on to that point I am going to cut the girl some slack until proven wrong. I'm just a romantic at heart!



Sir Tornado - Nov 8, 2004 7:37 pm (#459 of 1080)
I completely agree with Good Evans



Richard !!!Reid - Nov 9, 2004 3:18 pm (#460 of 1080)
Ok. Here are my thoughts on Marietta - I apologize for possibly wasting your time, if you've heard all the arguments before, and therefore, allow your attention to wonder freely .

I find Marietta a fascinating character. I sympathize with her, and I certainally feel no hate towards her. I cannot even find reason to hate her. What has she done wrong? Ok, yes, she did make a mistake - a big one. However, so has Harry. Harry lead them all the the Department of Mysteries - and risked the lives of his fellow students. It was a mistake - a bad one - but a mistake nevertheless. No one was wishing death threats upon Harry. Why do it to Marietta? We are all human, and we all make mistakes. JKR has created a surreal world, yes, but she tries her best to make it as realistic as possible. Her characters are real - they have real feelings, real emotions, real problems, and naturally, make real errors. We cannot hold that against everyone!

Now, let's look at it from Marietta's position. She has a mother who is spying on Hogwarts. She will have been repeatedly warned to keep on the Ministry's good side. Her own sake, and her mother's sake are on the line. The Ministry could easily threaten Marietta's mother with her job, if she was not to co-operate. In fact, they already did. Fudge made it clear that anyone was not on the Ministry's side could clear out their desks. Now, she will naturally be worried about her parents well-being. She will have to put up with a lot of pressure - way too much pressure for a 16 year old.

Now, if you add Cho to the equation. Her best friend is wanting to go the this meeting. She wants to join, and she wants Marietta to help her. She wants Marietta to do the one thing that her parents are repeatedly telling her not to do. To make matters worse, Cho is partly going there, just to see Harry. Marietta will feel used also! Now, she has this major conflict over morals - does she respect her parents, or respect her friends. This is a decision that any adult would find hard - now, for a 16 year old teenager, it is impossible to make the right decision. It is unfair for her to be in this position, therefore, it is unfair for her to be blamed for the outcome.

Ok, Cho did not force Marietta to go join the DA, but pretty close to it. Marietta was clearly unhappy about being there - but came out of pure loyalty to Cho. That is not a bad thing, that is a good thing. She sacrificed her mother's career, for Cho. It was just at the end, that the pressure become too over-whelming for her.

Every child wants to please their parents. They want support and praise from them. Marietta did what she did, thinking it was in the best interests of her parents - that is just a human thing to do.

Another point that I notice, is that people call Marietta disloyal. Yes, but she was loyal to Cho - her friend, as much as possible. She came purely because of Cho. She came for the best part of a year - because of Cho. This is loyalty. She felt no real loyalty to the DA, then she can't be accused of being disloyal to them.

Also, people compare Marietta to Ron. However, I can't see the link. Ron did what he did out of pure jealous (when he betrayed Harry in GoF). He did it out of self-gain, and did not care about Harry's feelings. Ron was in a competitive family - which Harry was becoming a part of, and felt he needed to compete with Harry also. He turned his back on Harry, when Harry needed him the most. Marietta did not act out of jealousy - she acted out of loyalty (to her parents). There is a big difference, and this difference is why I do not dislike her. Ron's decision was purely his own - where Marietta was pressured into it from her parents. Cho forgives Marietta, then we should do as well.

Finally, to look at this from a legal perspective. Technically, Marietta did nothing wrong! Umbridge was in charge, and she was the law. The Ministry makes the rules. The DA was an illegal society. If we take a step back, would you perceive someone as bad, for doing the correct thing, and reporting criminals to the authorities? Would a witness for a trial be a bad person, because he is testifying against a criminal? Well, from the perspective of the criminals, yes, she would. People are judging Marietta from Harry's point of view. There is another side to the coin... A different story.

To conclude, I cannot feel anger for Marietta. She did the human thing to do. She made a mistake, yes, but she did it for the best intentions - she was honoring her parents.

I apologize once again, if I have wasted your time in reading a post, that you probably have already heard, for I did not have time to read through the entire thread.

Richard



Annika - Nov 9, 2004 4:45 pm (#461 of 1080)
Richard, Very insightful. I agree very much that her intentions were good. She was trying to protect not just herself, but her mother. One thing that makes the situation, and her character, so curious to me, is that we never get Marietta's point of view (bar a few nods and shakes of the head after a memory charm). We don't know the circumstances surrounding her visit to Umbridge's office. We have only the word of Umbridge, which in my humble opinion, doesn't carry much weight. We know that Marietta saw Umbridge, but I wonder if Umbridge did not call her into the office with hopes of getting the information from her. I definetly see Umbridge as the type of person who would use threats (against Marietta or her mother) to get information. And if that doesn't work, tea anyone?

Annika



Steve Newton - Nov 9, 2004 5:27 pm (#462 of 1080)
R!!!R, I have to disagree with just about everything you said.

I recall no instance of her mother spying on Hogwarts or warning her to keep on the Ministry's good side.

I don't see how having a good friend join makes it easy for her to turn the group and the friend in. Turning your friend in to face expulsion does not sound like loyalty to me.

I don't actually recall her being compared to Ron so cannot comment.

As someone else posited earlier Benedict Arnold turned in traitors and so did nothing wrong. I think, however, that most would say that he was a traitor. (Besides this is not a court and, thankfully, I am not a lawyer.)



TomProffitt - Nov 9, 2004 5:32 pm (#463 of 1080)
Thanks for those of you that participated in my jurors poll. Seven posters responded definitively to poll.

The first charge: Treason against the Wizarding World was meant to be an extreme. My thought was that even if Marietta had intended to get Harry expelled, she was unlikely to have foreseen or intended for her actions to be detrimental to the Wizarding World as a whole. Two of you disagreed with me on this score and voted her Guilty. Five agreed to some degree and voted her "Not Guilty."

The second charge: Treason against Albus Dumbledore & Hogwarts. This was intended to include the contention that her acts were directly responsible for DD leaving Hogwarts and allowing Umbridge to take over. Again, I thought Marietta could not have foreseen this consequence and considered her "Not Guilty." Five agreed with me, and two thought her "Guilty."

The third charge: Treason against the DA. I put this one up to distinguish between those who thought she maliciously intended to hurt DA members and those who felt she was pressured by friends, family, or Umbridge into making a bad choice. Only one person thought her "Not Guilty," while I thought we didn't have enough evidence to make a call on this one. Six people thought her "Guilty" of this charge.

The fourth charge: Violation of a Magical Contract, was intended as a "no brainer," to find some common ground. She had spots so obviously she was "Guilty" of this one. However only four people thought like me on this one. One voted "Not Guilty," and two abstained.

Well, we did find common ground. We are pretty much in agreement that Marietta was aware that her actions would hurt the DA members. No one came forward to say that Marietta deserved more punishment than what she received.

Hopefully it is fair to say that while some hold her to a higher standard of conduct than others, we are in agreement that Marietta was a pawn in this adventure, and it was someone else who was the true villain of the incident.



Annika - Nov 9, 2004 5:40 pm (#464 of 1080)
"Don't mind her," muttered Cho. "She doesn't really want to be here ... "Her parents have forbidden her to do anything that might upset Umbridge, you see - her mum works for the Ministry."

"Marietta's mother, Minister," she (Umbridge) added, looking up at Fudge, "is Madam Edgecombe from the Department of Magical Transportation. Floo Network office - she's been helping up police the Hogwards fires, you know."



Steve Newton - Nov 9, 2004 5:45 pm (#465 of 1080)
Good catch on the first one. On the second I thought that she was the floo network person. Slightly different than policing Hogwarts, but close.

Its still irrelevant. If ME really objected she should have either just stopped coming or gone to the head of her house.

(As far as I can tell all of the Heads of House were anti-Umbridge, Snape, McGonagall, and Flitwick. I can't remember who the other head of house is.)



Steve Newton - Nov 9, 2004 5:46 pm (#466 of 1080)
Good catch on the first one. On the second I thought that she was the floo network person. Slightly different than policing Hogwarts, but close.

Its still irrelevant. If ME really objected she should have either just stopped coming or gone to the head of her house.

(As far as I can tell all of the Heads of House were anti-Umbridge, Snape, McGonagall, and Flitwick. I can't remember who the other head of house is.)

Just a hint that ME may have been sinned against. When she enters Dumbledore's office the Toad says that ME came to her and said that she (ME) had something that would help The Toad. Since Umbridge said this it does make me wonder if unethical means were used.



MickeyCee3948 - Nov 9, 2004 5:48 pm (#467 of 1080)
Yes Tom, the toad and the candyman were the true villains.

Mikie



Annika - Nov 9, 2004 5:53 pm (#468 of 1080)
I still want to give her a chance and go with 1.) threatened by Umbridge or 2.) Vertiserum.

p.s. - I love that this forum has had a 466-post debate on a character with only one line. Oh, and Hufflepuff's head of house is Sprout. (if I knew how to do smiley faces one would go here!)



Steve Newton - Nov 9, 2004 7:05 pm (#469 of 1080)
Threatened doesn't work for me. Sirius would have given the correct answer. (You should have died.)

Veritaserum is kind of funky. I sort of include it in the same class as the imperius curse. I do wonder how The Toad would have known to ask Marietta.



Annika - Nov 9, 2004 7:17 pm (#470 of 1080)
Willy was at the Hogs Head when the D.A. first met and informed Umbridge of the goings on. Marietta was there and it would only be a matter of time before Umbridge found that weak link in the chain, (meaning that with Marietta's mom in the Ministry, she might have leverage). Though I agree with you on what Sirius said (quoting Sirius is a dirty trick, poor Sirius), she is still 16 and probably not ready to die for something she didn't really want to do in the first place.

I do hope we find more out about Marietta in HBP because I do find her as somewhat of an enigma.

Annika

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Mona on Thu May 19, 2011 12:41 am; edited 4 times in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 59
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Posts 471 to 515

Post  Mona Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:44 pm

Sir Tornado - Nov 9, 2004 8:08 pm (#471 of 1080)
Firstly... Annika... Cho was from Ravenclaw, and her head of the house was Flitwick.

I don't see how having a good friend join makes it easy for her to turn the group and the friend in. Turning your friend in to face expulsion does not sound like loyalty to me. -- Steve Newton

Oh yeah? Good. Answer the following question: Doesn't the fact that ME goes to DE meeting for months when she DOESN'T want to go there; and goes there ONLY BECAUSE of Cho make her a loyal friend?

There is enough evidence to support that.

Her friend, who had curly reddish blonde hair, did not smile, but gave Harry a thoroughly mistrustful look which plainly told him that, given her way, she would not be here at all -- OotP- pg 303 (In the Hog's head)

'Don't mind her', Cho muttered. 'She doesn't really want to be here but I made her come with me. Her parents have forbidden her to do anything that might upset Umbridge. You see -- her mum works for the ministry.' -- OotP pg 351 (Dumbledore's Army)

I believe the above two lines make it crystle clear that Marrietta did not want to come; but Cho "made her come"; and Cho admits doing it, so, there is no doubt about it.

As someone else posited earlier Benedict Arnold turned in traitors and so did nothing wrong. I think, however, that most would say that he was a traitor. (Besides this is not a court and, thankfully, I am not a lawyer.) -- Steve Newton

Steve my man, I'd say you are correct. Most would certainly say that Arnold was a traitor. But that's not because Benedict Arnold WAS a traitor; but because currently USA's population is larger that that of the UK! So, more people would believe him as a traitor THAN as a hero. However, if you want someone to judge on THAT case, ask a neutral -- one belonging to neither UK nor USA -- and I believe, as a neutral, that Benedict Arnold was a hero. Why? Simple. There are different ways of defining "freedom fighting armies". However, as long as freedom fighters fight, and DON'T win freedom, they are termed as TERRORISTS. Benedict Arnold was just helping Britons capture terrorists! However, when US won the independence, they ceased to be "terrorists". They become "HEROES". Arnold Benedict was termed as a traitor who tried to undermine the American freedom struggle. You may remember 1 thing here: "History is always written by winners".

Why am I harping this? I want to say that, Marrietta was a traitor ONLY through the eyes of the DA and Harry. Ministry and Fudge must've thought that Marrietta was a hero -- one who helped them capture an (I won't say terrorist but)illegal organisation. And let me ALSO remind you that we read the books from Harry's POV, NOT MoM's point of view! Therefore, it is just as imperative for us to observe the situation from MoM's perspective as we should from Harry's perspective.

Remember, a good judge sees both the sides of the argument!

As far as Richard's post is concerned -- such a lovely post sure needs some mention -- I agree with Rich completly!



Solitaire - Nov 9, 2004 9:33 pm (#472 of 1080)
Answer the following question: Doesn't the fact that ME goes to DE meeting for months when she DOESN'T want to go there; and goes there ONLY BECAUSE of Cho make her a loyal friend?

Not in my book. It makes her a wimp. Even as a kid, I never expected my friends to do everything I did. They had their interests, and I had mine. Sometimes they overlapped, and sometimes they didn't.

I'll give Marietta the benefit of the doubt about the first meeting, but that's where it stops. She made the choice to sign her name to the list. No one forced her to join--no matter how much you want to think this--and no one forced her to continue attending meetings. If they had, she'd have been at the final meeting, and we all know she wasn't there.

As for Umbridge pressuring her ... I'm afraid I can't buy that one, either. Why would Umbridge wait six months to put the screws to Marietta if she knew she'd attended that meeting in the Hog's Head? Given the speed with which Umbridge passed decree 24 (between the time Willy Widdershins squealed to her and the time the kids got back from Hogsmeade), if she'd known Marietta was in the group, I do not believe she'd have waited for 6 months before nailing her. I don't even believe she'd have waited 6 hours! And if Umbridge had been poking around among other kids and asking about the DA, I believe our heroes would have heard about it long before they did.

So while I can certainly SEE both sides of the argument, I just can't buy the other side--until I'm given a much more compelling reason than any I've seen thus far. I can't help it--I still think Marietta's a snitch, and not the good kind.

Solitaire



Sir Tornado - Nov 9, 2004 9:51 pm (#473 of 1080)
and no one forced her to continue attending meetings. -- Solitaire

'Don't mind her', Cho muttered. 'She doesn't really want to be here but I made her come with me. Her parents have forbidden her to do anything that might upset Umbridge. You see -- her mum works for the ministry.' -- OotP pg 351 (Dumbledore's Army)

Besides... do you have any proof that Marrietta attended subsequent meetings after Christmas?

Sir Tornado
Attorney for Marrietta Edgecombe



Penny Lane. - Nov 9, 2004 10:12 pm (#474 of 1080)
Marietta is weak. She is weak like Peter Pettigrew was weak, in the fact that she would rather betray her friends then suffer any type of suffering or pain.

The Facts

Marietta told Umbridge about the Room of Requirment.
Marietts was willing to turn in her best friend - and risk getting her expelled for some reason.
Marietta's memory was modified, so she only remembers the first D.A. meeting.
At the time, the D.A. was an unapproved study group. A Ministry Decree would find that anyone who participated in such a group would be expelled.


The Questions

How much of Marietta's memory was modified?
What was her motivation?
Is she in fact guilty of treason?
Why is Cho still friends with someone who would sell her out? Was Hermione's punishment too harsh?

My Thoughts

Marietta is a sixteen year old girl. She is old enough to know right from wrong, good from bad, and black from white. She has the ability to reason and should posess sound knowledge to make resonable decisions. In less than two years, she will be graduating and be expected to make it on her own.

All the pressure aside, the fact remains that she signed a contract that was explained to her. She did not have to sign it, she was no coerced. It can be argued that the pressure of everyone else signing it got to her, but in the end, she did sign a document that clearly said I won't tell anyone. This happened before the Decree was passed. Marietta had several months to go to Hermione and ask that she be removed from the list. Marietta continued to attend meetings. She had ample time to distance herself from the group.

Had she simply distanced herself from the group and asked to be removed from the list, I'm sure that Hermione would have done it. Harry and Ron and Hermione would have been angry, but they would have found a new place to practice. Hogwarts is a big place. Marietta, instead chose to turn everyone in. This is an illogical decision, because the list still had her name on it.

As I once was a sixteen-year-old girl, I recall that there were very few ways to make me do something I didn't want to do. One was to be an attractive 16-19 year old attractive male and ask me. The other was to be one of my friends. While I'm not saying I ever tattled on my friends or did anything illegal or super dangerous, I will say that I may have participated in a forbodden prank or two.

Now, Marietta could have tattled because of Jealusy, which I think is a strong possiblity. She knows that Hermione is smarter, braver, and more clever than her. Also, at this point, Hermione appears to have a boyfriend as Hermione and Ron spend a lot of time together. This probably drives Marietta insane.

I think that it is very logical for us to believe that Marietta may have wanted a spot on the Inquisition squad to either up her House points and be looked at as a hero, or to find a way to be closer to one of the "bad boys" of slytherin.

As a Ravenclaw, we know that Marietta is smart. She obviously didn't just wake up one day and think, "Hey - I'm bored. Maybe I'll tattle on Harry Potter so that I can actually have a conversation with my friend Cho again" Marietta most likely carefully thought it out.

Marietta could not have been imperiod to confess, as she would not have stopped when the spots appeared. Also, veriserum would have kept her talking as well, as it appears to alter the person's judgement. The change in voice and facial muscles point to it controling some internal part of the brain.

This is really long. In conclusion, i feel that marietta got what she deserved. She is way to old to be tattling on people.



Solitaire - Nov 9, 2004 10:18 pm (#475 of 1080)
Well, she did attend the one just before they broke for Christmas (Chapter 21, p. 455, US ed.):

... Ron and Hermione left before he did; he hung back a little, because Cho was still there and he was hoping to receive a Merry Christmas from her.
"No, you go on," he heard her say to her friend Marietta, and his heart gave a jolt that seemed to take it into the region of his Adam's apple.

It seems she was at least attending up to that point.

Solitaire



Sir Tornado - Nov 9, 2004 10:21 pm (#476 of 1080)
Now, Marietta could have tattled because of Jealusy, which I think is a strong possiblity. She knows that Hermione is smarter, braver, and more clever than her. Also, at this point, Hermione appears to have a boyfriend as Hermione and Ron spend a lot of time together. This probably drives Marietta insane.

Can you explain this point to me please?

And while we are at it, please keep all the 'Shipping issues from this thread. The fact that Ron/Hermione have a potential to form a 'Ship is extremely debatable; and for the record; I'm a H/Hr 'shipper. I don't think it will have a connection with Marrietta's guilt or innocence. If it does, kindly enlighten me on how.

Besides, If you are venturing there ask yourself a few questions

1) Why would Marrietta be jealous towards Hermione for allegedly being Ron's boyfriend?

2) Does Marrietta fancy Ron?



Edited a bit for grammatical errors



Sir Tornado - Nov 9, 2004 10:23 pm (#477 of 1080)
It seems she was at least attending up to that point.

That point was before Christmas... at Christmas, MOST students go home (unless there is a ball!) At home, I can just see a nice Mother and Daughter chat. And the fact is, that Marrietta spilled beans not long after Christmas.



Solitaire - Nov 9, 2004 10:37 pm (#478 of 1080)
Actually, Tornado, I suppose you would say ... Does Marietta fancy Ron?

And now the answer ... I don't think Marietta fancies Ron, but she would not have to fancy him to be jealous of him fancying someone else. I think it is possible that she is jealous of Cho and Harry's mutual crush, yet I don't think she wants Harry for herself any more than she wants Ron.

Face it ... when young girls have boyfriends, they often tend to be so wrapped up in "the crush" that they ignore their best girlfriends. Even when they DO spend time with their girlfriends, frequently all they do is talk about their latest crush (which makes the neglected friend feel even worse). Trust me ... I hear and read about this lament all of the time among my students.

If Marietta has no beau of her own, it's possible she's feeling neglected by Cho and jealous of both Cho and other girls who have boyfriends. It wouldn't be the first time a young girl has tried to manipulate the boy out of the picture, so she can get back on the "inside track" with her friend. I think it is a distinct possibility.

Solitaire



Solitaire - Nov 9, 2004 10:45 pm (#479 of 1080)
At home, I can just see a nice Mother and Daughter chat.

Well, we know Marietta can't have told her mother about the DA, or she'd have returned from Christmas holidays with SNEAK on her face then--and we know she did not.

And the fact is, that Marrietta spilled beans not long after Christmas.

Well, actually it was after Valentine's Day. That's a good month and a half after the holidays (and nearly 6 months into the school year). That is when Harry gave his interview with Rita, and it was published shortly after that.

Solitaire



Sir Tornado - Nov 9, 2004 10:45 pm (#480 of 1080)
But... if she wanted Cho back for herself, she wouldn't have made a move that might've resulted in expulsion of Cho herself.

If she had that motive then it is ridiculous, and she, mind you is in Ravenclaw; so, she is supposed to have atleast some brains.

Then again, there is the fact that Cho has forgive her. This means that her explanation, whatever it was, was good enough.



Sir Tornado - Nov 9, 2004 10:48 pm (#481 of 1080)
Well, we know Marietta can't have told her mother about the DA, or she'd have returned from Christmas holidays with SNEAK on her face then--and we know she did not.

That's a debatable issue. Seamus was told (by someone) that DA existed.

And then, there isn't a single mention of Marrietta from Christmas upto "The Day of Betrayal". No note of any DA meetings she attended, nothing... it is highly possible that she stoped attending DA after Christmas.



Solitaire - Nov 9, 2004 10:54 pm (#482 of 1080)
She could have stopped, but I think Cho would have said something to Harry if Marietta had deliberately quit coming. It's one thing to miss one meeting. It's another to make a conscious decision to quit. I really don't think that is what happened. JMO (just my opinion), of course.



Sir Tornado - Nov 9, 2004 11:02 pm (#483 of 1080)
Hmm just my thought... or else, some one would've said something when Marrietta was absent for Patronus... and you know what? I've just thought this... Cho did not seem to miss her best friend that day! During the DA lesson about Patronus...

Now, we can deduce 2 things from it.

1) Marrietta had, since long, quit the DA and Cho could carry on attending DA lessons without missing her

OR

2) Marrietta and Cho had a fight.



Annika - Nov 10, 2004 4:49 am (#484 of 1080)
Sir Tornado, I was answering the fourth head of house, not Cho's head of house. I think all have good points as to Marietta's character/motives. It shall be interesting to see what becomes of her in the next two books.

Annika



Catherine - Nov 10, 2004 5:27 am (#485 of 1080)
Sir Tornado, going back some posts, I think that we see Marietta's motives:

Valentine's Day was a turning point: Harry gave an interview and publicly named Death Eaters; Cho and Harry had a disastrous date that was blamed on Hermione; and Umbridge and the Mininistry were made to look foolish as a result of the interview.

Marietta going to Umbridge accomplishes a lot. She can potentially earn her House more points by toadying up to Umbridge; she can make the boy who hurt Cho's feelings, who is already on Umbridge's radar as a liar and troublemaker, leave Hogwarts; she can help Umbridge regain an "advantage" that was lost when The Quibbler article came out.

While I think Richard expressed himself well in his post, I do not agree with his argument that she was "honoring her parents." What Marietta did has nothing at all to do with honor. It's not as though she confessed the mess to her parents and apologized for going against their wishes.

I don't want to flog Marietta for being a child who made a really stupid mistake. But I think it is wrong when I keep reading that Hermione is "spiteful" or that Hermione "punished" Marietta. Rather, I think that JKR has shown that people can be pawns in the game of power. Marietta made a bad choice, and was swept up into a much bigger situation. Hermione's actions are akin to Dumbledore's age line in GoF; it's just so very unfortunate that in the mess that ensued, her pimples were taken care of immediately.

I think Umbridge, not Hermione, used Marietta frightfully, and what she did to Marietta is much worse than Hermione jinxing a piece of parchment.



Denise S. - Nov 10, 2004 5:43 am (#486 of 1080)
I'm going rather far back; forgive me if I'm being repetitive. This debate was so juicy I couldn't help it. ^_^ (Note: I have no books with me to cite from, otherwise I'd cite.)



Sir Tornado, post 410: They were breaking Ministry Decrees Steve. Not just school laws. And unless I'm mistaken, decree is like a law. It is a serious matter. But what kind of ministry was there to give those decrees? Just because a government proclaims something to be right or wrong doesn't actually make it so. Just because Hitler's Third Reich made it "wrong" to hide Jews to keep them from being sent to death camps doesn't mean that people who did hide Jews deserved to be cruelly punished for it.

Penny Lane in her post around 470 said that ME's weakness is similar to Peter's. I had that thought in my head the entire time while reading the last 200 posts and wanted to elaborate. If an analogy is made between Umbridge & Co. and Voldy & the DEs (hee hee, that almost sounds like a bad 60s pop group), with the DA being James' family, Marietta's actions are directly mirroring those of Pettigrew (albeit on less of a life-and-death scale). Their actions are so similar that I find it hard to deny that Marietta is a traitor.


Steve Newton, post 395: Leila, it sounds as if you think that Marietta was a traitor. She just had a good reason to sell out her friends. So did Peter Pettigrew, arguably. He feared for his life; he'd been a go-between for Voldemort behind his friends' backs for some time, but he ratted them out (pardon the pun) only after Voldie heard the prophecy--when he had his reason, as ME had hers. (And wouldn't "sell out your friends" mean the same thing as betrayed?)


Annicka, post 461: I agree very much that her intentions were good. She was trying to protect not just herself, but her mother. I have read discussions wondering whether Pettigrew had family in the Voldemort's crosshairs. It may have been hard to choose between the mother and his best friend's family, but who gets themselves involved between two adversaries and expects to get an easy ride? The best way for Marietta and Pettigrew to protect themselves would have been to not get involved--but they did, and of their own free will.

Sir Tornado, post 471:I believe [that it's] crystle clear that Marrietta did not want to come...there is no doubt about it. If she didn't want to come, why didn't she just stop coming? If she was honestly so fed up with going, she could have simply quit going to meetings altogether without turning them into Umbridge. She (and her mother's potentially endangered career) would have been safe from suspicion, and she would have been spared the trouble without going and betraying not just her friend but 20-some odd other people.

Sir Tornado, post 449: So... if no one's getting convinced, I'll just shut up and continue the topic when HbPs out... But debate is what makes it fun! Even if I can't be convinced that she isn't a traitor, please don't shut up! :-)

Edit: already writing huge posts. Sorry. And also, I am in no way trying to change the topic to Peter.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Newton - Nov 10, 2004 7:00 am (#487 of 1080)[/b]
Too much to go into detail.

Sir Tornado says that someone must have told Seamus since he only came to the last meeting. It is possible that he knew of the group from the beginning, since he rooms with 4 other members of the DA, and only started coming when he and Harry ceased feuding.

I've wondered whether the Ministry decrees were actually binding and if the MOM actually had the right to take such control of the school. Probably but I don't know how the place is governed and what power the Board of Governors has.

Again, the only defense for ME that I see is the niggling suspicion that The Toad did something illegal to her. The Toad is the one who explains why ME came to her and she is not specific, something about being to her advantage. If ME was imperioed (maybe not the right word) or given veritaserum then she probably would not have had a choice. I don't recall any marks on her hand. (I know that some can resist the imperius curse but it seems that most can't.)



Steve Newton - Nov 10, 2004 7:01 am (#488 of 1080)
By the way, how is Benedict Arnold perceived in the UK? Is he remembered at all?



Catherine - Nov 10, 2004 7:13 am (#489 of 1080)
Again, the only defense for ME that I see is the niggling suspicion that The Toad did something illegal to her. The Toad is the one who explains why ME came to her and she is not specific, something about being to her advantage. If ME was imperioed (maybe not the right word) or given veritaserum then she probably would not have had a choice. I don't recall any marks on her hand. (I know that some can resist the imperius curse but it seems that most can't.) --Steve Newton

I think the evidence does not indicate that Umbridge used illegal curses against her. Harry's ability to resist the Imperious Curse seemed very unusual, and I would be surprised if Marietta shares that ability. Crouch/Moody seemed to think that it requires strong character, and I haven't seen evidence that Marietta has such a character. Snape had been supplying Umbridge with fake Veritaserum, so that couldn't "force" her, either. Umbridge might possibly have Crucioed Marietta, but her hesitation later in the novel suggests that she hadn't tried that particular tactic yet. Marietta did not seem to be suffering the aftershocks of the Cruciatus curse, but rather, severe anxiety about her purple pimples.



Annika - Nov 10, 2004 8:08 am (#490 of 1080)
We don't know for a fact that the Vertiserum that Umbridge tried to give Harry was fake as he never took it. So she could have administered Vertiserum to Marietta.

Annika



Czarina II - Nov 10, 2004 8:43 am (#491 of 1080)
All we know about Marietta's actions is through other people's description, at least those actions pertaining to the SNEAK incident.

We DON'T KNOW that she went to Umbridget of her own free will.

We DON'T KNOW that she revealed information of her own free will.

We DON'T KNOW what exactly she said to Umbridge.

We DON'T KNOW what her intentions were, or what she was pressured to do, or what she was thinking.

We DON'T KNOW how mature she is. Some 16-year-olds are very mature and think like adults (the sixteen-going-on-sixty types). Others are very immature and would be better off being considered children. Most are somewhere in between. We can't blanketly say that a sixteen-year-old is mature. Definitions of "right" and "wrong" also come from childhood, family, education, etc. They really have nothing to do with immaturity.

We DO KNOW the events described by the narrator in OoP. I trust the narrator. I also trust Cho's statement that she "made her come", since Cho has no reason to lie at that point. However, using direct quotes from characters is shakier evidence, since one has to examine the character's motives and state of mind, among other things. Umbridge had a million and one reasons to lie in the office scene. Why are we automatically trusting her?



Steve Newton - Nov 10, 2004 8:53 am (#492 of 1080)
Czarina II, you are right, we don't know most of these things. I suggest that a couple don't make any difference. What she was pressured to do, her maturity level, the pressures on her, and Cho forcing her to come may help to explain what she did but in no way would excuse it. She is still responsible for what she does. She still had the choice, even if it would be a hard one for her to make.

As described by Umbridge it appears that ME did go to Umbridge of her own free will. While this may not be the way it was I see no strong evidence that it wasn't.



TomProffitt - Nov 10, 2004 9:33 am (#493 of 1080)
I find myself in agreement with Czarina II.

It's not that I necessarily think Marietta is innocent, it's just that there really isn't anything available to paint her with a big black brush.

She could be as black to the core as Bellatrix or she could have been hoodwinked by Umbridge.

I want more evidence before I send her off to Azkaban.



Steve Newton - Nov 10, 2004 9:48 am (#494 of 1080)
I certainly would not send her to Azkaban. What good is an example that you can't see?



Solitaire - Nov 10, 2004 11:09 am (#495 of 1080)
Even if she is a traitor--and I believe at this time that she is--I do not suggest Azkaban. I think being SNEAKed was a sufficient punishment and one she will not soon forget.



MickeyCee3948 - Nov 10, 2004 11:21 am (#496 of 1080)
At this point in time I believe that we will all agree that the information we have at our disposal lacks certain components that we need to better judge Ms Edgecombe. We are left to draw our own conclusions based on information we have been provided which is both suspect and incomplete. Therefore I believe it would be in the best interest all of us to agree to disagree on the matter of Marietta Edgecombe until such time as the information needed is provided.

Mikie



Steve Newton - Nov 10, 2004 11:41 am (#497 of 1080)
3948, that is much too rational.



MickeyCee3948 - Nov 10, 2004 11:49 am (#498 of 1080)
I was afraid so, but thought I would give it a shot. Well off to bang my head on the dresser again.

Mikie



Annika - Nov 10, 2004 11:52 am (#499 of 1080)
Speculation on random words, phrases and periphreal characters is what is keeping me going until the release of HBP, at which time I expected to be proven wrong on many, many, many different accounts.

Annika



Catherine - Nov 10, 2004 11:59 am (#500 of 1080)
We don't know for a fact that the Vertiserum that Umbridge tried to give Harry was fake as he never took it. So she could have administered Vertiserum to Marietta.

Well, yes, she could have. But Snape seems to be her supplier, and Dumbledore said that he supplied her with fake Veritaserum. She summons Snape to her office and asks for more, so we can assume that she used up the previous bottle, which we later find out was fake.

Right now, the evidence for me seems to point to that, unbeknownst to her, she was in possession of fake Veritaserum made by Snape. I believe it most likely that Marietta was not magically induced to snitch to Umbridge.

The way that JKR has written the story so far makes it, to me anyway, more credible that Umbridge has fake Veritaserum than she was in possession of "real" Veritaserum.

And yes, the debates are what keep us all going in the absence of HBP, yes?



Mrs Brisbee - Nov 10, 2004 12:56 pm (#501 of 1080)
"I don't want to flog Marietta for being a child who made a really stupid mistake. But I think it is wrong when I keep reading that Hermione is "spiteful" or that Hermione "punished" Marietta. Rather, I think that JKR has shown that people can be pawns in the game of power. Marietta made a bad choice, and was swept up into a much bigger situation. Hermione's actions are akin to Dumbledore's age line in GoF; it's just so very unfortunate that in the mess that ensued, her pimples were taken care of immediately."

"I think Umbridge, not Hermione, used Marietta frightfully, and what she did to Marietta is much worse than Hermione jinxing a piece of parchment." --Catherine

I really, really agree with this. Those who are in charge are the most culpable, and need to take the responsibility for misleading those they are supposed to give good guidance to.

Also there is often a big difference between what is legal, what is just, and what is necessary. That jinxed parchment falls in the "necessary" catagory, I think.

Edit: Oh yes, we should keep debating the little things. It's way too much fun, and occupies us til HPB comes out. Marietta is like a honey magnet for starved flies...



Chemyst - Nov 10, 2004 12:57 pm (#502 of 1080)
Yes, the debates are what keep us all going...

Benedict Arnold was just helping Britons capture terrorists! However, when US won the independence, they ceased to be "terrorists". They become "HEROES". Arnold Benedict was termed as a traitor who tried to undermine the American freedom struggle. Poppycock! Such misguided reasoning completely misses the central point: Arnold was wearing an American uniform at the time! If he had been a civilian loyalist supporting the crown, he'd have been simply a dissenting colonist. But he had sworn an oath joining the Colonial Army. Neither was the Colonial Army a terrorist organization. They did not target civilians. Indeed, it was the British troops who created terror by imposing quartering of their soldiers even before war was declared, and did so in a magnitude great enough that the issue was addressed in the Third Article of the Bill of Rights so that the Constitution could be ratified..



Elanor - Nov 10, 2004 1:11 pm (#503 of 1080)
Oh yes! Those last days, I read what was posted here with delight: whatever are our opinions about Marietta, the simple fact that everyone HAS an opinion about her and becomes so passionate to defend his ideas is great and makes me think that:

1)Only the HP obsessed that we are would ever understand how important and stimulating these discussions are for us.

2)That we do need the HPB! (please, please Jo...)

BTW, I think that Marietta was guilty of betraying his friends and the contract she had signed. When I read about the fact that Umbridge represented the law then, it always reminds me of the Resistance: it wasn't legal either, but it was the right thing, the one thing in fact, to do. In a way, Harry and his friends also created a kind of resistance.

What Marietta did was wrong and she was indeed a traitor but I don't think she understood then the extent of the damages she caused in the WW, even if they remain. So I think that she may have some "extenuating circumstances" for the "betraying the WW" charges since it wasn't her intentions: she did something mean, but I don't think she thought there would be consequences outside Hogwarts (except for her mother maybe).

So I agree with Solitaire and think that "being SNEAKed was a sufficient punishment and one she will not soon forget.



Solitaire - Nov 10, 2004 11:01 pm (#504 of 1080)
I don't think Umbridge could have used Veritaserum on Marietta. Remember when Dumbledore used it on Barty, Jr., he did as he was told. I do not believe Marietta could have resisted talking as long as she did in Dumbledore's office. She was resisting even before Kingsley modified her memory.

I also do not believe she was under the Imperius Curse for the same reason. If she is as weak and powerless as many seem to think she is, she would not have been able to throw it off; she'd have had to answer the questions Umbridge put to her.

Solitaire



Czarina II - Nov 11, 2004 7:52 am (#505 of 1080)
Chemyst -- drifting a wee bit into politics, aren't we? ;-)

I agree that the punishment was good enough for Marietta, and that it will probably wear off with time, just a bit longer than two months. She probably won't be SNEAKed by the time she comes back to Hogwarts in HbP.

I also think that Marietta did realise what she was doing wrong, since she clammed up in front of Umbridge and then later in front of Fudge (before the memory thing). She isn't just a vain little princess who thought the SNEAK would go away if she stopped talking, but rather one who realised she was doing something wrong. I think the fact that she said "something to your advantage" (if she did say that) to Umbridge is interesting. Why phrase it that way? Was she trying to appease Umbridge, but keep the secret? Not that it worked, but still?



Solitaire - Nov 11, 2004 8:16 am (#506 of 1080)
Czarina, I think if Umbridge had done as Marietta initially suggested and had NOT pressed her farther for more details, she probably would have been able to eat her cake and have it too, to use a cliche--she would have caught the kids in the act, and Marietta would probably have gotten away with her treason. Remember that SNEAK didn't appear until she'd admitted about the meetings.

I believe Marietta "couched" her information as she did because she knew she was violating a pact of secrecy. She wanted to "give up" the information without actually telling Umbridge about the meetings, and this was a way to do it. In other words, she was trying to stick to the letter of the contract while betraying its spirit. I believe she clammed up when the jinx came into effect because she knew she'd gone too far.

Solitaire



Chemyst - Nov 11, 2004 4:13 pm (#507 of 1080)
Chemyst -- drifting a wee bit into politics, aren't we? ;-) - Czarina II

Ah me! I see how it could look that way when read as a stand-alone post, but no. This is such a fast-moving thread that the lines of thought can easily become lost in the fray. Last week, two members had been debating whether Marietta was a traitor. I gave a history-based example to show she was. About three dozen posts later, someone replied that Benedict Arnold was helping the British suppress terrorists. By the time I got back to the thread there were more than forty intervening posts, but I still felt he deserved a reply. Like Marietta, old Benedict had pledged himself to an organization that would not be recognized as "officially sanctioned" But I don't think anyone is ready to call the DA a terrorist group, are they? So no, it's historical analogy rather than political commentary.



Catherine - Nov 11, 2004 4:22 pm (#508 of 1080)
But I don't think anyone is ready to call the DA a terrorist group, are they? So no, it's historical analogy rather than political commentary. --Chemyst

Hopefully no one does think that the DA is a terrorist group. I would be quite upset to see such a label, as I don't think it fits the least bit.



Sir Tornado - Nov 13, 2004 1:38 pm (#509 of 1080)
All we know about Marietta's actions is through other people's description, at least those actions pertaining to the SNEAK incident.

We DON'T KNOW that she went to Umbridget of her own free will.

We DON'T KNOW that she revealed information of her own free will.

We DON'T KNOW what exactly she said to Umbridge.

We DON'T KNOW what her intentions were, or what she was pressured to do, or what she was thinking.

We DON'T KNOW how mature she is. Some 16-year-olds are very mature and think like adults (the sixteen-going-on-sixty types). Others are very immature and would be better off being considered children. Most are somewhere in between. We can't blanketly say that a sixteen-year-old is mature. Definitions of "right" and "wrong" also come from childhood, family, education, etc. They really have nothing to do with immaturity.

We DO KNOW the events described by the narrator in OoP. I trust the narrator. I also trust Cho's statement that she "made her come", since Cho has no reason to lie at that point. However, using direct quotes from characters is shakier evidence, since one has to examine the character's motives and state of mind, among other things. Umbridge had a million and one reasons to lie in the office scene. Why are we automatically trusting her? -- Czarina

When we don't know so many things about this episode, we certainly can't have a trial. If there isn't a trial, you can't determine anyone guilty. As DD says, "Innocent until proven guilty"

I accept the fact that ME may be guilty. What I want to say is, from the evidence we have, and without ME's testimony, we can't charge her guilty, not yet. May be, after HbP, I might be calling her a traitor too... but as of now, it is not possible. Lack of Evidence.



Catherine - Nov 13, 2004 1:47 pm (#510 of 1080)
Tornado,

We can certainly hold an opinion about whether Marietta acted in a traitorous manner without a formal, legal trial.

I never even said that she was legally guilty of anything; but her actions have branded her a SNEAK.

She did sneak, she did tell Umbridge, and her peers might well have reason to avoid her if they believe that she cannot be trusted.



MickeyCee3948 - Nov 13, 2004 4:22 pm (#511 of 1080)
Who's suggesting she be charged with the crime of treason? Who's suggesting she go to a trial? I think and I believe alot of others will agree that she did tell Umbridge about the DA(regardless of the circumstances). She suffered her punishment. I don't believe she deserves any further action taken aganist her. She will have her chance in HBP(if she returns)to explain what happen and hopefully the zits will be gone.

I don't believe she will play a major role in the remaining books. She was a minor player who never said a word but she fulfilled a needed function in the OotP book.

Regardless of the background of the incident, I doubt that any member of the DA will trust her to tell them the day of the week. So she won't have to worry about attending anymore of those DA meetings that she may have been forced to attend.

Mikie



Solitaire - Nov 13, 2004 4:44 pm (#512 of 1080)
I agree with you, Mikie! Now she won't be "forced" to attend any more of those irksome DA meetings. However, with Voldemort back--and the ministry officially recognizing that fact--she may WANT to attend them, assuming she returns to Hogwarts. She may do a "Weasley" and decide she has had enough "education." Who knows?

It will be interesting to see if Marietta's problems are resolved for the reader, or if she just sort of "fades away," and we are left to wonder ...

Solitaire



haymoni - Nov 13, 2004 4:54 pm (#513 of 1080)
Marietta will be a 7th year and ready to move on. She was not alone in doubting Harry, so I don't think the whole school will be against her.

She may apologize to Harry or she may just avoid him. I'm sure she won't still have the "SNEAK" on her.

Harry will have too much on his mind this year to worry much about Marietta. I wouldn't be surprised if we never hear from her again.



Tomoé - Nov 18, 2004 5:13 pm (#514 of 1080)
In my humble opinion, the comparasion between Marietta and Benedict Arnold, the French Resistance or Peter Pettigrew are poor if not wrong. In these three cases, the traitors knew there was a war and they at least understood the rough sketch of the greater picture if they didn't know the details. Marietta didn't know there was a war at all and the players were still hiding their cards so close to them that she, a 16 years old, couldn't see pass the bluff. I tried to find a historical analogy but couldn't find any, people like Marietta don't make history.

I don't like who Marietta hang around with; first, she herself ressent Hermione for the jinxed parchment; second, her best friend, Cho, had a bad romance with Harry; third, Cho's new boyfriend, Michael Corner, had a bad romance with Ginny. Add Padma, who had a bad date with Ron, in the lot, plus "Lord Voldemort's gift for spreading discord and enmity" and you could lost half of the Ravenclaws.

Why Jo planned a bad relation between each of HRH+Ginny and a Ravenclaw? Why did she make sure in OoP to bring back Padma's ill feeling for her Yule ball parter (ch.10)? Why did she let Marietta go back home jinxed? Why did she made Cho and Michael boy/girlfriend? It spells like trouble to me.



Steve Newton - Nov 18, 2004 5:40 pm (#515 of 1080)
Tomoé, I have trouble keeping the Houses straight. I hadn't realized the potential for strain between Gryfindor and Ravenclaw. Great catch!


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Mona on Thu May 19, 2011 12:42 am; edited 5 times in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 59
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Posts 516 to 550

Post  Mona Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:46 pm

Tomoé - Nov 18, 2004 5:57 pm (#516 of 1080)
Well, that's why I would have prefered Hermione to remove the jinx after a month, because there are too many Ravenclaws with potential grudge against Harry's gang. They could even prefer the Slytherins over the Gryffindors (they have win too many house cup since Harry came in, that makes another reason for grudge). Not all the Ravenclaw will switch, there is some muggle-borns among them, but a good number of them could stay away from the Gryffindors.

So yes, I'm sure we'll hear more of Marietta.

Edit : There were 7 Ravenclaws in the DA, Michael, Cho, Marietta and Padma who could stay away easily, Anthony was transfered from Hufflepuff to Ravenclaw by Jo, he could be linked to Michael somehow, Terry should be a muggle-born (according to Jo's note-book) and Luna is with the Gryffindors. If the Gryffindors lost both of the Ravenclaw prefects ...



Czarina II - Nov 19, 2004 7:56 am (#517 of 1080)
I think Marietta, Cho, and Corner are likely going to stay away from the DA, but I don't think we should put the other Ravenclaws in the same boat. Anthony and Terry were with the Hufflepuff Four and rescued Harry from Draco's plot on the trip home. Padma may be a bit miffed at Ron, but she is also Parvati's twin sister. She is also a year younger than Marietta and Cho, so I doubt she was their close friend. Maybe Padma will bring some other Ravenclaw girls to any future DA meetings in HbP, assuming the group continues. Luna, of course, is certainly onside with Gryffindor.



Tomoé - Nov 20, 2004 11:43 am (#518 of 1080)
Did we ever suspect Seamus to be estranged from Harry? Did we ever suspect Lavander? Loads of factors must be taken into account of course and I believe it can go on either path for here. However, if the Ravenclaws stay away from the Gryffindors, it won't be out of the blue.

Now, Padma is Parvati sister, but they doesn't hang around together that much, or Harry would have notice by GoF there was two Parvati. They have been praised for different qualities, one for her courage, one for her cleverness. I can perfectly see Padma thinking by herself and consider the Gryffindor to be too disrespectful for their own good.

Anthony and Terry went for the DA because of Michael and Ginny, Anthony and Terry seems to hang around with Michael a lot. I'm sure they're found of the DA and all, but sometimes friends come first, they could be sticking for Michael and his new fellow Ravenclaw girlfriend.

This is, of course, speculations, but I see a possibility for a clash between Ravenclaw/Gryffindor and I really don't like it.



Penny Lane. - Nov 20, 2004 12:08 pm (#519 of 1080)
I think the possiblity for a clash between Ravenclaw&Slytherin vs. Gryfindor&Hufflepuff has been set up for a while. If you look back through GoF and OoP, Harry has noticed that Ravenclaw is not always on his side.

An example in GoF was when he was picked for the Triwizard cup, and something was said about how he expected some Hufflepuffs and the Slytherins to be against him, but not Ravenclaw as well.

I've also noticed that Harry seems to have "won over" the Hufflepuffs. As the Hufflepuffs are known for their loyalty, it's a very good thing that Harry has fixed the thread that could have broke between him and them. After the "Cedric thing" The Hugglepuffs could have chosen to never trust a Gryfinndor again.

I think that Marietta's actions show how Ravenclaws are similar to Slytherin in their values. Marietta was with the DA for months. She knew when the meetings were, she attended. She spoke with Harry and members of the DA. The fact that she could turn around and turn them all in speaks higly that she is not loyal to her friends. She was willing to allow her best friend to be expelled, for whatever reason. This action shows that she is not loyal to her friends, and that she is not brave enough to stand on her own.



MickeyCee3948 - Nov 20, 2004 1:27 pm (#520 of 1080)
I just can't see the Ravenclaw turning aganist Gryffindor. Yes, they are probably upset about Marietta. However, no one was very upset at the end of OotP. Ravenclaw's are supposed to be brainy. If they are then a realistic look at what transpired and what the consequences of an ill fated alliance could mean then they will not take that direction. That's my take, but I am an eternal optimist.

Mikie



Solitaire - Nov 20, 2004 3:14 pm (#521 of 1080)
I think it may be important that Terry Boot and Anthony Goldstein were with the four Hufflepuff DA kids to aid Harry on the train, rather than being with their own Ravenclaw group. They clearly would have known about Marietta's predicament, yet they chose to stick with their DA friends on the train ride home.

Perhaps, instead of Marietta's situation showing that Ravenclaws can't be trusted, Terry and Anthony's loyalty to the DA and Harry show that Ravenclaws are independent and intelligent, and they make up their own minds about individuals rather than lumping all of a house together. JM2K (Just my 2 knuts ...)

Solitaire



Czarina II - Nov 20, 2004 4:29 pm (#522 of 1080)
I agree, Solitaire. Ravenclaws (despite their name that reminds one of a flock) are individuals. They have more in common, perhaps, with the Slytherins. Both Houses stress the individual.

During GoF, the Hufflepuffs were quite angry with Harry (and Gryffindor by extension) and the Slytherins were just capitalizing on their discontent to poke fun at Gryffindor. That is a major difference between Slytherin and Ravenclaw. The Ravenclaws either sided with the Hufflepuffs or with the Gryffindors, because they either shared the Hufflepuff anger or they supported Harry. Most of them were probably indifferent, actually.



Richard Reid - Nov 20, 2004 8:39 pm (#523 of 1080)
Edited by Nov 20, 2004 8:40 pm
I feel - it seems common throughout - that Ravenclaw is the closest to Slytherin of all the houses. I get the impression, that many Ravenclaw students - although very intelligent - become somewhat arrogant. This is just a mild observation, and has no major basis. However, I often view some Ravenclaw's are guilty of not only knowing they are smart - but letting everyone else know they are smart.

Perhaps Marietta's decision was partly due to pressure, or partly done to make a stand for herself.



TomProffitt - Nov 21, 2004 4:05 am (#524 of 1080)
Using Marietta to represent Ravenclaw may well be like using Peter Pettigrew or Percy Weasley as a representative of the best Griffyndor has to offer.

And frankly, I think the "Unity of the Houses" is somewhat over-rated. Having 100% support from Ravenclaw House is not going to be critical to Harry's ability to defeat Lord Voldemort as far as I can see.

Unanimity would be nice, but The Dark Lord can be defeated with out it.



Richard Reid - Nov 21, 2004 5:27 am (#525 of 1080)
Really? I see it as the key. Unity seems to be one of the major factors throughout the story. What's more, the Sorting Hat - our only loyal source for Hogwart's history - has even strongly advised it, in his latest song.

I think the basic theory - two heads are better than one, three heads are better than two, etc - will play a big part. When you saw Harry unite many members from different houses in DA, together, they became powerful. If all members from all houses united... Then following my train of thought, they become more powerful.



Sir Tornado - Nov 21, 2004 6:53 am (#526 of 1080)
I agree with Richard.



Phoenix song - Nov 21, 2004 8:31 am (#527 of 1080)
"I think the basic theory - two heads are better than one, three heads are better than two, etc - will play a big part. When you saw Harry unite many members from different houses in DA, together, they became powerful. If all members from all houses united... Then following my train of thought, they become more powerful."-Richard Reid

I hate to just add an "I agree as well", but I do agree. I'll add to it that we have seen instances when it took more than one wizard to accomplish a task, and it is remarked upon that two (or more) wands together managed to accomplish what one alone could not. It took several wizards to stun the dragons in GoF, and it took both Cedric and Harry to stun the spider in the maze. "The two spells combined did what one alone had not:" (GoF, 31/632) I think that unification is the key to the books. There was an elemental imbalance left in the school when Slytherin left as he did, and that imbalance will not be corrected until the school has been truly unified once more. Jo acknowledges the absence of Slytherin in the stool that the sorting hat sits upon. At the beginning of SS, the sorting hat's stool has four legs. Harry doesn't see the hat again until year 4, when it suddenly contains only 3 legs. I think that she's symbolizing the loss of Salazar with this, as house unification becomes a stronger issue.

I wonder how Marietta will play in the future of this series. She did betray the members of the DA, and loyalty is something that the Hufflepuffs and the Gryffindors hold dear. Logically, it may have made sense for her to have tattled as she did, and as a Ravenclaw she may have relied upon that characteristic to make her decision. I don't see it setting too well with the other members who were put in danger, however. Harry has shown a great ability to forgive others, as he did with Ron in GoF. But I think that Marietta's betrayal will present a difficult obstacle to overcome in the unification of the group once more.

Barbie



Richard Reid - Nov 21, 2004 8:57 am (#528 of 1080)
Barbie, in describing your theory of unity - you have summed up my feelings perfectly, and more accuritely than I was able to explain. Bravo.

I think her "betrayal" is a typical characteristic of Ravenclaw. She did the "smart" option, by following the law. Now, taking a step back, she is a Ravenclaw and she did what I would have expected her to do.

This then limits any feelings of hate, or dislike I have towards her.



TomProffitt - Nov 21, 2004 9:03 am (#529 of 1080)
I disagree not in kind, but in degree.

It is patently unrealistic to expect Harry and Dumbledore to convert the entire Hogwarts School to the cause against Lord Voldemort, much less the Wizarding World itself.

It is one thing to encourage the support of Ravenclaws, Hufflepuffs, and Slytherins in general, it is quite different to feel compelled to seek out each undecided student and each student firmly in Lord Voldemort's camp. Yes, there is strength in numbers, but there is also economy of force. It is important to place significant energy in seeking support from others both at school and in the Wizarding World as a whole, but it is also important to expend energy in other ways.

Harry will die of old age if the Order waits for 100% support from the Wizarding World.

EDIT: In proofing my post I see I've strayed from topic, I'll make no further efforts on this thread to defend my position.



Solitaire - Nov 21, 2004 9:20 am (#530 of 1080)
Like Tom, I do not see how there will ever be 100% support within Hogwarts. How can there be, when at least some Slytherins support Voldemort's cause? Will all of those supporters have to die first, or are we hoping for some sort of epiphany on the part of those Slytherin/Death Nibblers that will cause the "scales" to fall from their eyes and allow them to see Voldemort for what he truly is?

Even supposing some of the families of the DNs wanted to defect from Voldemort's camp, how realistic is it to attempt? Snape would seem to be the only one who has managed it thus far, and I think it must be acknowledged that he is certainly far more intelligent than any of the DEs we've met thus far. I'm sorry to stray off topic, but this is a response to the immediately preceding posts.

As far as Marietta, I won't say it is beyond the ability of Harry or anyone else to forgive her. However, she will need to present some pretty compelling reasons for her betrayal. Even if Harry does forgive her, it doesn't mean he (or anyone else, for that matter) will ever trust her again. I can't help believing the choice of traveling companions by Terry Boot and Anthony Goldstein was important. Anthony is a prefect, is he not? Yet he was traveling with Hufflepuffs and came to Harry's aid on the train. I just think this joint "Hufflepuff-Ravenclaw defending Gryffindor" effort was important.

Solitaire



Richard Reid - Nov 21, 2004 12:16 pm (#531 of 1080)
Although I sympathize with Marietta - I seriously doubt that she will become an influential character in the remaining two books. Now, I do understand the reasoning behind her actions - I do feel there was pressure from her mother and Cho - however, I question myself if there is any plausible reason for continuing the debate. I increasingly feel that Marietta's time in the books has ended, therefore, what ever mistakes or decisions she has made is now in the past - it is history.

To reply to the previous post, I also don't think that Dumbledore is holding out for Universal approval and belief. I don't think he ever expected to. However, what I am saying is that some unity in the houses will make Hogwarts stronger. Now, it is some-what obvious that many Slytherins have pledged their support to Dumbledore, however, not all. I still think there is some "redemption" (I use the term lightly, as not everyone perceives the Slytherins as bad) for the Slytherin House. I think Snape is a shining example and personifies Slytherin. He portrays this person who appears to do what he likes, and makes his own rules. However - we know that he really follow's Dumbledore (a characteristic unfaithful to Slytherin House).

I apologize for the diversity of my post.

Richard



Gerald Costales - Nov 27, 2004 9:50 am (#532 of 1080)
Sorry, about the late vote and comments. (Remember every vote should count.)

One issue not brought up is burden of proof. In criminal cases, it would be beyond a shadow of a doubt. In civil cases, it would be by a preponderance of the evidence. What standard are we to use to determine if Marietta is innocence or guilt? I don’t think if this were a criminal case that we could reach a consensus. Criminal cases can only be decided when all twelve jurors agree. Civil cases can be decide when there is a 9 to 3 vote of the jurors. In some jurisdictions, an 8 to 4 vote of the jurors is accepted based on the need to keep court cost down. Also there is the issue of jurisdiction, that hasn’t been taken into account.

Let’s review the charges:

. . . . . .1) Treason against the Wizarding World.

. . . . . .2) Treason against Hogwarts & Albus Dumbledore.

. . . . . .3) Treason against the DA.

. . . . . .4) Violation of a magical contract.

. . . . . .5) Has appropriate punishment been administered?

Comments:

1) If there was a Wizarding World Court. They wouldn’t even consider a case against Marietta. A World Court would hear cases that consider Genocide, Mass Murder, War Crimes, etc. Sounds more like a venue for cases that Voldermort and the Death Eaters would be charged on. A Wizarding World Court would not hear a case against a 16-year-old schoolgirl like Marietta. If a National Wizard Court exists they wouldn’t hear the case either. I have a problem with the use of the words “Treason” and “World”.

Probable decision: Case rejected and sent to a lower court.

2) This would be a decision whether to expel Marietta or let her remain in school. Since this a school matter, this decision would be made by Dumbledore. There is only one case to review. When Hagrid was expelled they broke his wand and kick him out of Hogwarts. Breaking Marietta’s wand and expulsion could happen. But, Dumbledore is not Dippet. Dumbledore talked Dippet into letting Hagrid remain at Hogwarts and train to become the future “Keeper of Keys and Grates”. Dumbledore probably wanted Hagrid to have a home since Hagrid was an orphan. And Dumbledore is not one to rush to judge and is willing to give people a second chance. (Besides Hagrid, Snape was also given a second chance. And Snape is a hopefully a reformed Death Eater.) Dumbledore suspected Tom Riddle was the real cause of Myrtle’s death not Hagrid’s pet spider, Aragog.

Again, I have a problem with the word “Treason”. Let’s have the definition of “Treason”.

treason - noun 1. Betrayal or breach of allegiance or of obedience toward one’s sovereign or government. 2. Rare, A breach of faith; treachery.

Then the second definition applies in Marietta’s case. But, Marietta turned to Umbridge, one of the school’s proper authorities. This decision to confide to Umbridge was a poor choice in retrospect. But, was influenced by Marietta’s mother being with the Ministry of Magic. The Daily Prophet had painted both Dumbledore and Harry as troublemakers. Dumbledore an old lying Wizard. (Voldermort back, how absurd!) And, Harry was just an attention-seeking boy. Many students witnessed Harry speaking Parseltongue during the Dueling Club and what looked liked Harry ordering the snake to attack Justin Finch-Fletchley.

. “All I saw,” said Ernie stubbornly, though was trembling as he spoke, “was you speaking Parseltongue and chasing the snake toward Justin.”

(page 200, CoS, American hardback edition)

And shortly afterwards Justin was found Petrified along with Nearly Headless Nick.

. Justin Finch-Fletchley was lying on the floor, rigid and cold, a look of shock frozen on his face, his eyes staring blankly at the ceiling. And that wasn’t all. Next to him was another figure, the strangest sight Harry had ever seen.

. It was Nearly Headless Nick, no longer pearly-white and transparent, but black and smoky . . .

(page 202, CoS, American hardback edition)

Also other things Harry has done could be considered attention seeking.

The Quibbler, outside of Harry’s interview, is a tabloid that usually prints absurd stories.

Probable decision: Dumbledore would let Marietta continue at Hogwarts with her wand intact.

3) The DA is a school club with no written by-laws. Any disputes would be taken to Dumbledore to decide. Side issue the legality of the DA. The issue of Civil Disobedience has been cited. The example given, the sheltering of Jews during the reign of the Nazis. The DA was a legal club because the Educational Degrees are unjust. And the forming of the DA was an act of Civil Disobedience.

Probable decision: Marietta would be out of the DA. On the issue of treason, see the above comments on treason.

4) Yes. Marietta broke a magical contract. The issue of jurisdiction doesn’t apply. No other comments. (But, sympathetic to Marietta, Cho did make her join. Don’t want to rehash the arguments already brought up.)

5) Has appropriate punishment been administered? Yes. But, only if the purple pimples are temporary.

Final comment, if the purple pimples remain, there could be a charge of Harassment against Hermione, Harry, Dumbledore, Hogwarts, etc. ;-) GC



MzWhizz123 - Nov 27, 2004 9:54 am (#533 of 1080)
Great job, Gerald! Ten points for your house!

It is easily understood, after reading your post, that Marietta's pimples must go. It would be only fair. The punishment has served its purpose.

Thanks for the play-by-play.



Sir Tornado - Nov 27, 2004 11:20 am (#534 of 1080)
Gerald Costales, I agree with you almost completely, except fifth point there: Marrietta shouldn't be punished, IMO, because, the Punishment clause of the Contract she signed wasn't known to her. Is it legal to disclose a clause of any contract while signing it?

The Contract said, you must not tell anyone. But did it mention any punitative measures? It didn't. It's almost like being asked to pay $10M as punitative charges for breaking a contract when you did not know that you have to pay that; which the contract didn't specify.

IMO, I agree that Marrietta broke then contract, but, the terms of the contract, (which she was forced to sign) weren't known to her. Had she known the all the clauses, she might not have broken the contract... So, in a way, the DA concealed information from her... in other words, DA is guilty of fraud!

Also, I agree with GC. If I were Marrietta, and DA slapped an accusation of Betrayal on me, the first thing I'd would be to file a charge of harrassment on Harry Potter and Hermione Granger and also a suit against Hermione for Breach of trust (Not revealing all the Clasues of contract that is). Were I a school attorney, I would file a suit from the school administration against the DA for:
Harming Marrietta with a motive of disfiguration
Practising curses on school students voluntarily or involuntarily
Breaking the Ministry Decrees


Guilty of atleast one of the above charge will mean expulsion from the school

Also, looking from the POV of a Hogwarts school student, I might consider filing a suit against Hogwarts for inadequate protection offered to the students, which might be rejected by a court.

Can't wait to become a Lawyer!!!

Your views!



Solitaire - Nov 27, 2004 12:55 pm (#535 of 1080)
Regardless of what happens, Marietta will be allowed to continue, if she chooses. Her "debt" or "crime," was one of honor. She screwed up, but hopefully she learned a lesson. Perhaps that is why Dumbledore didn't intervene and fix her face on the spot.

Thank God the Wizarding community doesn't seem as "lawsuit happy" over every cotton-pickin' thing as the Muggle community. Parents who send their children to Hogwarts seem to accept that hard lessons and dangerous events are going to happen from time to time; perhaps that is part of growing up in the Wizarding World. They may realize that kids must learn to cope or take the consequences.

Marietta learned that there are consequences when one breaks a trust. Perhaps next time, she will think twice before spilling the beans when she promised to keep a secret.

Solitaire



TomProffitt - Nov 27, 2004 3:34 pm (#536 of 1080)
Gerald, the purpose of my little poll was for me to get an idea of where people stood on Marietta's errors.

When people speak of character and crime they (it seems to me) tend to speak of it as a treason requiring a hanging or firing squad.

When they speak of her punishment, they tend to say, enough's enough, Hermione did right.

I've always had the feeling on this thread that the two have never matched up. I'm not sure why that is, but it seems to be the case.



Chemyst - Nov 27, 2004 5:10 pm (#537 of 1080)
When people speak of character and crime they ... speak of it as a treason requiring a hanging or firing squad. [...] I've always had the feeling on this thread that the two have never matched up. - Tom

Hmm. I must have missed the firing squad post. No, she did not betray tens of thousands of wizards and put many lives at risk, so the firing squad would be a bit over-the-top. Ditto on the hanging. But she did betray a few dozen classmates and put them at risk of suffering the whims of a truly twisted Umbridge.
Other than defying Umbridge's Educational Decree, (which forbid education from taking place,) was there anything inherently wrong with the DA? (Remember, if Umbridge had been teaching the subject she was hired to teach instead of playing reading monitor, the DA would never have been formed.)

Marietta commited schoolgirl treason and pimples are appropriate trap for a schoolgirl. Notice I said appropriate trap, not appropriate punishment. I agreed with the example someone gave many posts ago likening the parchment-induced pimples to the red dye put in moneybags during bank robberies. Exploding dye is not the punishment for robbing a bank. The reason the statements about "punishment" and ones about the "crime" do not seem to match is because Marietta was never punished for a crime any more than a dye pack punishes bank robbers. Marietta was never punished for a crime because it was not a crime to report an infraction of an educatioal decree. Marietta was trapped when she broke faith with her pledge, betraying the DA.

Like the bank robber, Marietta decided potential benefits were worth the risk. She gambled and lost, activating an equal-opportunity zapper of zits.



Solitaire - Nov 27, 2004 6:44 pm (#538 of 1080)
Great post, Chemyst! You put it well. What those who accuse Hermione of being vindictive seem to overlook is that she did not target Marietta in particular. If she suspected anyone, it probably would have been Zacharias Smith, the Hufflepuff kid who was kind of irritating at the Hog's Head meeting. Even so, since the parchment was signed there and then, in the Hog's Head, it must have been jinxed beforehand, wouldn't you think?

I was also thinking about those who have used Mrs. Edgecombe's job as the excuse for Marietta ratting out the DA to Umbridge, and I remembered that Susan Bones was also a member of the DA. Her aunt, Amelia Susan Bones, was the Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement and sat on the panel at Harry's hearing in the Ministry--yet that didn't seem to have any effect on Susan's decision to join the DA and keep it secret. Then again, Susan's Uncle Edgar and his family were killed by DEs in the last VWar--as happened with relatives of the Weasleys--so perhaps she, like the Weasleys, took things a bit more seriously (and personally) than Marietta.

Solitaire



Czarina II - Nov 27, 2004 7:00 pm (#539 of 1080)
Susan's aunt is Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement. Do we hear what Mrs Edgecombe's title is? There is a bit of a difference. If Susan suspects at all that her aunt is supportive of Dumbledore, she wouldn't hesitate to join the DA, because the only people that we know of who can do Amelia Bones harm are Fudge/Umbridge (though the latter is just a toady) and possibly the Wizengamot. Meanwhile, I was under the impression that Mrs Edgecombe was in middle management, so to speak. Also, there is usually a difference between "aunt" and "mother", in terms of relationship (at least in British culture). Since we know nothing of either girl's home-life, we really can't compare that.

"Then again, Susan's Uncle Edgar and his family were killed by DEs in the last VWar--as happened with relatives of the Weasleys--so perhaps she, like the Weasleys, took things a bit more seriously (and personally) than Marietta. " -- Solitaire

Perfect answer to the question. However, that reasoning is lacking one thing: the views of the Bones and Edgecombe families. Susan grew up under the shadow of parents (or perhaps her aunt) that remembered vividly the familial losses in the first war. Her aunt, at least, was supportive of Dumbledore. We can assume that Susan grew up believing that Dumbledore was a trustworthy genius who was the only one to keep his head during the war. Marietta may not have experienced losses in her family, or it was not dwelled upon, and her family does not view Dumbledore as exemplary. The familial culture and environment are important in determining a person's outlook. Not that I'm falling back on "everything is the parents' fault" as an excuse for Marietta's actions in OoP; rather, I am just drawing comparisons between Susan and Marietta.

In other words, we can't say that just because Susan did NOT feel pressured by being Amelia Bones's niece (in relation to the DA) doesn't mean that Marietta COULD not feel pressured by her mother's position.



Solitaire - Nov 27, 2004 8:18 pm (#540 of 1080)
There is little I can say in reply that hasn't been said before, so I won't belabor the point. I can only say that thus far, no one has offered one single reason (substantiated by the text) that I consider good enough to justify Marietta's betrayal.

Even if her own family has not been touched by the hand of Voldemort and the DEs, she has friends--including her best friend--who have suffered grievous losses directly tied to him and the DEs. Her actions demonstrate a complete lack of sensitivity and a total disregard for their feelings and fears regarding those losses, IMO.

Until such time as Jo exonerates Marietta, I must continue to regard her as someone who sold her friends down the river. I hope her pimples are gone and she can finish her year in peace. Even if her face is clear, however, she has been "marked" as one who cannot be trusted.

Solitaire



Steve Newton - Nov 27, 2004 8:26 pm (#541 of 1080)
I don't want to belabor the point but I can't see what the Edgecombe or Bones family views are. Marietta is responsible for her decision. Even if the pressure was overwhelming she could have simply stopped attending. Sirius would have had a different answer.



Gerald Costales - Nov 28, 2004 8:42 am (#542 of 1080)
"Until such time as Jo exonerates Marietta, I must continue to regard her as someone who sold her friends down the river. I hope her pimples are gone and she can finish her year in peace. Even if her face is clear, however, she has been "marked" as one who cannot be trusted." Solitaire

"Marietta is responsible for her decision. Even if the pressure was overwhelming she could have simply stopped attending. Sirius would have had a different answer." Steve Newton

I agree with both these statements. But, if you think, as I do, that Dumbledore would forgive Marietta unconditionally and give her a second chance, then shouldn't the DA forgive Marietta and move on.

The betrayal was great, it did endanger peoples’ lives and their future as Hogwarts students. But, I attended an all boys Catholic high school, shortly after the Homily (that’s when the priest usually talks about the readings or discusses other current events, etc. [explanation for non-Catholics]) a student walked up to address the whole student body and staff attending the Mass. (We had a handful of non-Catholic students that usually had their own church service so they were not present.) The school probably was the same size as Hogwarts, if not smaller. We only graduated about 200 students annually. Total student body only about 1,000. Jose told us that he had been caught drinking during a dance.

Now, this was a big deal my brother's class (my brother is five years older than I) was the first to have any school sponsored dances. My brother told me that the rumor previous to any school sponsored dance was that our priest would attend the local all girl Catholic school dances to make sure none of our boys were there. My year was the first to have a Senior Prom. There were usually only seven females in the entire school the receptionist, the lady that ran the student store, a lady who gave change at lunch (we were too small of a school to have a cafeteria and had vending machines), the librarian was a nun, a teacher who was an ex-nun, and two other female teachers. The librarian would censor the school library’s magazines usually cutting out pictures of women that were objectionable. Yeah, it was a very old fashioned school and this was the mid-70’s.

Back to Jose, he thanked the principal for letting him remain in school. Then Jose asked the student body to forgive him because he had been caught drinking. The hall was in total silence. Then Jose walked past us all and walked out the hall. We were all stunned. I don’t know about other students, but I forgave Jose even though he had jeopardized any future school sponsored dances. That was about 30 years ago. But, that need for forgiveness remains. I’m not saying all things are forgivable. But, even though we don’t want to forgive someone, our only true choice is to forgive, forget, and move on. ;-) GC

PS I know no lives were endanger like Marietta, but I think the need to forgive is the same.



Sir Tornado - Nov 28, 2004 10:46 am (#543 of 1080)
Marietta learned that there are consequences when one breaks a trust. Perhaps next time, she will think twice before spilling the beans when she promised to keep a secret. -- Solitaire

That's, where I agree with Solitaire.



Solitaire - Nov 28, 2004 4:37 pm (#544 of 1080)
I agree about forgiving and moving on ... but forgetting ... that can be dangerous. Marietta is not the only one who should have learned a lesson, though we sometimes forget that. The kids hopefully understand the need to be more discreet about whom they trust. Not everyone can--or SHOULD--be trusted with one's most important secrets.

I agree that Marietta should be forgiven. Nothing is served by holding a grudge--although she does need to be made aware that her choices contributed to (note I did not say she caused) an unfortunate chain of events that culminated in Sirius's death. I feel she is also going to have to learn the very unpleasant and terribly painful lesson that it is a lot easier to KEEP people's trust than it is to regain it once you have broken faith with them and lost it.

If I were the Hogwarts kids, I do not think I would include Marietta in any activities which require confidentiality. I hope the DA kids have learned, too, that other "unknowns" should be treated with caution in the future.

Solitaire



Sir Tornado - Nov 29, 2004 1:39 am (#545 of 1080)
And, should the DA not learn that they shouldn't do anything reckless that might get them expelled hence forth?



Gerald Costales - Nov 29, 2004 7:04 am (#546 of 1080)
Sir Tornado & Solitare:

First, Sir Tornado I thought your posts were excellent. thought Solitare as always your posts have maintain their past excellence. ;-) GC



Steve Newton - Nov 29, 2004 10:40 am (#547 of 1080)
Sir Tornado, I can't think of anything the DA did that was reckless.

Probably not for this thread, though.



TomProffitt - Nov 29, 2004 4:27 pm (#548 of 1080)
Again, it seems, my penchant for hyperbole has caused some misunderstanding.

The "Jurors poll" I took a while back was done for my own curiosity. There seemed to be some discrepancy between those who tended to be understanding of how Marietta could have done what she did and those who were disinclined to be understanding, who felt that her actions were too harmful to fit easily into the category of an understandable mistake.

It seemed to me, and still does, that it is rather odd that while we all tend to agree that the comeuppance Marietta received from the jinxed parchment was sufficient, we are unable to agree on the severity of her actions.

In the Constitution of the United States the penalty for treason is death. It seems odd to me that those who would use the term "treason" to describe Marietta's actions are content with a few pimples as her sentence.

Perhaps this is a misunderstanding over terms rather than a difference in interpretations of actions. I am not certain that's the case. I strive for objectivity and understanding, but I am unable to understand a position which can be so harsh towards Marietta and so forgiving towards Hermione. I think I can see how both girls got to be where they were, can see faults in both, as well as virtue (which is not say their faults and virtues are equal), but am unable to condemn either.



Sir Tornado - Nov 30, 2004 2:35 am (#549 of 1080)
You are right Tom. If you view the DA vs Marrietta scenario more objectively and from a POV different from Harry's, you may think that Hermione can be blame on the grounds that she didn't reveal all the terms of the contract to the DA members. Was that correct? She was, after all, decieving them in a way.

It seemed to me, and still does, that it is rather odd that while we all tend to agree that the comeuppance Marietta received from the jinxed parchment was sufficient, we are unable to agree on the severity of her actions.

TomProffit said:

In the Constitution of the United States the penalty for treason is death. It seems odd to me that those who would use the term "treason" to describe Marietta's actions are content with a few pimples as her sentence.
Then again, it doesn't really matter if US constitution suggests death penalty for treason; because, in that case it is only applicable for treason against the state not for betraying the individuals, which is what happened in Marrietta's case. Had she betrayed the MoM, then, it would have been a trason against the state.

Then, again, it isn't lawfull for individuals to dispense justice among themselves is it? So, the punishment recieved by Marrietta was
1) According to undisclosed terms in the contract, which, no one excpet Hermione knew existed when contract was drawn.
2) Illegal. In civilised societies, IMO, you can't draw legal contracts that has clauses that inflict any physical pain on any party. So, the clause that initiated the jinx was, in a way, illegal!

TomProffit said:
Perhaps this is a misunderstanding over terms rather than a difference in interpretations of actions. I am not certain that's the case. I strive for objectivity and understanding, but I am unable to understand a position which can be so harsh towards Marietta and so forgiving towards Hermione. I think I can see how both girls got to be where they were, can see faults in both, as well as virtue (which is not say their faults and virtues are equal), but am unable to condemn either.


Tom is right, it is hard to see how Hermione is guilty of atleast these 3 charges in this situation:
1) Not revealing all the terms of the contracts
2) Inflicting pain on Marrietta and causing her harrassment, mental, physical and Psychological.
3) Drawing a contract with one or more illegal term(s) [We don't know if Hermione place any more charms on the parchment]

Surely enough to send her to Azkaban or atleast to get her a suspended sentence if she were an adult... And, since most of you are dealing with Marrietta's crime thinking of her as an adult, why not do the same with Hermione?



wwtMask - Nov 30, 2004 5:46 am (#550 of 1080)
Man, I never expected this thread to evolve into a full legal proceeding for a bit of (admittedly impressive) underage magic :-)

I'm not so comfortable with trying to apply all sorts of criminal charges to Hermione, just as I'm against all the talk of treason for Marietta. Hermione's actions seem to be in line with the way the wizarding world works. The only fault of her's was not disclosing the nature of the parchment. Marietta's actions were traitorous, but treasonous? She did not plan or forsee Dumbly taking the fall for Harry, so it's very, very hard to make a good case for treason against her. This is, as it should remain, a matter that should be treated and handled as a school infraction and/or as a dispute between students. Hermione shouldn't be looked on as a potential criminal because, after all, far worse things have been inflicted upon students by other students at Hogwarts. Neither should Marietta be tried or judged because of unexpected consequences that, upon closer inspection, barely had any real effect on the outcome of the book.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Mona on Thu May 19, 2011 12:19 am; edited 3 times in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 59
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Posts 551 to 591

Post  Mona Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:49 pm

Solitaire - Nov 30, 2004 7:28 am (#551 of 1080)
wwtMask: Marietta's actions were traitorous, but treasonous?

I think this pretty accurately covers it. In the context (school, not the outside world) of her offense, yes, Marrietta is a traitor. It is important that she learn that traitorous offenses have consequences--sometimes to the traitor, sometimes to the betrayed, often to both.

Let's take Marietta's offense and just move it from the DA to a mythical situation in the outside world. Imagine ...

Marietta's mother works for the Ministry, so she is aware that the Ministry is still hunting for Sirius Black. By some quirk, Marietta overhears Harry, Ron and Hermione discussing something to do with the Order and she hears Sirius's name mentioned in connection with some project or plan to round up some DEs.

Marietta doesn't really know what "the Order" is and she doesn't have much information; but she knows her mother has told her to report any info about Sirius to Umbridge right away. Besides, if she reports it, maybe that pain-in-the-neck Harry Potter will be expelled and out of her life (and Cho's) for good. So she goes to Umbridge and tells what she has heard. It isn't much--a few names, a date in a couple of days, and a location. She doesn't even know what to make of it.

Umbridge passes the information onto Fudge. Unfortunately, Fudge has a big, flapping mouth and seems to believe that Lucius Malfoy is a trusted soul. In the course of business, he mentions lets the information slip--because it doesn't seem connected to anything important. To Lucius, however, the information makes perfect sense. It is just enough info and time to allow him to plan an ambush of the Order members. Because of Marietta's little "mistake," several members of the Order are killed.

I realize this is totally NOT TRUE and not too well planned-out--sorry, I'm getting ready to leave for work. But look at the infraction. Marietta's actions are similar to what happened within Hogwarts ... yet in the outside world, the consequences could be quite different. Suppose something like this did happen. Would pimples across her nose be a just punishment? After all, she is just a kid, and she only wanted to make Harry miserable. She didn't intend people to die.

My point is that it is important for kids to learn--in less serious situations--that there are consequences to such actions. Hopefully, Marietta has learned that she needs to be more discreet. She also needs to learn NOT to take on secrets and confidences if she does not believe she can keep them.

Solitaire **waiting for the dungbombs**



Sir Tornado - Nov 30, 2004 7:25 pm (#552 of 1080)
Solitaire, you certainly won't get dungbombs from me on this one, because I agree with your scenario here Marrietta might not have had idea of the consequences. I am not saying that she isn't a traitor what I am saying is that JKR has given a wrong message through this scenario, she is actually telling children to dispense justice among themselves! Which is of course a wrong message you get from this whole situation.



Gerald Costales - Nov 30, 2004 7:58 pm (#553 of 1080)
". . . what I am saying is that JKR has given a wrong message through this scenario, she is actually telling children to dispense justice among themselves! Which is of course a wrong message you get from this whole situation." Sir Tornado

The nature of "Magic contracts" makes all of this into a convoluted situation. Harry was underaged when his name was spit out by the Goblet of Fire, but because there was a "Magical Contract" Dumbledore had no choice but to have Harry become a champion in the Triwizard Tournament.

Remember that old saying, "You play with matches and you'll get burned." Hermione may as a precaution just Jinxed the DA's parchment. I am not convinced that Hermione intented to create a "Magical Contract" but apparently a "Magical Contract" was created and Marietta was so to speak "burned" by breaking that contract. Hermione is no more dispensing justice than someone setting a trap to catch a rat. The only trouble was is that Hermione was unaware of the power of her Jinxed parchment.

Hermione is a very responsible Young Woman, I'm convinced that Hermione will do the right thing and remove those spots in due time. There is still some question whether Marietta will do the right thing and apoligize to the DA. But, there is the question of how much Marietta still remembers after Shacklebolt altered Marietta's memory.

The message JKR is sending to me is loyality should not be pledged lightly and trust should never be betrayed. ;-) GC

PS I doubt anyone will be trusting Marietta for along time. I always believed people should forgive Marietta and move on. ;-) GC



Sir Tornado - Nov 30, 2004 8:33 pm (#554 of 1080)

Hermione is a very responsible Young Woman, I'm convinced that Hermione will do the right thing and remove those spots in due time.


Gerald... Hermione had 2-3 months to remove the jinx. Why didn't she do so then?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MickeyCee3948 - Nov 30, 2004 8:37 pm (#555 of 1080)[/b]
Sir Tornado-I don't believe 2-3 months passed between the jinx and the end of the term. Where is the canon for that?

Mikie

P.S. Know you have it, I would just like to read it.



Sir Tornado - Nov 30, 2004 9:09 pm (#556 of 1080)
MickeyCee...

The DA's last meeting takes place on April 5. No, we know that Hogwarts students have summer holidays for 2 months (from PoA). That would mean that school would end at the end of June; this would mean that you have Marrietta with spots for 2-3 months atleast...



Solitaire - Nov 30, 2004 9:46 pm (#557 of 1080)
First of all, thanks for not dung-bombing me. I was in a hurry when I wrote that, and I don't always do my best thinking when I am on the fly.

It is clear from your posts that each of you (and probably each other individual who posts passionately and with regularity on this thread) has his own idea of what message is being sent by JKR. I tend to agree with Gerald here.

Even here in my Muggle world, I depend on the loyalty of my friends. As far as I am concerned, a person's word really is his reputation. I would rather my friends confront me with their reasons for disagreeing with me or not doing something I feel is important, than pretend to support me while stabbing me in the back. IF you betray me or sell me out, I probably won't zap TRAITOR across your face in zits or even seek revenge of any kind. I may even forgive you--eventually. But you will never again be the recipient of my trust, and I will never again rely on you for anything truly important. For the record, I am talking about BIG, life-altering, reputation-affecting issues here, not petty little squabbles and disagreements.

Now, consider the one with whom we are dealing in OotP. Gryffindors place a VERY high premium on loyalty, and Hermione is no exception. Marietta has really blown apart her own reputation. She has shown herself unworthy of anyone's trust with her actions.

Whether Hermione should or should not have done what she did is a moot point to me. She did it. Period. Maybe she could have chosen a more subtle way for the stoolie to have been revealed, but she didn't. She wanted to make sure that if someone decided to betray the DA, the culprit would be clearly identified, and she chose a "kid thing" as a means of revealing the traitor.

I can't really say that I think she shouldn't have jinxed the parchment. I can't even say that I think she should have revealed that something would happen to anyone who squealed. If the purpose of the jinx was to help the kids ID anyone among the group who should not be trusted, then telling the kids the parchment was jinxed wouldn't have served that purpose, would it? It seems to me that it served its intended purpose.

As for the length of time between the appearance of the jinx and the end of term, it is possible that Hermione simply forgot about it after the DoM business--until she saw Marietta in the balaclava? How much time passed between the jinx and the battle? Perhaps she had intended to remove the jinx, but her injuries pushed the situation out of her mind ... or she was unable to retrieve the parchment from Umbridge ... and maybe (?) she needed it to work the spell. Then again, maybe she felt Marietta had not learned her lesson, if she had not come to Hermione or Harry and apologized and asked their forgiveness.

I find it interesting that Dumbledore didn't either talk to Hermione about the jinx or remove it himself. Surely, if anyone could remove it, Dumbledore could. Why did he not get involved? We know he knew about it. This kind of makes me wonder if he felt Marietta needed the effects of jinx to last a while longer.

Solitaire



Sir Tornado - Nov 30, 2004 10:06 pm (#558 of 1080)
Solitaire, the fact that DD didn't remove the jinx placed on Marrietta makes me sympathise with her even more. I mean, ok, she did betray the DA, and she was identified. But did the Jinx had to stay for so many months? NO. It's rather cruel if you ask me. IMO, if Madam Pomfrey can't take them off, even DD can't. This might be one of the Jinxes that the one caster can take off. Still, IMO, Hermione shouldn't really have put a long term jinx om Marrietta. And if they don't disappear in HbP then, I will have to think seriously whether Hermione is my favourite character or not...



Steve Newton - Dec 1, 2004 7:07 am (#559 of 1080)
Gerald Costales, I think that Hermione obviously knew she was making a magic contract. I can't imagine how she couldn't.

Several have commented that Dumbledore, Hermione, and probably Poppy Pomfrey didn't remove the hex on Marietta. I think that any of them could have and that they didn't means that they thought that the hex was a good idea.

Sorry for the convoluted sentence.



rambkowalczyk - Dec 1, 2004 7:27 am (#560 of 1080)
Or removal of the hex involves an apology and/or "restitution".



Solitaire - Dec 1, 2004 7:28 am (#561 of 1080)
I understand what you mean, Steve, and I am wondering if you could be correct. I'm not sure about Poppy, but I truly do believe DD could have removed the hex, had he felt it necessary. There must be some reason why it was allowed to remain ... if it was.

Didn't Marietta wear a balaclava on the train? I believe she still has SNEAK written on her face, but could it be possible that she was still so humiliated and upset that she felt a need to stay undercover?

I am concerned about how her memory is going to affect this situation. In fact, that was my original concern. If her memory has been seriously modified to the point where she does not remember anything connected with why she has SNEAK tattooed across her face in zits, then I do believe that allowing the jinx to continue is cruel. But since I believe Dumbledore is fair, I have to believe this whole issue will be resolved.

Solitaire



Mrs Brisbee - Dec 1, 2004 12:31 pm (#562 of 1080)
I don't think Dumbledore could have removed the zits. Remember that they came from a magical contract. He also couldn't get Harry out of the Triwizard Tournament (Dumbledore isn't omnipotent). Rambkowalczyk may be right and Marietta needs to do something to make things right, perhaps with just an apology. I would like to think that Hermione thought of how to undo the zits when she made the contract.



MickeyCee3948 - Dec 1, 2004 1:28 pm (#563 of 1080)
Yes, Mrs Brisbee but Hermione might need the contract to remove the jinx and it hasn't been seen since the scene in DD's office. Did Percy take it with him when he went to post his owl to the MOM?

I also agree with you Solitaire. How is Marietta going to make an apology to the DA's when she can't remember what she did. But her reaction to HRH on the train seems to indicate that she remembers something.

Mikie



TomProffitt - Dec 1, 2004 2:31 pm (#564 of 1080)
The primary thing which makes me desire to cut Marietta a break is the fact that we, the readers, have a better access to the truth than has been available to Marietta.

I've known more teen-age boys ready to spread a very tall tale to impress their buddies (not to mention potential girl friends) than I've known teenage heroes. I can understand why Marietta would be disinclined to take Harry's story at face value.

I don't really have a problem with anything Hermione has done either. I find her method shows an interest in getting some of her own back from the sneak. I have called her method "vindictive," and many have taken offense at the word, but I think we're speaking of the same thing. We want to see some justice.



Mrs Brisbee - Dec 1, 2004 4:01 pm (#565 of 1080)
I think I see Marietta and Hermione mostly the same as you, TomProfitt, though I was one of the people who objected to the word "vindictive," because it has really negative connotations. I can see where Hermione does take pride in being capable of taking care of threats and problems on her own though. But I tend to think of the jinxed parchment more as a necessity than as a way to exact justice--the contract basically will activate its jinx when its terms are violated, but without any regard for the circumstances of the betrayal. It just doesn't care.

MickeyCee, wasn't Dumbledore the last one to hold the parchment?? We don't see or hear about it after the scene in the office.



Solitaire - Dec 1, 2004 9:08 pm (#566 of 1080)
Mrs Brisbee: I tend to think of the jinxed parchment more as a necessity than as a way to exact justice

Mrs B, I think this is correct. It is possible Hermione was concerned that in such a diverse group--many of whom were relatively unknown to the Trio--the possibility of a "spy" was very real. In case it proved to be so (which it sort of did), I think she wanted a way to identify the culprit that couldn't be easily hidden.

Let's face it: if the zits had appeared on Marietta's posterior, no one would have known unless they were so painful she couldn't sit. Even then, she would probably have been consigned to the infirmary with no real explanation to anyone for her absence.

Solitaire



Sir Tornado - Dec 1, 2004 9:39 pm (#567 of 1080)
Didn't Marietta wear a balaclava on the train? I believe she still has SNEAK written on her face, but could it be possible that she was still so humiliated and upset that she felt a need to stay undercover? -- Solitaire

Soitaire, that isn't really feasible. Mainly because nearly everyone would know that Marrietta was Cho's friend. And the fact that There was a balacava-ed person walking next to Cho in the train would point to the fact that the person was indeed Marrietta. I don't think she wore Balacava because she was humiliated, that must've attracted more attention. IMO, the spots were still there when they left Hogwarts.

I have called her method "vindictive," and many have taken offense at the word, but I think we're speaking of the same thing. We want to see some justice. -- TomProffit

Tom, sure we want to see some justice. But is it right for children to dispense justice among themselves? I am 16 and I can just imagine my teachers going spare if someone attacked their fellow student and caused Physical damage just because they were "Traitors".

I understand that there are quite many school teachers on this forum. What would be your reaction if one of your students attacked one of their fellow students in the school premises because of a teenage betrayal? Would you let them off the hook so easily? Or will there be some punishment for the attackers?



Solitaire - Dec 2, 2004 12:46 am (#568 of 1080)
Sir T: What would be your reaction if one of your students attacked one of their fellow students in the school premises because of a teenage betrayal?

But Hermione didn't attack Marietta. Hermione didn't do anything to Marietta. Hermione created a security alarm that would "go off" if someone violated security. It didn't go around looking for people to violate it. It simply existed, and if someone happened to violate it, it tripped.

Once before someone has likened the situation to items in a store that are alarmed. As long as the alarmed items sit in the store, nothing happens. When someone tries to remove them from the store without paying (and having the alarm removed or deactivated), however, a "sensor" is activated and the alarm is tripped. The alarm itself is neutral; it doesn't care who picks it up. It goes off when someone takes it past a sensor without having deactivated it. So it is with Marietta and the jinx.

Solitaire

edited



Sir Tornado - Dec 2, 2004 12:51 am (#569 of 1080)
But, Hermione did put the security alarm in the contract, and she did not intend to harm any one, why didn't she tell them all that she had put the security alarm in there?



dizzy lizzy - Dec 2, 2004 1:26 am (#570 of 1080)
Hermione probably thought someone might betray the group, given the nastiness of Umbridge is already known and wanted to protect everyone. No point in alerting potential spies of the security??



Gerald Costales - Dec 2, 2004 5:34 am (#571 of 1080)
"No point in alerting potential spies of the security??" dizzy lizzy

This is an excellent point, if you're loyal then the Jinx for all you know doesn't even exist. And I still don't see the Jinx as Hermione "dispensing Justice." All the alarm analogies are valid and provide a clarification of the situation.

"What would be your reaction if one of your students attacked one of their fellow students in the school premises because of a teenage betrayal? Would you let them off the hook so easily? Or will there be some punishment for the attackers?" Sir Tornado

I would agree with Solitaire about Hermione not physically attacking Marietta. But, the Jinxed parchment is more than alarmed, it's armed and dangerous. If a student left a dangerous object out wouldn't he or she be blamed and responsible for the damage caused by that object.

I think that Hermione needs to shoulder some responsibility concerning Marietta's zits. We can't justify all of Hermione's actions just because she only brought out a Jinxed parchment for everyone to sign. The Jinxed parchment was armed and dangerous, but then again it only harmed those that betrayed the DA.

So, Marietta was like a person in a restricted area or like a skier going past the warning signs to ski a dangerous slope and gets badly injured. Even if the skier didn't see the warning signs, that skier also had the responsibility to look for warning signs. Ignorance of the Jinxed parchment doesn't absolve Marietta for her "teenage betrayal" of the DA. ;-) GC



wwtMask - Dec 2, 2004 5:53 am (#572 of 1080)
Perhaps she didn't realize that her jinx would be so effective that secrecy would be unnecessary. Hermione is very bright, and she knows this, but there was no reason for her to believe, at that time, that no adult witch or wizard in the school could undo the magic. For that matter, there was no reason to think that some Ravenclaw wouldn't be able to work out a counter-jinx given enough time (they are, after all, generally the brightest students). It may seem unfair of Hermione to keep the jinx a secret, but consider a situation where she did disclose that information and it gave someone time to learn to un-jinx the parchment. That would have been a disasterous worst case scenario, and Hermione rightly planned for such a case and acted accordingly.

Hermione did not intend to hurt anyone. Merlin knows she could have done that much more easily than a jinxed parchment. She took steps to protect herself and the rest of the DA from potential traitors. Banks don't tell you all of the security precautions they take for their vaults when you become a member (ok, that's not quite an apt analogy, but you get the picture).

Also, has anyone considered that the jinx just needs time to wear off? People have been assuming that there should be a counter-jinx that Hermione could perform to vanish the pimples, but I think that, if that were the case, she would have done it already. Marietta might also be wearing the balaclava because the pimples left some marks on her face (which would take a few months to fade, I'd think).



Steve Newton - Dec 2, 2004 6:26 am (#573 of 1080)
Gerald said "the Jinxed parchment is more than alarmed, it's armed and dangerous." I never considered zits to be dangerous. Marietta was embarrassed when I would have been much more harsh on her.

Solitaire seems to have a good grip on the situation.



Madame Pomfrey - Dec 2, 2004 9:23 am (#574 of 1080)
wwtMask:Marietta might also be wearing the balaclava because the pimples left some marks on her face (which would take a few months to fade, I'd think).

I too have thought about this.Maybe they are fading.We all know Draco,Crabbe and Goyle resembled slugs at the end of OOP from a combination of DA hexes.Will they be sorted out?Maybe Draco's Detour will be to St.Mungo's.LoL



Solitaire - Dec 2, 2004 11:07 am (#575 of 1080)
Thanks, Steve. I don't really consider the parchment "armed and dangerous," either. There was a limit to the damage it would cause. Quite honestly, many things at Hogwarts are potentially dangerous, if not downright lethal, yet it doesn't seem to deter parents from sending their kids to Hogwarts. Consider those mandrakes the kids worked with in herbology. And what about some of the curses Fake Moody taught them?

Unless it happened "off camera," we have not seen Mrs. Edgecombe come to Hogwarts to look into the situation--and I'm sure she must know by now what happened. Umbridge knows. Fudge knows. Dawlish knows. All of them are Ministry employees, and surely they must talk. On the other hand, Montague's parents came to Hogwarts to check into what happened to him.

I still must believe that school is a place where we learn a lot of things, not the least of which is that our actions and choices have consequences, some of which are not pleasant. Marietta learned that welching on a contract has consequences. She got a mild dose of reality compared to what might happen to her had she betrayed a more serious contract out in the "real world."

I think wwtMask says it well: Hermione did not intend to hurt anyone. Merlin knows she could have done that much more easily than a jinxed parchment. She took steps to protect herself and the rest of the DA from potential traitors. Banks don't tell you all of the security precautions they take for their vaults when you become a member (ok, that's not quite an apt analogy, but you get the picture).

One thing I have not seen mentioned--or if it was, I've forgotten ... Do any of the adults know who actually jinxed the parchment? Hermione told Harry and Ron when they got back to Hogwarts and saw Decree 24 (or whatever it was), and Cho knows, because she mentioned to Harry that she thought it was mean of Hermione not to tell them. Presumably, the other DA kids have either been informed or have figured it out, too, by now. (Terry Boot will probably ask her again why anyone who can do such a great jinx isn't in Ravenclaw!) But I wonder ... did Umbridge know? It was not brought up in her office, was it? If it had been, surely Hermione would have been hauled in like Harry was. I'm sure Dumbledore and probably McGonagall were able to figure out who cast the jinx; but perhaps the two of them had bigger fish to fry at the time and didn't really think much about it. Just wondering ...

Solitaire



wwtMask - Dec 2, 2004 11:39 am (#576 of 1080)
I'd like to stray a bit from the debate to raise another question. It has been suggested that this affair would have the effect of distancing Ravenclaw from Gryffendor. Does anyone think that this might really happen? I was under the impression that everyone in school (except the Slytherins, of course) believed Harry and thought he was something of a hero. Besides that, the Ravenclaw members of the DA can easily vouch for Harry. Also, Ravenclaws seem to value intelligence and were very impressed by Hermione's superior magical knowledge and skill. Wouldn't they look more favorably on Hermione and the jinxed parchment, despite the fact that one of their own was the victim of the jinx?



Steve Newton - Dec 2, 2004 11:41 am (#577 of 1080)
As I remember it some Ravenclaws were in the group that handled Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle. They had no apparent problems with the Marietta incident.



Solitaire - Dec 2, 2004 12:30 pm (#578 of 1080)
Steve is right. Weren't they Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs? Perhaps those students who have begun to grasp what is truly happening in the WW at large will align themselves with Harry and Dumbledore, regardless of their Houses. I am hoping this will even include some Slytherins. Surely they can't ALL be Voldemort supporters. Perhaps there will be some children of DEs who step out and stand against what their parents support (Voldemort).

I am hoping that, rather than distancing supporters of Harry and Dumbledore, the entire business has the effect of tightening support among the kids of all the Houses at Hogwarts. After all, they are the future of Wizarding, and if they don't learn to work together, there isn't much hope for the future of the Wizarding World, is there?

Solitaire



Mrs Brisbee - Dec 2, 2004 7:25 pm (#579 of 1080)
I think after the scene in Dumbledore's office, where Dumbledore claimed to be the one trying to organize the DA, that Umbridge, Fudge, and even Mrs. Edgecombe assume it was Dumbledore that made the jinxed parchment.

I don't remember any signs of the Ravenclaws in the DA being cool towards Harry and Co. afterwards. Harry and Cho did break up, but I can't see that changing her opinion about how evil Voldemort is. Ginny and Michael Corner split up, but not until much later and it seemed to be over Quidditch.



Sir Tornado - Dec 3, 2004 10:57 am (#580 of 1080)
I'd like to ask one thing... what exactly gives Hermione the right to place the Jinx in the first place? She isn't any DA official is she?



Tessa's Dad - Dec 3, 2004 11:44 am (#581 of 1080)
Edited by Dec 3, 2004 11:54 am
I think Hermione is the founder. She was the one with the original idea of Harry teaching Defense Against the Dark Arts to herself and Ron. She then started including other students.



Sir Tornado - Dec 3, 2004 11:56 am (#582 of 1080)
Does that mean she can set the terms of the contract without telling the others? They did not elect her as their leader in any capacity as they elected Harry.



TomProffitt - Dec 3, 2004 12:57 pm (#583 of 1080)
"Does that mean she can set the terms of the contract without telling the others?" --- Sir Tornado

As the originator of the DA Hermione had a responsibility to protect it from anticipated harm and trouble. She foresaw the need of secrecy and selectivity of membership. She foresaw the potential of traitors (for lack of a better word). She understood the consequences of betrayal.

I would say that Hermione had an obligation to protect the DA, just as all of its members had an obligation to protect it. This is why Harry was so angry with Cho, Cho was not fulfilling her obligations to the DA.

Did this obligation extend to informing the individual DA members of the jinx? I think not. The majority would have assumed there was something in place there. They all knew Hermione could perform a protean charm, it should have been obvious she could put quite an impressive hex on that parchment. Caveat Emptor.

On another note I've been re-evaluating my position on Hermione's culpability in freeing Marietta of her zits. Hermione was quite concerned for Montague when he emerged from the vanishing cabinet. Perhaps she has some source of information not available to Harry regarding Marietta. If Hermione felt Marietta deserved leniency in any way she has shown a predilection for giving it.

Hermione doesn't have a problem giving people what they've earned, but she also has a sense of proportion.



Sir Tornado - Dec 3, 2004 1:09 pm (#584 of 1080)
Oh yes, Hermione was certainly lenient in making the spots stay untill the end of the year, wasn't she? I haven't seen greater leniency anywhere!



Mrs Brisbee - Dec 3, 2004 1:25 pm (#585 of 1080)
Does that mean she can set the terms of the contract without telling the others? --Sir Tornado.

I do really appreciate your vigorous defense of Marietta. I even agree with you on many points. But not here.

I can ask myself if it was fair for Hermione to ask people to sign a piece of parchment without disclosing the full terms of the contract, and answer "no, it wasn't fair."

But if I ask myself if it was necessary, than I would say "definitely yes."

What is fair and what is necessary aren't always the same thing.

Kingsley modified Marietta's memory. I would say that having someone go inside your head and change what you think is a far bigger violation than even physical scarring. But Kingsley did it because it was necessary. There was so much at stake that Marietta didn't realize. He didn't do it to punish Marietta, it wasn't even a question of whether in was fair, it was necessary for the Greater Good. A lot of people are going to be made miserable by the Greater Good and they won't have deserved it.



Sir Tornado - Dec 3, 2004 1:56 pm (#586 of 1080)
What is fair and what is necessary aren't always the same thing. -- Mrs Brisbee

Ok then, it was necessary for Marrietta to tell Umbridge about the DA. It wasn't fair, but it was necessary

She didn't do it to punish DA, it wasn't even a question of whether in was fair, it was necessary for what SHE THOUGHT was Greater Good. A lot of people are going to be made miserable by the Greater Good and they won't have deserved it.

Fair enough?



Steve Newton - Dec 3, 2004 2:04 pm (#587 of 1080)
Well Tornedo, I'm not sure about that. At least in the PU days (pre-Umbridge) the Head of House appears to have been the proper place to make a complaint.



Sir Tornado - Dec 3, 2004 2:08 pm (#588 of 1080)
But, that's not the only place to make a complaint. In fact, there certainly isn't a rule that says so (If there is, we're not aware of it) IMO, you can go to any teacher you want to and complain. She decided to go to Umbridge probably because, she, like her Mother worked in the Ministry.



Elanor - Dec 3, 2004 2:27 pm (#589 of 1080)
You know, I am a teacher and usually teachers don't really appreciate the kids who tattle on their friends in class (even if they take note of the information to try and find out if it is true or not). And I don't think McGonagall or Flitwick would appreciate such behavior either. They might have tried to discover the truth afterwards but I can see them be not very pleased with the tattler either. After all, if I remember well, McGonagall punished Draco, who came tattling on Harry in PS/SS, as well as Harry. He won nothing when he did that.

In other words, for me, the "sneak" word is something which brings Marietta back to an elementary school behaviour. You know, I hear "oh! I'm going to tell everything to the mistress" all day long, followed quickly by "you are nothing but a sneak" answers...

I think she went to Umbridge because she knew she would be the only one delighted to hear what she had to say. Well, I agree that her mother's work at the ministry could have made her feel more confortable with Umbridge, but still, I'm not completely convinced by that.



TomProffitt - Dec 3, 2004 3:36 pm (#590 of 1080)
"Oh yes, Hermione was certainly lenient in making the spots stay untill the end of the year, wasn't she?" --- Sir Tornado

I believe you missed my point.

Hermione shows more compassion than any of the other "good" characters, with the possible exception of Dumbledore & Molly. Hermione is the one concerned for elvish welfare. She is the one demanding more solid evidence of Snape's evil character. She is the one concerned for Montague's sanity. She is the one who see's Cho's dilemma over Harry & the late Cedric Diggory.

I submit, that if Hermione is disinclined to be forgiving of Marietta Edgecombe it is because she has evidence unavailable to the reader regarding Marietta's character.



Sir Tornado - Dec 3, 2004 7:15 pm (#591 of 1080)
And Tom, you say that Hermione has information other than available to us, but I'm amazed at how you can deny that Marrietta probably didn't have all the information available to us, like Proof in Voldemort's return, proof that Daily Prophet wasn't telling truth in their insinuations against Harry, Proof that the Quibler, which normally posts extremely rubish articles was telling truth in case of Harry (You must admit here, a credibility of story largely depends on the Magazine in which it is published)

When you take all these things in consideration, you'll find that Marrietta took the action she thought was most appropriate. In a poll taken a few weeks back, many people accused her of "Betrayal against Wizarding World" and "Betrayal against Hogwarts". I must ask, is she really guilty of such betrayals? How? "Betrayal against the DA", I can understand, if not agree with, but against the WW and Hogwarts?


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Mona on Thu May 19, 2011 12:21 am; edited 4 times in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 59
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Posts 592 to 635

Post  Mona Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:50 pm

Solitaire - Dec 3, 2004 9:37 pm (#592 of 1080)
Sir Tornado: Ok then, it was necessary for Marrietta to tell Umbridge about the DA. It wasn't fair, but it was necessary ... She didn't do it to punish DA, it wasn't even a question of whether in was fair, it was necessary for what SHE THOUGHT was Greater Good.

Sir T, I think you are going out on a rather shaky limb here. First, how do you know Marietta didn't have in mind the punishment of the DA--or at least the punishment of Harry? From her body language and behavior every time we see Marietta in Harry's company, it would appear that she does not like him at all. Yes, I realize body language can be wrong. However, it can also be considered such an important indicator of a person's sentiments that attorneys pay very close attention to the body language of jurors when they are looking at or listening to evidence about defendants. (I saw this on a news show tonight.)

Next, how do you know Marietta even gave a split-second's thought to the "greater good"? Her behavior has been quite selfish on the surface, and until we are given reason to believe she did truly believe the DA and Harry were a threat to people, I think I certainly must believe that she had only her own "greater good" in mind. I certainly have not seen anything yet to disprove this belief.

Much has been said about Marietta fearing for her mother's job in the Ministry, but the text certainly does not tell us she was worried or concerned. It is never expressed by anyone, including Marietta herself. Cho mentions that Marietta's mother works at the Ministry, but that's all she says. Since Fudge hadn't even made the connection between Marietta and the Madame Edgecombe who was policing the Floo Network, we can probably deduce that he certainly had not threatened her mother's job. Marietta may have had someone's "greater good" in mind, but I do not believe it was the "greater good" of the DA, Hogwarts, or even the Wizarding World. I think it was her own.

Solitaire



Sir Tornado - Dec 4, 2004 2:06 am (#593 of 1080)
Sir T, I think you are going out on a rather shaky limb here. First, how do you know Marietta didn't have in mind the punishment of the DA--or at least the punishment of Harry? From her body language and behavior every time we see Marietta in Harry's company, it would appear that she does not like him at all. Yes, I realize body language can be wrong. However, it can also be considered such an important indicator of a person's sentiments that attorneys pay very close attention to the body language of jurors when they are looking at or listening to evidence about defendants. (I saw this on a news show tonight.) -- Solitaire

Solitaire, when Harry made the decision to continue DA after the education decree, he broke the law... and if you brake the law, you know you can't escape for long! Surely Harry knew that.

Much has been said about Marietta fearing for her mother's job in the Ministry, but the text certainly does not tell us she was worried or concerned. It is never expressed by anyone, including Marietta herself. Cho mentions that Marietta's mother works at the Ministry, but that's all she says. Since Fudge hadn't even made the connection between Marietta and the Madame Edgecombe who was policing the Floo Network, we can probably deduce that he certainly had not threatened her mother's job. Marietta may have had someone's "greater good" in mind, but I do not believe it was the "greater good" of the DA, Hogwarts, or even the Wizarding World. I think it was her own. -- Solitaire

Solitaire, I don't think Fudge is involved in any dirty work at all. As far as I'm concerned, Fudge keeps his activities limited within the law, and doesn't venture out. If there is someone who will do dirty work for the Ministry it will be Umbridge. It won't be out of her character to use her influence to pressurise Marrietta's mom, and believe me, in Goverment and Politics, that is indeed possible. And I don't think she informs Fudge about her activites either... after all, she did say: "What Cornelius doesn't know, won't hurt him" didn't she?

What Marrietta might have certainly thought while blowing the DA was that she wasn't breaking any rules. Admitted that she had been warned not to tell anyone, but then she didn't know about the curse, so, she "ponted" to use the Civil Service term. While doing so, she made sure that she, like a model citizen insured that an Illegal organisation was reported to the Authorities! That's how one could interpret the situation.



Solitaire - Dec 4, 2004 3:22 am (#594 of 1080)
Sir T, I think you are missing the point. I am not even talking about law here; I'm talking about your comments. You said Marietta didn't blow the whistle on the kids in order to punish anyone. I am saying that there is no evidence in the book to support that theory.

You also said she did what she did for the "greater good." There is no evidence to support that theory, either. There is, however, evidence to support the opposite. It can hardly be "for the greater good" not to teach the kids practical defensive magic, particularly when they need to know how to do the spells for their O.W.L. practical exams.

Leaving the law out of it, the bottom line is this: The DA was formed so that the kids could learn practical defensive magic, because it was obvious that Umbridge was not going to teach them diddly squat. If Marietta didn't agree and didn't think she needed to learn defensive magic, she should not have joined the DA. She deserved what she got!

Solitaire



Sir Tornado - Dec 4, 2004 3:59 am (#595 of 1080)
Leaving the law out of it, the bottom line is this: The DA was formed so that the kids could learn practical defensive magic, because it was obvious that Umbridge was not going to teach them diddly squat. If Marietta didn't agree and didn't think she needed to learn defensive magic, she should not have joined the DA. She deserved what she got!

Solitaire, we do know that Cho forced her to join the DA.



Madame Pomfrey - Dec 4, 2004 5:41 am (#596 of 1080)
I agree with Solitaire.Marietta should have just quit going to the DA meetings instead she chose to tell Umbridge and expose everyone.



Steve Newton - Dec 4, 2004 8:54 am (#597 of 1080)
Sir T says "when Harry made the decision to continue DA after the education decree, he broke the law."

I'm not so sure. He went against Ministry Decrees. I have heard talk of proposed legislation, (Arthur's Muggle Protection Act, Umbride's Anti-Werewolf legislation). These are not described as decrees. They were, I think, breaking school rules, but, not laws.

Again I have to agree with Solitaire. (I won't go over all of her arguments here. She has said than better than I can.)



Gerald Costales - Dec 4, 2004 9:05 am (#598 of 1080)
“. . . when Harry made the decision to continue DA after the education decree, he broke the law... and if you brake the law, you know you can't escape for long! Surely Harry knew that.” Sir Tornado

Again, I don’t agree that the DA was an illegal club after the education decree was issued:

“3) The DA is a school club with no written by-laws. Any disputes would be taken to Dumbledore to decide. Side issue the legality of the DA. The issue of Civil Disobedience has been cited. The example given, the sheltering of Jews during the reign of the Nazis. The DA was a legal club because the Educational Degrees are unjust. And the forming of the DA was an act of Civil Disobedience.” My post #532 this thread.

I’ll be coming back to this. But, I need to make another point.

“5) Has appropriate punishment been administered? Yes. But, only if the purple pimples are temporary.” My post #532

Here’s part of your comment shortly after my post #532:

“I agree with you almost completely, except fifth point there: Marietta shouldn't be punished, IMO, because, the Punishment clause of the Contract she signed wasn't known to her. Is it legal to disclose a clause of any contract while signing it?

Sir Tornado your post #534

Again, “Side issue the legality of the DA. The issue of Civil Disobedience has been cited. The example given, the sheltering of Jews during the reign of the Nazis. The DA was a legal club because the Educational Degrees are unjust. And the forming of the DA was an act of Civil Disobedience.” My post #532 from point #3

Arguments to support point #3 - the DA was a legal club:

The Supreme Court, during the late 1800’s, ruled that Labor Unions were a “Restriction on Commerce”. So, Labor Unions were ruled illegal. But at this time, so called “Yellow Dog” contracts (they were called “Yellow [coward] Dog” because if you signed them you were a “Yellow Dog“) were enforced by the Courts.

“Yellow Dog” contracts were created by the owners of factories, sweat shops, mines, etc. to legally justify unsafe conditions and allowed the owners to use unfair business practices . To work, in other words to feed your family, a worker had no choice but to sign the “Yellow Dog” contract. If a worker was injured, lost a limb, died, etc. the owners produced the signed “Yellow Dog” contract. The contract, proved that the worker agreed to work in the existing unsafe conditions that injured, maimed, or killed them.

Also, the worker would agree to pay for his own work related injuries. After all the worker is responsible for his performance on the job. If the worker was injured. Then the worker didn’t perform in the proper manner to prevent the injury, maiming, or death. (Remember the late 1800's, was the time of the gross abuse of Child Labor. A child because of his or her size could more easily get to clogged machinery and do repairs. The children’s small hands, limbs, and bodies could just as easily be maimed and killed. This was the time when "Breaker Boys" were used in Coal Mines to break up stuck coal.)

Your point against the legality of DA:

“Is it legal to disclose a clause of any contract while signing it?” Sir Tornado

By this logic the “Yellow Dog” contracts are legal because the terms and conditions are expressly written. There are _No Disclosures_. The worker agreed to work in unsafe conditions and agreed to work with unfair business practices (long hours, poor pay, no seniority, and no benefits. Things many people now take for granted.)

If we disregard the concept of “Civil Disobedience” then it was illegal for the Underground Railroad to shelter and then transport slaves to Canada. The Fugitive Slave Act was the law at that time. It was illegal for Gandhi to protest against British rule. It was illegal for Martin Luther King Jr to protest for Civil Rights and against Segregation. It was illegal for Nelson Mandela to protest against Apartheid.

Sir Tornado you may make a brilliant lawyer some day. But, I think that I have proved that the DA was and is a Legal Club. ;-) GC



Gerald Costales - Dec 4, 2004 9:15 am (#599 of 1080)
PS Sir Tornado, on rereading this (and editing) it sounds like I dislike you. On the contrary, I think some or your points and arguments are brilliant and well presented. And you will be a brilliant lawyer. ;-) GC



Sir Tornado - Dec 4, 2004 11:43 am (#600 of 1080)
If we disregard the concept of “Civil Disobedience” then it was illegal for the Underground Railroad to shelter and then transport slaves to Canada. The Fugitive Slave Act was the law at that time. It was illegal for Gandhi to protest against British rule. It was illegal for Martin Luther King Jr to protest for Civil Rights and against Segregation. It was illegal for Nelson Mandela to protest against Apartheid. -- Gerald Costalles

Yes. It was indeed illegal for Gandhi to protest against the British. I'm an Indian, and in our history, I've studied how Gandhi broke many laws passed by the British Empire: The salt law being one of them. He also caused many strikes etc against British. While I respect him and think what he did was indeed morally correct, I would like to remind you that it was all, in fact, illegal. And Gandhi, himself being a Lawyer, was aware of that fact and did not protest when the British jailed him several times in different jails in India and in Myanmar. He did not seek revange on the British empire and continued the freedom struggle in non violent way. What did the DA do? Did they accept the punishment in the spirit that it should have? In the spirit in which the great men you mentioned accepted their punishments? They didn't.

Here's the meaning of Decree. You'll observe that one of the meanings of "Decree" is: "An authoritative order having the force of law." While the Decree was unfair, improper, morally incorrect, and all that, it was still an authoritative order having the force of law. And, of course, the Decree proclaimed that DA was illegal.

Sir Tornado you may make a brilliant lawyer some day. But, I think that I have proved that the DA was and is a Legal Club. ;-) GC

Thanks! But I'm afraid, I've just proved that DA was indeed illegal!



Solitaire - Dec 4, 2004 12:32 pm (#601 of 1080)
Sir Tornado, you speak of the "greater good," yet you seem to be ignoring the fact that the Ministry was putting the lives of people in jeopardy by either failing to admit Voldemort was back (in the event that they knew) or refusing to examine the evidence (in the event that they wanted to be stupid and uninformed--which seems to have been the case). They were certainly not interested in the "greater good." They were interested in what promoted themselves.

The DA was not a danger to anyone, in or out of Hogwarts. They simply wanted to be prepared for their tests as well as have a clue about how to defend themselves should they run into a DE or Voldemort.

It is my belief that the Ministry was deliberately trying to keep the Hogwarts kids from learning defensive magic--not because they honestly didn't believe they might need it, but because they were paranoid that the kids might rally around Dumbledore and aid him. The knowledge of this paranoia, even by the kids, is reflected in the name they chose for themselves--DA Defense Association, aka Dumbledore's Army.

The Ministry, like Marietta, got what they deserved. They were shown to have been fools for a whole year. As a result, Fudge will probably be sacked. I hope so!

Solitaire



TomProffitt - Dec 4, 2004 12:34 pm (#602 of 1080)
"But I'm afraid, I've just proved that DA was indeed illegal!" --- Sir Tornado

The DA's legality is not exactly the issue.

Hagrid & Dumbledore resisted arrest, which is illegal regardless of guilt or innocence on the charge for which you are being arrested. The DA was most certainly in violation of school rules. The Order of the Phoenix is very likely an illegal organization.

Marietta Edgecombe was most definitely not in violation of the law.

The issue pertains to the whether the actions of the above said were ethical and moral in character.

The evidence available to us suggests that Harry, the DA, Hagrid, & Dumbledore are all making appropriate ethical, even if illegal, choices.

We only have the circumstantial evidence against Marietta. Individuals we know to generally behave ethically (i.e. Hermione & Dumbledore) treat Marietta such that we may draw a reasonable conclusion that she was not ignorant of her actions consequence, but was instead cognizant of the harm she was causing.



Sir Tornado - Dec 4, 2004 1:15 pm (#603 of 1080)
Sir Tornado, you speak of the "greater good," yet you seem to be ignoring the fact that the Ministry was putting the lives of people in jeopardy by either failing to admit Voldemort was back (in the event that they knew) or refusing to examine the evidence (in the event that they wanted to be stupid and uninformed--which seems to have been the case). They were certainly not interested in the "greater good." They were interested in what promoted themselves. -- Solitaire

Solitaire, the Ministry were incompetent, foolish, and a host of other words I'm not allowed to use on this forum. But, they were still the authority in Wizarding Britain. If you try to overthrow a government by force, outside legal means, however correct you may be, you are bound to get punished. And you should accept the punishment like the great leaders in past have.

It is my belief that the Ministry was deliberately trying to keep the Hogwarts kids from learning defensive magic--not because they honestly didn't believe they might need it, but because they were paranoid that the kids might rally around Dumbledore and aid him. The knowledge of this paranoia, even by the kids, is reflected in the name they chose for themselves--DA Defense Association, aka Dumbledore's Army. -- Solitaire

As far as we know, the purpose of Hogwarts was to educate the children. The DADA teacher thought that her job was just to prepare the kids to pass the exams. She might have been wrong of course, but you can't blame the Ministry for that. You don't have a shred of proof that the Ministry ordered Umbridge to discourage students from performing defensive magic. Umbridge did a lot of things without the approval of the Minister or the Ministry. It can be argued that this is one of them.

The Ministry, like Marietta, got what they deserved. They were shown to have been fools for a whole year. As a result, Fudge will probably be sacked. I hope so! -- Solitaire

The Minister of Magic has allowed Voldemort to return and get his Death Eaters back. I agree that he has failed in his job and should be sacked immediately. He was incompetent, yes, but not guilty of anything. As far as Marrietta was concerned, it is a different story. She was inducted into the DA against her wishes and wasn't seen at DA meetings after Christmas. When she "ponted" she might not have considered herself a part of DA. Anyway you see it, the hex was illegal and that was my point in my last few posts!

The issue pertains to the whether the actions of the above said were ethical and moral in character. -- TomProffit

True, but you can't hand out punishments based on morality. When it comes down to law and order, Legalities must be the sole criteria taken into account.



MickeyCee3948 - Dec 4, 2004 1:24 pm (#604 of 1080)
Tom Proffitt-"Marietta Edgecombe was most definitely not in violation of the law."

I agree with your post in all aspects except this one. Marietta was as much in violation of the decree as the rest of the DA. She did attend meetings following the issuance of the decree.

I agree that the issues are ethical and moral and cannot be looked at from a purely legal aspect. I do not believe the evidence aganist Marietta is that circumstantial. She did tell Umbridge that we know. She did so with full knowledge that she had signed the agreement not to divulge this information. She knew that the DA was an illegal school organization at the time that she signed the agreement. What we do not know is the pressure or curcumstances surrrounding her disclosure which may have been exerted.

I believe she was wrong, she was punished and hopefully will return to complete her 7th year. I have nothing else to say on the subject. Although I am sure Sir Tornado wiil.

Mikie

edited Sir Tornado I hope you are planning on becoming a defense attorney.



Penny Lane. - Dec 4, 2004 1:34 pm (#605 of 1080)
We can not make a ruling until we see the bi-laws of the constitution of the wizarding world. Everyone is disucssing Marietts'a future if she were tried in a Muggle courtroom. Also, we don't have a copy of the Hogwart's school constitution, or the Decree Number (was it 24? - no book with me) I would like to propose that we stop stop treating this as a legal proceeding, as there really is nothing more than speculation on legality.

In my opinion, which in a criminal court room would NOT matter, Marietta is a bad bad person and should be forced to wear the pimples at least until she gets out of school. She can NOT be trusted, she thought of NO one but herself, and she was portrayed as jealous and spiteful. Anyone who is willing to turn in peers to be expelled for an activity that she herself participated in is in the wrong. She betrayed her friends, she only showed remorse when she was punished for her wrongdoings. Some might call that psychopathy. It's the classic symptoms to do what she has to do to get ahead, no matter what kind of devestation that falls in her wake.

The arguments that people are giving to having the spots taken off do not make me want to hug her and forgive her. The danger of the spots coming off is very great. Once the spots come off, other students might be more prone to forgetting that she is not to be trusted with anything. The spots coming off will not help her to jump back on the good side anymore then them staying on. Marietta could go one of three ways now: 1.) The spots come off, Marietta doesn't realize that she ever did anything wrong and does it again. If they say on, she has more of a chance to remember what it was she did. 2.) Marietta is embarrased because of the spots and she still feels that she never did anything wrong in the slightest. She blames everything on Hermione and the Gryfindors. Her hatred toward Harry grows, and she teams up with Draco and the slytherins. 3.) With the spots still on, she hides behind her scarf and fades into non-existance. Her only friend being cho, she cries in the bathroom with the ghost.

Now, I may have ventured a bit into fan-fiction with my scenarios, but my main point was simply that Marietta has an equal chance of continuing down a wrong path with or with out the spots. She also can go down a good path with or without the spots.



Penny Lane. - Dec 4, 2004 1:53 pm (#606 of 1080)
I said it was my opinion. I can't tell you if it's legal or not. Look at my first paragraph.



Sir Tornado - Dec 4, 2004 2:09 pm (#607 of 1080)
Ok then.

Here's a nice essay on this subject.

I believe she was wrong, she was punished and hopefully will return to complete her 7th year. I have nothing else to say on the subject. Although I am sure Sir Tornado will.

You are right Mickey!



Penny Lane. - Dec 4, 2004 2:34 pm (#608 of 1080)
Well... That essay seems to have a lot of "Marietta did it because of her parents." Personally, I don't agree. We have no direct evidence of Marietta's motives. We can speculate, based on comments that Marietta's mother worked for the Ministry, but we can't actually use that as her defense.

It really would be nice I we could talk to Marietta herserf. And look at the Wizarding worlds constitution, the schools' bi-laws, and the decree.



Solitaire - Dec 4, 2004 3:25 pm (#609 of 1080)
Sir T: If you try to overthrow a government by force, outside legal means, however correct you may be, you are bound to get punished.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't realize the DA tried to overthrow the government by force. Did the Order of the Phoenix try? If so, I sure don't remember reading about it.

The DADA teacher thought that her job was just to prepare the kids to pass the exams. She might have been wrong of course, but you can't blame the Ministry for that.

Well, first of all, it became blatantly obvious to the students--and not just our Trio--during the first class that they were going to be expected to perform defensive magic at their O.W.L.s without ever having had a chance to practice the spells beforehand. Umbridge herself confirmed this (Ch. 12, p. 244, US ed. hardcover), stating that if they'd studied their theory hard enough, it wouldn't be a problem. Well, we all know from the Charms and Transfiguration classes in past books that it takes practice for the kids to learn those spells well enough to cast them properly. Any teacher with a functioning brain should know that. Frankly, it doesn't sound like she cared much whether or not they passed their DADA O.W.L.

And why can't I blame the Ministry for Umbridge's failure as a teacher? The Ministry (either Fudge or Umbridge herself, I'm betting) assumed the responsibility for putting her in that position, so the Ministry must be held responsible for what she is teaching--or rather, not teaching. If I failed to do my job at my school, you can bet your boots I'd be on probation. If I were a first year teacher who did as poor a job as Umbridge, I'd have a can tied to my tail faster than you can cast a banishing charm. Not only that, the one who hired me would have a lot of explaining to do, and his fitness as an administrator would be watched very closely in the future.

As for using Marietta's parents as an excuse for what she did ... I think Penny is correct. First of all, we have not heard word one from Mrs. Edgecombe about Marietta's disfigurement. Why not? Montague's parents came to Hogwarts to check on his trouble. Is it possible that Mrs. Edgecombe doesn't necessarily support the way the Ministry has handled things recently? Perhaps she is like Kingsley and Arthur Weasley and secretly supports Dumbledore.

Before dungbombing me, consider this: Mrs. E has been helping to police the Floo network at Hogwarts. Why is it, then, that she never caught Harry all those times when he talked to Sirius in the Gryffindor fire? It was Umbridge's hands the kids saw in the fire the last time they talked to him there. And why didn't she catch him using Umbridge's fire? He used it twice, and Umbridge caught him the second time. Where was Mrs. E? Just wondering ...

Solitaire

edited



Sir Tornado - Dec 4, 2004 11:49 pm (#610 of 1080)
And why can't I blame the Ministry for Umbridge's failure as a teacher? The Ministry (either Fudge or Umbridge herself, I'm betting) assumed the responsibility for putting her in that position, so the Ministry must be held responsible for what she is teaching--or rather, not teaching. If I failed to do my job at my school, you can bet your boots I'd be on probation. If I were a first year teacher who did as poor a job as Umbridge, I'd have a can tied to my tail faster than you can cast a banishing charm. Not only that, the one who hired me would have a lot of explaining to do, and his fitness as an administrator would be watched very closely in the future.

So, do you blame DD for Lockhart being a bad teacher?



Solitaire - Dec 5, 2004 3:03 am (#611 of 1080)
As a matter of fact, yes, I do think that Dumbledore made a very poor decision there. I consider Lockhart as evil in his own way as Umbridge is in hers. He certainly was inept.

I do believe there was a difference, however. I think the Ministry was deliberately trying to prevent the kids from learning defensive magic. In the case of Lockhart, he was inept. Which was worse? Hard to say ...

In the end, all of the kids suffered because of the poor training they received in this discipline. The exceptions were probably the DA kids, who did learn some basic defensive magic under Harry's tutelage. Harry himself, though--who really does need more training if he is to take on Voldemort successfully--did not learn much that was new, other than his Occlumency. Fortunately, however, being placed in the position of teacher for the DA probably did help Harry grow in other ways. He was a good teacher, and I believe good teachers always manage to learn something in the process of teaching.

Solitaire

edited



Gerald Costales - Dec 5, 2004 7:44 am (#612 of 1080)
"As a matter of fact, yes, I do think that Dumbledore made a very poor decision there. I consider Lockhart as evil in his own way as Umbridge is in hers. He certainly was inept." Solitaire

I can agree with you and posted similar comments on the Dumbledore thread. Here's my comments about the hiring of Lockhart (from my post #1115, the Albus Dumbledore thread.)

"2. Gilderoy Lockhart - Comments: Applied & hired. Gilderoy probably applied, but if he did, why didn’t Dumbledore have Gilderoy demonstrate his DADA abilities? Did Dumbledore hire him based only on Gilderoy’s publicity or reputation? The only teacher interview we know of was Trelawney’s. Dumbledore did have Trelawney make a prediction to demonstrate her Divination ability. (And the Prophecy is now Harry Potter lore.) Certainly a boggart or some other magical pest could have been used as a test.

Rating: BAD. Disliked by students, including the Slytherins. And disliked by staff. If Dumbledore had tested Gilderoy with Cornish Pixies, Dumbledore would have never hired him. Again, there was an attempted murder concerning both Harry and Ron. Flaws: Self-absorbed, Self-serving, Selfish, Conceited, etc."

Sir Tornado, I reminded you that at one time your opinion was the following:

“5) Has appropriate punishment been administered? Yes. But, only if the purple pimples are temporary.” My post #532

Here’s part of your comment shortly after my post #532:

“I agree with you almost completely, except fifth point there: Marietta shouldn't be punished, IMO, because, the Punishment clause of the Contract she signed wasn't known to her. Is it legal to disclose a clause of any contract while signing it?"

So, here's one of the points that you at one time agreed with:

"3) The DA is a school club with no written by-laws. Any disputes would be taken to Dumbledore to decide. Side issue the legality of the DA. The issue of Civil Disobedience has been cited. The example given, the sheltering of Jews during the reign of the Nazis. The DA was a legal club because the Educational Degrees are unjust. And the forming of the DA was an act of Civil Disobedience.

Probable decision: Marietta would be out of the DA. On the issue of treason, see the above comments on treason." My post #532

Rereading your comments in your post #534. You raised no objections to any part of my point #3, in my post #532, which raised the concept of "Civil Disobedience".

So, at one time you agreed with the concept of "Civil Disobedience" but now find it unacceptable.

Sir Tornado, you have been consistent on the "purple pimples" not being a fair punishment. But, you have been inconsistent on the concept of "Civil Disobedience". It is obvious that you argue either "against" or "for" comments and points depending on the current topic.

Again, "Side issue the legality of the DA. The issue of Civil Disobedience has been cited. The example given, the sheltering of Jews during the reign of the Nazis. The DA was a legal club because the Educational Degrees are unjust. And the forming of the DA was an act of Civil Disobedience." Post #532

It was a glaring omission on your part that you didn't raise any objects at that time against my point #3, in my post #532. ;-) GC



Solitaire - Dec 5, 2004 12:40 pm (#613 of 1080)
I have questions for you, Sir Tornado:

First, do you honestly believe Marietta should have been exempt from any kind of consequences for being a stool pigeon and breaking her word when she promised not to rat out the group to anyone--especially Umbridge?

Second, if you do believe Marietta deserved consequences for breaking her word, what do YOU think would have been appropriate consequences? Remember that the consequences she did receive were neither punitive nor retaliatory in nature, nor were they aimed specifically at her. They were simply some sort of "flag" that had been applied ahead of time, so that in the event of a betrayal (which most probably figured would never happen) the group would be able to identify the betrayer. Frankly, I think anyone who is betrayed has a right to know the identity of his betrayer.

Third, if you believe that Marietta did not deserve any consequences for betraying a trust, do you believe that there should never be any consequences when one betrays a trust? Should anyone and everyone be able to make and break promises and trusts as they see fit, regardless of who is harmed by their actions? Please do not reiterate any arguments about the decrees and the DA being outside the law. I have read them many times and am quite aware of them. I am concerned only about the issue of betrayal of trust here, not whether or not a law was involved. I want only your answers to the questions I posed.

Solitaire

Edit: I apologize if it is illegal to ask someone questions about an issue in the forum. If so, any moderator please feel free to delete this post. It's just that Sir T has been extremely persistent on some of these issues, and I would like to know how he responds to the questions I've posed.



Sir Tornado - Dec 6, 2004 9:28 am (#614 of 1080)
Gerald... I was so shocked to read the 5 th point, (About the appropriate punishment that is) and I might have overlooked some points. But you'll notice that I had a safety hatch there. I THINK I said "I agree MOSTLY with you" or something like that, which definately didn't include the word "Completely". But that's just semantics. As of now, I think you are aware of my current possition on the issue. I said my CURRENT position, because, 1 convincing argument can completely convince me, so, you may expect some changes in my posts because of some of the arguments on this and some of the other forums.



I apologize if it is illegal to ask someone questions about an issue in the forum.


Solitaire, don't apologise; IMHO asking questions is allowed, because you are just asking my opinions, and everyone's opinions are valued here. I'll gladly answer them.


First, do you honestly believe Marietta should have been exempt from any kind of consequences for being a stool pigeon and breaking her word when she promised not to rat out the group to anyone--especially Umbridge?


Good question. Because of the complexity of the issue, I can't give a yes or no answer here, but, here goes...

Firstly, I think it is clear that Marrietta did not want to take part in the DA. She was forced by Cho, which, I think is established atleast. The second thing, is that DA was illegal. A model citizen should always inform the authorities. Umbridge was an authority, and Marrietta informed her about it. However, she did break her word, which, though was given reluctantly, was still a promise. But then, you can argue, that when she did promise, DA was legal, and when she broke the promise, the DA was illegal. To honour, or dishonour promises after the circumstances have changed drastically, is a matter of opinion. Each has his own.


Second, if you do believe Marietta deserved consequences for breaking her word, what do YOU think would have been appropriate consequences? Remember that the consequences she did receive were neither punitive nor retaliatory in nature, nor were they aimed specifically at her. They were simply some sort of "flag" that had been applied ahead of time, so that in the event of a betrayal (which most probably figured would never happen) the group would be able to identify the betrayer. Frankly, I think anyone who is betrayed has a right to know the identity of his betrayer.


I disagree that Hermione's actions were't retaliatory in nature. A simple flag would've been a warning that wouldn't have harmed the traitor. On the other hand, it was a pre-empted attack that would take place IF there is a betrayal, ie, as a retaliation to the traitor's deeds. A retaliation if you ask me, a preempted retaliation, nothing less, maybe nothing more.

What would I have done? I would have done exactly what Hermione did. Gotten the revange on the traitor. But, that would have been mostly in a fit of rage and anger, and, later, my conscience would have hurt me, and I would know, deep in my heart, that I did a wrong deed, and what I did wasn't proper. Leave the dispension of Justice to the authorities.


Third, if you believe that Marietta did not deserve any consequences for betraying a trust, do you believe that there should never be any consequences when one betrays a trust? Should anyone and everyone be able to make and break promises and trusts as they see fit, regardless of who is harmed by their actions? Please do not reiterate any arguments about the decrees and the DA being outside the law. I have read them many times and am quite aware of them. I am concerned only about the issue of betrayal of trust here, not whether or not a law was involved. I want only your answers to the questions I posed.


Straight answer, No. The only entity that can punish an individual in any civilized world should be the proper authorities.

Thanks.



Steve Newton - Dec 6, 2004 9:57 am (#615 of 1080)
"The second thing, is that DA was illegal."

I'm not sure that this is true. The DA was, seemingly, in violation of a Ministry Decree. We have had many mentions of different legislative acts (Muggle Protection Act, f'rinstance) and legislative proposals. None of these were called decrees, as I recall it.

So, I don't know what the legal standing of a decree would be. (Sometimes governments do take emergency measures which seem to have the power of law. But, the MOM is saying that there is no crisis so I don't see how this could apply.)



wwtMask - Dec 6, 2004 10:08 am (#616 of 1080)
Sir Tornado, I think that all people at the first DA meeting were well aware that Umbridge would not have liked the DA even when it was "legal". Marietta had to have known that. Whether or not she was forced into the DA is irrelevant; the fact is that she was a member knowing full well it was unapproved. Furthermore, the legal status of the DA doesn't change anything about her promise. She promised to keep her knowledge of the DA secret, knowing full well that the powers that be (Umbridge and the Ministry) would not approve of the organization, even if it was "legal". The legality of the DA, in my opinion, has very little to do with whether Marietta deserved what she got.

On the subject of Hermione's jinx, it was indeed retaliatory but, as I've said before, the harm it caused was certainly far less than has been subjected to other students. In fact, I'd say it was pretty mild, physically, because pimples aren't exactly painful torture. The largest source of "harm" was humiliation and damage to Marietta's reputation and social status but, let's be honest, she deserved no less for her treachery.

Finally, I hate to break it to you, but our civilized world isn't so civilized that we can rely on the proper authorities to mete out justice properly or fairly. The MoM were quite obviously biased and had no intention of rendering justice fairly. We must always remember that Nazi concentration camps, South African apartheid, voting fraud, and all sorts of discrimination have been sanctioned by "proper authorities" and have been used to punish minorities. Practicing civil disobedience, as the DA was, is illegal to the "proper authorities" but not wrong. Besides, it seems strange to expect the "proper authorities" to punish Marietta for her treachery when it's plain that her treachery is exactly what they would want. Are you seriously suggesting that Hermione should have gone to DD or Umbridge about Marietta?

edit: Steve, since Dumbly and every other teacher seemed to (bitterly) follow the decrees, I think we can assume that the decrees carried the force of law. Which reminds me of one reason that the WW bothers me: their legislative process seems to have nothing in the way of checks and balances. We have Executive Orders from the president in the USA, but at least they only last 30 or so days. It seemed too easy for Fudge to pass whatever he wanted within days (then again, maybe most of the ministry really was against Dumbly).



Sir Tornado - Dec 6, 2004 10:21 am (#617 of 1080)
Are you seriously suggesting that Hermione should have gone to DD or Umbridge about Marietta?

Yes. That's where the catch comes in. If the state doesn't give you justice, then you don't deserve justice. Which civil society in today's world teaches you to get justice by vigilance? Don't they say that we should always follow the proper channel of justice? BTW, I have explained my views on comparison between Civil Disobedience and this situation 15-20 posts back. Check them out.



Steve Newton - Dec 6, 2004 1:01 pm (#618 of 1080)
I would also question whether or not Umbridge was the Headmistress. As far as I can tell the Board of Governors (not sure this is the correct name) appoints the Headmaster. They did not appoint, or approve, Umbridge.



wwtMask - Dec 6, 2004 1:10 pm (#619 of 1080)
If the state doesn't give you justice, then you don't deserve justice.

I'm sorry if that's the way you feel on this issue, but it's off base in my opinion. An unfair state administers unfair justice, so expecting any party to rely on the state when there is no doubt that the state is not going to be fair/impartial is extremely unreasonable. There were no "proper channels of justice" for Harry and the DA, as far as the MoM was concerned because the MoM would never behave fairly towards them.

I think you're seeing Hermione's actions far more harshly than they really are. The worst harm that came to Marietta was humiliation and damage to her reputation. These things are no worse than what has happened to other people as a result of their actions, regardless if the organization, venue, partnership, etc. is public or private. In light of what we've seen in the WW thus far, Hermione's actions appear to fall within what is acceptable.

By the way, I think you meant vigilantism as opposed to vigilance. I find it too much of a stretch to connect Hermione's actions with vigilantism. A vigilante takes the enforcement of law into his or her own hands. That clearly has nothing to do with what the DA was doing, neither does it have anything to do with Hermione's jinxing of the parchment. As far as I know, no law exists against informing on rule/lawbreakers.

I won't debate whether the contract was presented in full because it certainly was not (for a good reason). I will say, however, that it was up to those who were signing it to ask any questions about the paper they were signing. Hermione specifically said: "But I also think that we all ought to agree not to shout about what we're doing, so if you sign, you're agreeing not to tell Umbridge or anybody else what we're up to." Quite clearly, they were signing a contract. It's up to the signing parties to ask for particulars before they sign. Compare this to the ubiquitous End User Licence Agreement that comes with software. Whether or not you agree with the stipulations of said agreement, if you sign (by clicking the box that says you agree), you are bound to the terms of the agreement. It's not the software maker's fault if you don't read the contract.



MickeyCee3948 - Dec 6, 2004 3:35 pm (#620 of 1080)
Sir Tornado - based on your "If the state doesn't give you justice, then you don't deserve justice." then the American Colonies should still be part of Britian and so should India. We had no reason to rebel since the monarchy decided we were wrong.

Mikie



Penny Lane. - Dec 6, 2004 6:13 pm (#621 of 1080)
Sometimes, the system fails. Justice goes unserved, and everyone knows that, even judges. There are loopholes in many, many laws that allow the occasional murder, child molester, etc to walk free. I do feel this happens more often in the United States, but alas my outlook is shaped by my upbringing. I can't help that. Anyone who would like to shed some light on the British legal system, be my guest.

We can not make a definate ruling on whether or not the D.A. was a legel or illegal operation until we see the documentation of the Decree, and the school's bi-laws and constitution. There is NO way that Tornado can say that the D.A. is or isn't legal based upon the information presented in the book. There is always a loophole. I don't think Hermione is wrong in putting the jinx on the paper. Marietta is the one who committed the act of betrayal.

Also, I keep reading that Marietta was forced. I don't believe that Cho ever held a wand to her and said you must go. A defense attorney could argue peer pressure or "mob mentality" but I don't think it would get far. Marietta could have said no and not gone to the meeting, not signed the paper. If she was so noble, why didn't she do that?

Marietta played with fire and got burned. Too bad. So sad. Maybe in the future, after her wounds heal, she can try again. Or she might learn to treat others with some respect.



Czarina II - Dec 6, 2004 7:11 pm (#622 of 1080)
All right!!!! I'm not a moderator, but this is getting VERY nasty. Most of us are complete strangers off this forum, and we're getting awfully personal here.

Can we move on? I really don't think whether Marietta is guilty or not or whether or not Hermione was justified or whether or not states should administer justice or what not is pertinent to the books. We will no undoubtedly see the resolution of this issue in HbP and I'm sure JKR will explain it for us quite well. After all, Marietta will leave Hogwarts at the end of HbP (along with Cho). I really think she was just a plot device. Does it matter what happens to her? I don't think so. If it does, JKR will put it into her books and correct me.

While I think Sir Tornado has articulated a very good case (and others have made excellent counter-arguments), I think the subject has been flogged to death. There are 623 posts on a thread discussing a character who only has one line in the entire series. While I don't think that is a bad thing, the discussion has stagnated lately into namecalling. As a reader, I don't like the direction that this thread is taking. It is not friendly debate anymore.



Solitaire - Dec 6, 2004 10:09 pm (#623 of 1080)
Sir T: She was forced by Cho, which, I think is established atleast.

Sir T, I thank you for your responses to my questions, but I really have to disagree here. The Hog's Head meeting and signing of the contract is an event to which the reader is privy. It was not held "off camera" and reported in a conversation by an other character, so that we do not know what was going on. It is pretty clear that Cho did not hold Marietta at wand-point and force her to join the DA.

"Forcing" someone to do something implies some sort of threat having been made. I do not see any instance of anyone--including Cho--threatening Marietta with any kind of consequences if she opted out. And I do not see how she could have threatened Marietta ahead of time, since she couldn't have known this was anything but a preliminary meeting to discuss the idea. I don't even think Harry was expecting such forethought on her part.

To be sure, Cho talked Marietta into coming to the meeting. Afterwards, if Marietta had not joined, Cho may even have cried and whined and sulked for a few days. But I seriously doubt she would have dumped Marietta as a friend, especially considering that she remained a friend even after Marietta was revealed to be a rat fink. Even if she had told her she would dump her as a friend, that is still not a "life threat."

The suggestion that Marietta was forced to join the DA against her will just doesn't have enough evidence to support it, IMO. I have to agree with Penny Lane on this one.

I also think that wwtMask has pretty well summed up the state of affairs that existed under Fudge's leadership.

Solitaire



Phoenix song - Dec 7, 2004 1:47 pm (#624 of 1080)
I hate to step into this, because it is getting pretty nasty... But I do have to agree that although Marietta may have felt a normal amount of peer pressure to join in order to support her friend, Cho did not force her to join. There was no Imperious Curse involved here. We need to separate Marietta's natural inclination to follow her friend and her being forced to do so against her will.

I'd also like to just remind everybody that our forum is like an extended family, and sometimes our family members disagree with us, but we can still care for them regardless. As I learned prior to our recent elections, there are issues that simply just divide people and there is no way to effectively "get" your message through to those people on the other side of the fence. Sometimes it is just better to state your opinion and let it go realizing that it will never be understood by the other person, but is valuable regardless.

Barbie



Solitaire - Dec 7, 2004 3:30 pm (#625 of 1080)
I agree that there should be nastiness or name-calling on this or any other thread; but if we cannot discuss this issue on this thread, then perhaps the thread needs to be closed. There isn't much else to discuss about Marietta, is there? JM2K

Solitaire



Hermy-own - Dec 7, 2004 4:18 pm (#626 of 1080)
No, Soli, there isn't much else to say about Miss Edgecombe. Whatever did we discuss before this topic? It certainly wasn't as interesting - controversial, even - as this one!

By the way, in your last post I think you meant to say, I agree that there should be no nastiness or name-calling on this or any other thread. I couldn't agree more.

Hermy.



Pinky - Dec 7, 2004 6:42 pm (#627 of 1080)
This thread was brought to my attention by a concerned member. I have only read the last few posts in which I have found a number of comments about "nastiness" and name-calling. I am closing this thread until I, or another host can take the time to read through it and see what needs to happen.



Kip Carter - Aug 30, 2005 6:49 am (#628 of 1080)
At the request of Gerald Costales, this thread has been reopened. The last post was December 7, 2004, so a lot of catching up is needed.



wwtMask - Aug 30, 2005 7:35 am (#629 of 1080)
Wow...the un-edgcombed Marietta thread Very Happy

Honestly, as I suspected would happen, Marietta was a no-show for the book. Her pimples are still there (go Hermione!) and no one, it seems, can remove them or even wants to try to remove them. Was Hermione right or wrong to do that? In the grand scheme, I'd say she did the right thing, especially after seeing all of the carnage in HBP and knowing that Marietta's betrayal contributed, in a small way, to Voldemort's returning publicly.

Marietta seems to be dealing with the pimples and the humiliation without trying to retaliate against Hermione. Does she feel remorse for what she did? Is she impressed by Hermione's talent? Afraid of retaliating because of Hermione's powers? Or, like everyone else, just trying to get on with her life and pretend that everything is normal and that Voldemort isn't terrorizing the nation? We didn't see enough of her to even make a reasonable guess at these questions, but I wonder about them some time.



Solitaire - Aug 30, 2005 8:51 am (#630 of 1080)
I will confess that, even though I think Marietta got her just desserts, the fact that the pimples remain kind of bothers me. I would hope that, at some point, Hermione would lift the jinx and allow the scars to evaporate.

I've often wondered whether Marietta's acknowledgement of her errors and a sincere request for forgiveness might go the distance toward removing the scars. Then again, she certainly does serve as a continual reminder of the perils of betraying someone--an important lesson in the current climate.

Solitaire



rambkowalczyk - Aug 30, 2005 9:25 am (#631 of 1080)
Someone mentioned elsewhere that perhaps the jinx is out of Hermione's control. That is Marietta violated a magical contract and it appears that contracts are unforgiving. Dumbledore couldn't get Harry out of the Tri-Wizard Tournament and it was quite clear Harry never agreed to it to begin with.

The other possibility is that the acne will clear up only if Marietta shows true regret.



haymoni - Aug 30, 2005 9:46 am (#632 of 1080)
I posted this someplace else, but I really didn't see the purpose in Hermione getting the black eye and getting the cream from Fred & George.

I suppose it shows that the twins thought out solutions to their problems and could help their customers, but I really thought we would hear some comment on the Hogwarts Express on the way back home that Hermione had given some of the cream to Marietta and all was well.



Solitaire - Aug 30, 2005 10:19 am (#633 of 1080)
Haymoni, I believe she should have thought out a solution, just because I do not believe one should cast a jinx without a solution. However, I do see what happened to Hermione as a different case from what happened to Marietta. It's one thing to get a black eye from something she bought from a joke shop. It is quite another to be the victim of a jinx because one broke a contract or reneged on a promise.

I tend to agree with ramb that perhaps sincere regret--not just because of the acne but because of the seriousness of what she did--might be the anti-jinx. I honestly do hope Jo addresses this issue at some point, either in the book or in a chat.

Solitaire



Mrs Brisbee - Aug 30, 2005 10:22 am (#634 of 1080)
I doubt Fred and George's cream will provide a miracle cure for Marietta. I think they did think up solutions to their problems-- in this case the victim of a Fred and George product would also have have to shell out money to Fred and George for a cure. Talk about adding insult to injury.

I thought there was some unrealized plot potential for Marietta. She has to go the whole year to school with the students she betrayed, after they have been proven correct. Rowling reminds us of Marietta's pimples and that she still exists, but then-- nothing.



Madam Pince - Aug 30, 2005 12:31 pm (#635 of 1080)
I was thinking that at some point in her youth, JKR was "burned" by someone like Marietta, so she created the character and the punishment to warn her readers not to be a tattle-tale! This warning carries even more weight the longer the scars stay around.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Mona on Thu May 19, 2011 12:22 am; edited 4 times in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 59
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Posts 636 to 665

Post  Mona Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:30 am

wwtMask - Aug 30, 2005 12:53 pm (#636 of 1080)
I think the issue could go deeper, if one wanted it to. For instance, what's the difference between a "tattle-tale" and a good citizen? I know we had the discussion before, but it's arguable that Marietta thought she was doing the right thing. I guess the question comes down to which side you think is right. Until Voldemort came to light, Harry may seriously have seemed like a subversive that needed to be stopped.

Also, I dont' feel so bad about the pimples still being on her face. She's not in any pain and, in my mind, they're just a physical representation of her tarnished reputation. It seems to me that, in the wizarding world, a lot of the negative repercussions that we'd normally expect to be emotional/social/etc. end up being physically manifested in the wizarding world. The pimples don't seem to have caused any long term harm and, since she's a Ravenclaw, I'm sure she'll eventually figure out how to get rid of them...



Chemyst - Aug 30, 2005 1:39 pm (#637 of 1080)
I do not believe one should cast a jinx without a solution. - Solitaire
Which is kind of up in the air isn't it? Some think Hermione won't and some think she does not know how, yet there is always the possibility that she would, and does know, but cannot without having the original contract. Dolores snatched the list and last we knew, she showed it to DD. It is possible that Hermione would have to have the original signature in order to do the counter jinx.

Whatever... I am more inclined to think that they will go away when restitution has been made.
I was disappointed that this was not resolved in HBP, yet Marietta was mentioned just (barely) enough to keep her around for a tiny I've-paid-my-dues scene in book seven.



Gerald Costales - Aug 31, 2005 7:28 am (#638 of 1080)
Edited Aug 31, 2005 9:00 am
There are minor details that JKR gives that sometimes resurface and prove extremely important later. Here are just three -

. . . . . . 1. From Book 1, Hagrid delivered the infant Harry to Dumbledore while using Sirius Black’s motorbike. In Book 3, Sirius was revealed to be Harry’s Godfather and the accused and imprisoned “Prisoner of Azkaban”; the Mad Murderer of Muggles; Pettigrew; and James and Lily Potter. (Only the Godfather part proved to be correct since Sirius was falsely accused and imprisoned.)

. . . . . . 2. From Book 1, Harry talked to a Boa in the Reptile House. In Book 2, Harry is revealed to be a Parselmouth, an ability accidentally given to Harry by Voldermort when Voldermort chose Harry to be the “One” and marking Harry with the “Scar”. (The “Scar” is linked to the “Prophecy” which is revealed in Book 5.) (And Harry is publicly the “Chosen One” by Book 6.)

. . . . . . 3. From Book 2, Ginny was given “Tom Riddle’s Diary” which is the means to reopen the “Chamber of Secrets”. In Book 6, the “Diary” is revealed to be a “Horcrux” that contained one seventh of Voldermort’s Soul. (The search for the remaining “Horcruxes” now being a central part of Book 7.) (How Harry will do it without Dumbledore, I still can’t imagine.) (But, of course the answer is why we read the Series.)

There are numerous other minor details but - Can we assume that Purple Pimple faced Marietta is just an innocent victim or not so innocent victim? And that Marietta’s Pimples are just a minor detail? There is more than right or wrong in Marietta’s situation.

That being said, before this thread was closed I became convinced that Hermione needed to be held accountable for the “Jinxed Parchment.” Yes, Marietta was a traitor and deserved her face full of Purple Pimples. But, I don’t think Hermione knew how powerful a Jinx was placed on the DA’s Parchment.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . There was a loud bang and the bin behind Harry exploded;

. . . . . . . . . . . . Harry attempted a Leg-Locker Curse that backfired off the wall be-

. . . . . . . . . . . . hind Malfoy’s ear and smashed the cistern beneath Moaning Myrtle,

. . . . . . . . . . . . who screamed loudly; water poured everywhere and Harry slipped.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . As Malfoy, his face contorted, cried, “Cruci --”

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “SECTUMSEMPRA!” bellowed Harry from the floor, waving

. . . . . . . . . . . .his wand wildly.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blood spurted from Malfoy’s face and chest as though he had

. . . . . . . . . . . . been slashed with and invisible sword. He staggered backward and

. . . . . . . . . . . . collapsed on the waterlogged floor with a great splash, his wand

. . . . . . . . . . . . falling from his limp right hand.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “No --” gasped Harry.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(HBP, page 522, American edition)

Even before reading this scene I was convinced that Hermione used a Jinx that even Hermione didn’t know what would happen. Hermione is clever but not all knowing. The “Jinxed Parchment” went too far. Hermione like Harry just didn’t know how serious what they did would be. I don’t think Marietta is simply disfigured and no one was killed is an adequate argument to clear Hermione of her actions. Maybe Hermione is the one that needs to apologize before the Purple Pimples vanish. I believe there is a Clear Right - Hermione wanted to protect the DA and Clear Wrong - Marietta betrayed the DA to Umbridge. Even Good People (like Hermione and Harry) make mistakes and need to apologize for there actions. But the fact remains that Purple Pimple still remain on Marietta’s guilty face and Hermione action placed them there.

There is forgiveness. But true and total forgiveness is rare. Dumbledore’s reasons to trust and forgive Snape are still unknown. But, Dumbledore did not die in vain. The Courage of Dumbledore’s Trust and Forgiveness should be revealed in Book 7. The Series is not about just destroying Evil but becoming and being Good - the Best we can be at the least, and Triumphing for the sake of Goodness. Just like Dumbledore. ;-) GC

PS Thanks Kip for reopening the Thread. When does the count down for Book 7 begin? Let's hope two to three years passes quickly!!!!! ;-) GC



wwtMask - Aug 31, 2005 9:21 am (#639 of 1080)
I always thought one of the primary themes of the book was the choices we make and how they affect us and make us who we are. I think the cursed parchment makes a good example of that. Let those pimples remind Marietta of her choice and the consequences of that choice.



Steve Newton - Sep 1, 2005 11:14 am (#640 of 1080)
I think that it is more important to remind everyone else of the consequences of betrayal. They are now at war. Harry even calls the DA a rebellion(chapter 17 OOTP). A rebellion pretty much makes it own rules. And Marietta joined of her own free will. And was part of the unanimous vote making Harry the leader. Marietta got, and is getting off, easy.



Solitaire - Sep 1, 2005 5:49 pm (#641 of 1080)
I guess I have to agree with you, Steve & Mask.



Madame Pomfrey - Sep 3, 2005 9:10 am (#642 of 1080)
Me too! And doesn't it appear that the pimples are fading? I think in time they will disappear and in the meantime she will be reminded of the consequences of her treachery.



Gerald Costales - Sep 5, 2005 7:53 am (#643 of 1080)
" . . . And doesn't it appear that the pimples are fading? I think in time they will disappear and in the meantime she will be reminded of the consequences of her treachery." Madame Pomfrey

No, there is isn't proof that the Purple Pimples are fading. I know there are consequences for betrayal. But, my problem is that Marietta’s betrayal is giving Hermione the right to do anything. The end does not justify the means.

Dumbledore was too noble to use Dark Magic that Voldermort used. And even Mad Eye tried to bring in Death Eaters alive despite Barty Crouch's orders to shoot to kill and no mercy to Death Eaters. There must be some restraint, even for Hermione and her actions.

Didn't Harry spare Wormtail? And I believe this act of charity and mercy still hasn't borne its fruit yet. You could argue that Dumbledore’s forgiveness of Snape lead to Dumbledore’s death. But, I don’t think we have the whole story of why Dumbledore trusted Snape so totally.

The Purple Pimples at a point are not a symbol of Justice but a mark of Vengeance. You may of as well branded Marietta with a red hot iron to spell out SNEAK. I believe Hermione did protect the DA. And Marietta did betray the DA. But even Hermione needs to be accountable.

My Mother-in-Law once told my wife and me, that my wife and myself need not apologize to our children. Even parents make mistakes and I am more than willing to apologize when I am wrong. And as a parent I have made more mistakes concerning my children than I’d like to admit. I make mistakes while trying to do the “Right Thing”. The “Right Thing” unfortunately is not always clear. And my opinion of what is right in this situation is not apparently what most of you believe.

Hey, I’ve come to know most of you through this Forum and you are extremely thoughtful and moral people. This time we must agree to disagree. We may have seen the last of Marietta and Cho in the Series. But, the remnants of Purple Pimples bother me. I would have wanted to see Marietta return to Hogwarts without those Pimples. But, I believe some things can be unforgivable. And JKR had her reasons to have those Pimples still on Marietta’s guilty face. ;-) GC



Solitaire - Sep 5, 2005 10:09 am (#644 of 1080)
Once again, Marietta was not jinxed after the fact, as an act of vengeance for ratting out the DA. Rather, SHE HERSELF activated a previously established jinx when she chose to violate a magical agreement. The parchment was obviously jinxed before that first meeting ... since Hermione whipped it out to be signed on the spot.

Since we know that Dean must have told Seamus about the DA, since Seamus was at the last meeting--yet we see no SNEAK pimples on Dean's face--I wonder if cognizance of betrayal was required in order to activate the jinx ... meaning that Marietta herself knew she was violating the agreement by her actions. Yes, I am only speculating ... but I think it is a speculation with merit.

Solitaire

edited



Nathan Zimmermann - Sep 5, 2005 11:15 am (#645 of 1080)
Solitaire, I agree I believe there is a distinction between Dean telling Seamus and Marietta's actions because in each of the cases their motivations and intentions were radically different, In the case of Marietta I would assert that her betrayal was premeditated and intentional. I also, agree that Marietta was cognizant of the her betrayal and the fact that it would have consequences for the school, Although, I doubt she was aware of what the nature of the consequences. Additionally, I think that the awareness and acceptance of her betrayal activated the jinx because, I tend to view the jinx as form of sneakascope or lie detector that is activated in part by the the emotional and physical state of the victim.



Chemyst - Sep 5, 2005 3:23 pm (#646 of 1080)
This time we must agree to disagree. - Gerald Costales
Well, Gerald, in that case, I find disagreement with you most agreeable. Solitaire and Nathan have already covered most of my thoughts on the matter. The only thing left to add is that until and unless we get a heartfelt, "I'm sorry. I was wrong" from Marietta... I guess the fact that she is a sneak won't have sunk in.



timrew - Sep 5, 2005 4:07 pm (#647 of 1080)
Hey all, the pimples might go in book 7.......or, as Chemyst says, it might boil down to Marietta saying 'sorry'. A small thing to ask...............

There again, if she doesn't say sorry, she may have to put up with those pimples on her face for the rest of her life! They might even begin to glow in the dark, advertise Coca Cola, outdo Las Vegas, or even embarrass her in discos, by swelling and ebbing in time to the music.........



Czarina II - Sep 5, 2005 10:38 pm (#648 of 1080)
Oi, the Marietta Question has been reopened!

I assumed that the SNEAK was just a scar by HBP. Personally, were I Marietta, I would take credit for causing Voldemort's reappearance public awareness, or at least contributing to it. Pity poor Marietta not being in Slytherin -- that is a very Slytherin thing to do. (Of course, I'm a Ravenclaw too.)

If the reason that the SNEAK has not gone away is truly because Marietta must apologise and she is aware of her actions, then I think this is a fair punishment. However, if she is unaware of the reason (due to Shacklebolt's memory charm) or her actions, then the punishment is unjust. One cannot apologise for what one does not remember doing; moreoever, one can apologise, but it is not as meaningful. If Marietta doesn't remember being a sneak...



Maddest Dragon - Sep 6, 2005 12:34 am (#649 of 1080)
I think she still has the pimples because of the nature of the jinx. Someone suggested that Hermione might be able to remove it if she had the original list, because the jinx was attached to the list... I think that may be the case. Except that, even if Hermione did remove the jinx, it probably wouldn't be removed from anyone who'd already triggered it (in this case, Marietta). It would just make it so that anyone else who ratted out the DA wouldn't suffer the consequences--which is a moot point by now.

And I'm absolutely positive that Marietta has already been seen by all the specialists. Madam Pomfrey to start with, of course... and her summer must have included multiple trips to St. Mungo's, maybe even a stay there, with the Healers trying various cures. So far, nothing's worked.

I suspect that even Hermione doesn't know how to undo the jinx. Unless she asks Fred and George; they seem to be able to come up with a counter-jinx for everything. They might even have helped with jinxing the list in the first place. If that's the case, Marietta would have to give them a sincere apology to get any help. And I really don't see that happening anytime soon.



Mrs Brisbee - Sep 6, 2005 4:47 am (#650 of 1080)
Personally, I don't have any grand desire to see Marietta pilloried in perpetuity by the SNEAK written across her face. I would have liked to see some movement on this in HBP, while Marietta was still at Hogwarts with all the people she betrayed, but that didn't happen. Hermione believes that Marietta deserves her fate. Is Rowling speaking her opinion through Hermione?

Of course, like others have suggested, Marietta might just be an object lesson. Unlike the other betrayers in the series-- Snape, Peter Pettigrew, Firenze, Kreacher, Dobby-- she isn't really vested with a personality, and her motives remain murky. But like the other betrayers her actions will effect the rest of her life-- which I think renders the permanent disfigurement an unnecessary punishment at this point.



Solitaire - Sep 6, 2005 9:32 am (#651 of 1080)
I find it interesting that Mrs. Edgecombe has not confronted Hermione--as I would expect an upset parent to do. Could it be that she understands the nature of a magical contract and realizes that Marietta must bear the consequences of what she did?

Solitaire



Mrs Brisbee - Sep 6, 2005 11:08 am (#652 of 1080)
She might. Or she might not. I'm trying to think what we know about Mrs. Edgecombe, and it is very little. She helped police the Floo Network. She didn't want her daughter to get on the wrong side of Umbridge. That's all I can think of offhand. Not enough for me to speculate on what she might think of her daughters predicament.



Maddest Dragon - Sep 6, 2005 11:50 am (#653 of 1080)
Perhaps Mrs. Edgecombe has confronted Hermione, and we don't know about it because we're seeing everything through Harry's eyes. Hermione might not tell Harry.

More likely, Mrs. Edgecombe contacted Dumbledore once he was back at Hogwarts. She may have blamed him for it all, especially since he'd told Umbridge and the Ministry officials that the DA was his idea. How he dealt with that, we don't know. I can see him continuing the fiction that it was his own idea. Perhaps gently reminding Mrs. Edgecombe of the nature of magical contracts. There may be something to the theory that Marietta would have to apologize or atone for her betrayal to get rid of the jinx.

It's interesting that Hermione doesn't seem to have gotten in any trouble for the jinx. I can imagine Dumbledore or McGonagall giving her a slight talking to for it--but, over all, they'd be pleased with her putting so much effort into saving the school from Umbridge. That's probably why she hasn't been punished.



Finn BV - Sep 6, 2005 2:33 pm (#654 of 1080)
If two children get into a fight at a school, and one gets off better than the other, the parenets of the child who got off worse would not confront their child's abuser. Rather, they would speak to the head officials at the school and the abuser's parents. However, since the Grangers are Muggles, it would be odd and awkward for the Edgecombes to speak to them.



Solitaire - Sep 7, 2005 5:59 am (#655 of 1080)
As a teacher, Finn, I can tell you with absolute certainty that I know of parents who have confronted their child's bullying abuser directly, without benefit of school officials. I have also seen school officials get involved and bring the abuser and the abused face-to-face, with parents of neither, one, or both present.

Given the situation and the parties involved, I can't help believing that if Hermione had been addressed about the problem, she would have told Harry and Ron. The only exception I can think of is that, if she didn't know the counter-jinx, she might be reluctant to admit it. Still, I can't help feeling that if Dumbledore or McGonagall had talked to her, she would have told them what she used, so that the problem could have been remedied ... if they felt it should be remedied.

I still believe that Marietta's pimples are considered by teachers and others to be a warning about what happens when one violates a magical contract.

Solitaire



Ydnam96 - Sep 7, 2005 6:03 am (#656 of 1080)
Well, I think too that they were trying not to talk to much about the whole DA incident at all so they aren't exactly going to make a school announcment or do something "to" Hermione about it that would bring too much attention.

Also, it could be that they feel that Marietta used her own free will in signing the agreememnt not to tell and that as a binding magical contract (which they have been taught about) that it's her own fault.



Soul Search - Sep 7, 2005 7:29 am (#657 of 1080)
Reviewing this discussion sparked a thought that there was more going on than I, at first, understood.

Cho was in the DA, mostly, to meet Harry. Yes, she had thoughts of being involved in the DA "for Cedric," but mostly she wanted to be near Harry so she could ask about Cedric. Her true romantic interest in Harry is a bit in question.

Marietta is in the DA only because Cho is her friend and Cho wanted company. She does not, particularly, want to learn how to fight anyone. In fact, she is fearful of offending Umbridge, the Ministry, and her mothers job. Clearly her mother is soundly in the Fudge camp, since she helped police the flue network for them.

There is even a hint that Marietta would rather Cho not get involved with Harry, since that would mean less time available with Marietta.

Now, Marietta attended DA meetings all through Cho's "romance" with Harry, even after Harry and Cho became estranged, and after Harry's discourse in the Quibler. She kept the DA secret.

Then, she spilled to Umbridge. Why?

Was she just nervous for her mother's job at the ministry? Bit late, if so.

Was she trying to get back at Harry to revenge her friend Cho? I think this motivation for Marietta has merit.

Given this, a few pimples do not seem to be excessive punishment.



Finn BV - Sep 7, 2005 5:05 pm (#658 of 1080)
As a teacher, Finn, I can tell you with absolute certainty that I know of parents who have confronted their child's bullying abuser directly, without benefit of school officials. --Solitaire

Well, the nasty parents do.

I suppose that someone like Madam Edgecombe, though, is one to do that, being a high-ranked MInistry worker. You know.



Robert Dierken - Sep 8, 2005 7:31 pm (#659 of 1080)
A certain joke shop in Diagon Alley is selling guaranteed ten-second pimple vanisher. Perhaps Marietta should try it.

I suspect that the active ingredient is bubotuber pus!



Dame Peverell - Sep 9, 2005 3:34 am (#660 of 1080)
If things had gone just a little different, Umbrage and Filch would have had the whole DA in chains, tortured and expelled. Draco's crowd would be terrorizing the rest of the school and Voldemort would have gotten the prophesy, etc..

Pimples? What's a few pimples.

The memory charms' effect on Marietta make it a different matter. If she can't remember what happened, how can she honestly apologize?

Hermione needs to make peace with her right away. Marietta has got a grudge growing that will probably explode at just the wrong time.



Chemyst - Sep 9, 2005 4:51 am (#661 of 1080)
If she can't remember what happened, how can she honestly apologize?

This isn't the problem for me that it seems to be for others. I think there is a difference between an honest apology and a full-knowledge apology. The last sheriff in our county used to give full-knowledge apologies. He'd say, "If I hurt anyone's feelings, then I'm sorry..." He knew full well that he'd pushed the law to the limit for his own benefit and hurt a lot of feelings. His "if" apology was not honest.

On the other hand, a healer could set Marietta down for a consultation and explain her medical condition to her. This does add an extra step to the complications because she now has to decide if she is going to trust the healer to give a correct diagnosis, but all in all, she is still left with the choice to take responsibility for her actions as she knows them. She still has a choice between making an honest apology or being mad at having been jinxed for breaking a contract.



Gerald Costales - Sep 9, 2005 5:21 am (#662 of 1080)
Edited Sep 9, 2005 6:55 am
"She still has a choice between making an honest apology or being mad at having been jinxed for breaking a contract." Chemsyt

Marietta does have this choice. But, doesn't Hermione now have to face a Choice. Hermione’s actions (Jinxing the DA's Parchment) has caused another person, at this point, possible permanent disfigurement!!!!!

Does being one of the “Good Guys” exempt you from any accountability for your actions. Now, I believe Hermione wanted and did protect the DA with the Jinx. And Marietta did go to Umbridge and betrayed the DA. But, even the “Good Guys” in the conduct of doing Good can cause damage and harm. In SoCal (Southern California) high speed chases have caused an on-going public debate. In the course of their duties, many police agencies have been in collisions with innocent drivers causing sometimes severe damage and death.

The fact that Marietta or her Mother are Mad at Hermione should not change Hermione’s Choice. I could accept some acknowledgement by Hermione of what she did. -

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “By the way Marietta, nasty bit of luck there with the Purple Pimples.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Now, I’m sure they’ll be fading soon. But, when you play with fire

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . don’t be surprised when you get burned. Cheerio. Nice scarf. A Yellow

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . scarf does compliment the Purple in the SNEAK spelled out on your forehead.”

Not an example of a sincere acknowledgement but at least a honest one. ;-) GC



Steve Newton - Sep 9, 2005 5:59 am (#663 of 1080)
Hermione did not cause damage to Marietta. Marietta caused the damage. Hermione just gave her the opportunity.



pedrobobo - Sep 9, 2005 9:23 am (#664 of 1080)
I am normally just a lurker, but I wanted to respond to this.

"Hermione did not cause damage to Marietta. Marietta caused the damage. Hermione just gave her the opportunity."

I do not agree with this at all.

Let's assume for a minute that we a couple of ordinary muggles. Muggle #1 digs a deep pit, and covers it up so that it can no longer be seen as a pit (looks just like the surrounding ground) but you can still fall down it. Muggle #2 comes walking along later, steps onto the pit, and falls down into it.

Who would be a fault here? The person who laid the trap, or the person who stepped onto it?

Hermione never told the other members of the DA about the "snitch" effect (the trap). Without knowing of the added dangers of telling on the DA, the would have just assumed that the "ordinary" things would happen (members of the group get mad at you, people trust you less, you escape punishment while others get in trouble).

Now if Hermione (muggle #1) had warned others that something bad would happen but Marietta (muggle #2) did it anyway, then it would definitely be Marietta's (muggle #2) fault.



Steve Newton - Sep 9, 2005 9:33 am (#665 of 1080)
I don't know about your scenario but Hermione didn't lay a trap. She told everyone publicly that if they signed they were agreeing not to tell. As in real life there are results if you break an agreement even if they are not laid out at the time of the agreement. Too bad for Marietta. Since Marietta seems to have stopped talking as soon as the pimples hit it sounds as if she agrees. I see no reason to assume the responses that you mention. They are the responses you would expect if you were just talking. Everyone voluntarily signed.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Mona on Thu May 19, 2011 12:23 am; edited 3 times in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 59
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Posts 666 to 730

Post  Mona Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:37 am

Madame Pomfrey - Sep 9, 2005 11:51 am (#666 of 1080)
I think signing a magical contract must be alot tougher in the wizarding world.Hermione's jinx was probably mild compaired to other contracts.Look what happens when you break an unbreakable vow. Also,I dont think a memory charm prevents Marietta from apologizing,Cho would have told her all about it.

Oh, I realize one knows what the consequences are before agreeing to the unbreakable vow,but I think simular jinxes like Hermiones are probably commonplace with magical contracts.



K Stahl - Sep 9, 2005 12:30 pm (#667 of 1080)
Perhaps it is only in the muggle world that an apology enables you to avoid the consequences of your actions.



timrew - Sep 9, 2005 3:19 pm (#668 of 1080)
Let's face it. Marietta is covered in spots - and she deserved it for being a snitch (and not a golden one!).

I suppose apologising profusely, after the fact, for snitching on your mates should be rewarded. Might I suggest that one spot per year vanishes for the apology..........



Chemyst - Sep 9, 2005 4:44 pm (#669 of 1080)
pedrobobo, your "what if" story does not match the facts. To make a good analogy, it would have to be more along the line:

Let's assume for a minute that we have a couple of ordinary muggles. Muggle #1, as an act of self-preservation, digs a deep pit, and covers it up with a pink blanket so that it can no longer be seen as a pit. It now looks like a pink blanket, but you can still fall down into it. Then Muggle #1 asks Muggle #2 sign a contract to promise not to step on pink blankets. Muggle #2 signs without negative coercion, although she may have had some desire to please her Muggle peers. Muggle #2 comes walking along later, sees the pink blanket, and for whatever reason, she deliberately chooses to step onto it and consequently falls down into the pit.



Winky Woo - Sep 10, 2005 2:12 am (#670 of 1080)
Just to ask how sincere would the apology have to be? As the contract seems to be tied into intent, as not everyone gets pimples automatically when they let people know about the DA (i. e. Seamus/Neville), therefore the apology would have to be truly and deeply heartfelt. If Marietta has had her memory "adjusted" how can she give a full apology? Or maybe she can't honestly see what she did was so terrible, as really did appear to be a reluctant recruit as mentioned earlier.

When I was a teenager and I would say sorry to my Mum, for various offenses (Creeping in late, or getting drunk etc) She would retort with "You're not sorry, You're just sorry you got caught!"



Madame Pomfrey - Sep 10, 2005 6:40 am (#671 of 1080)
Chemyst,Your senerio is more precise.Love it!



Gerald Costales - Sep 11, 2005 12:43 pm (#672 of 1080)
But, once Marietta fell in the pit wouldn't a decent person (Hermione) need to help her out. I think the question is when is the punishment enough. Should Marietta be left in the pit indefinitely? ;-) GC

PS I think there is the possibly that Hermione has no counter-jinx. And that’s why Marietta remains marked with the Purple Pimples. Then again JKR is making a very definite example of Marietta. “Don’t Tread on Me!!!” ;-) GC

PPS Cho’s loyalty to Marietta could also simply be an “Unbreakable Vow”. I guess in the Wizarding World both what you sign and what you promise has more weight than in the Muggle World. ;-) GC



Steve Newton - Sep 11, 2005 2:37 pm (#673 of 1080)
I think that the punishment is to let others know the penalty for treason, as well as Marietta. With the war raging its a lesson that has to be reinforced. One person doing seems a good way of doing so.



Soul Search - Sep 12, 2005 5:01 am (#674 of 1080)
I wondered why Marietta even got a mention in HBP. JKR could have let her fade away, "sneak" pimples and all.

Does that "mention" foreshadow something in book 7?

If so, it can't be much. But what?

Will Marietta re-join the DA? When she does, then her pimples will fade.



Paulus Maximus - Sep 12, 2005 6:01 am (#675 of 1080)
I believe that Marietta is in the same year as Cho. (Such good friends tend to be in the same year.) Cho has finished her seventh year and will not be returning to Hogwarts as a student in book 7...

So if we see Marietta again, I don't think she will be a Hogwarts student either.



Soul Search - Sep 12, 2005 7:45 am (#676 of 1080)
Good point Paulus Maximus.

Of course, Fred and George have left Hogwarts, but I would think they will continue with the DA.

Does Marietta still have her galleon? Would she respond to a call?



Steve Newton - Sep 12, 2005 7:50 am (#677 of 1080)
She didn't respond in HBP.



Finn BV - Sep 12, 2005 5:39 pm (#678 of 1080)
Soul Search, I think the reason Marietta was mentioned in HBP was… because we'd all go crazy if she hadn't been. We'd be asking her for information on what happened to her in a full year with "SNEAK" and all sorts of things. So I think it was good we got her out of the way.



Gerald Costales - Sep 12, 2005 6:09 pm (#679 of 1080)
Only Neville & Luna responded to their Galleons because they benefited from the DA the most and wanted it back. Neither Marietta or Cho will be back at Hogwarts in Book 7. The only recent Hogwarts grad we have seen has been Percy. Oliver Wood is on some Quidditch team. And Fred & George didn't graduate at all.

If Harry is coming & going back & forth to Hogwarts, like Dumbledore did for most of Book 6, then Harry could bump into Cho or Marietta outside of Hogwarts. I think Cho or Marietta could land a job at the Ministry. Marietta's Mum should still be at the Ministry and help either of them to get a position. I am fairly certain that Marietta'a Mum should be at the Ministry especially since we know Umbridge is still at the Ministry. Umbridge that Toad!!! Yuck!!!

Stan, the Knight Bus attendant, is still being detained by the Ministry, what is to become of him? For all we know Stan is not a Death Eater. Whether these small details get into Book 7 to be explained is still probably 2 to 3 years away. Sigh!!! ;-) GC

PS So, does Marietta remain Pimple Faced indefinitely? What would Dumbledore have done? ;-) GC



Soul Search - Sep 12, 2005 6:46 pm (#680 of 1080)
Finn BV -- I think you are right. Now that I think about it, she must have been a throw-away character just to rat out the DA. I don't think I will miss her if she doesn't appear in book 7.

In fact, I doubt we will see Cho again either.



Madame Pomfrey - Sep 13, 2005 3:32 am (#681 of 1080)
Are we sure Marietta & Cho graduated? Didn't school end early? I am doing a reread and haven't got that far.Does anyone know for sure?



Paulus Maximus - Sep 13, 2005 6:34 am (#682 of 1080)
OWLs were postponed, so maybe NEWTs were postponed too...



Madame Pomfrey - Sep 13, 2005 3:37 pm (#683 of 1080)
In that case, we could possible see them again next year,that is,if Hogwarts is open.



Maddest Dragon - Sep 13, 2005 7:05 pm (#684 of 1080)
All the exams were postponed. Probably, if Hogwarts reopens, it will be on an odd schedule the first year or two: they'll need a term to make up that last one and administer exams (and everyone will need a refresher, because are they really going to remember everything for their exams what with everything going on?). I can see them offering remedial classes and exams to students who left because of everything going on but want to qualify for NEWTS/OWLS a year or two later... or does the WW perhaps have some sort of adult education to cover situations like that? In any case, Marietta--and Cho--may come back to Hogwarts for the NEWTS. Or they may do the testing somewhere else.



Solitaire - Sep 14, 2005 10:03 am (#685 of 1080)
All the exams were postponed.

All exams, including NEWTs and OWLs, or just regular end-of-year exams?



Paulus Maximus - Sep 14, 2005 10:47 am (#686 of 1080)
I'd like to think that by "all exams", they meant "all exams"...



Solitaire - Sep 15, 2005 9:54 am (#687 of 1080)
I thought NEWTs and OWLs came earlier in the spring than the regular year-end exams. It seemed they did back in OotP, but I do not have my book handy to check.

Solitaire



Maddest Dragon - Sep 15, 2005 5:37 pm (#688 of 1080)
Ginny was studying for her OWLS the night DD was killed, so they couldn't have happened yet.



RoseMorninStar - Sep 15, 2005 8:00 pm (#689 of 1080)
The O.W.L.s (5th year) and the N.E.W.T.s (7th year) are taken in place of the end of the year exams. All exams for each year take place in June.



Solitaire - Sep 16, 2005 9:28 am (#690 of 1080)
Thanks. I guess my brain is addled by the Muggle school in which I teach.



Gerald Costales - Sep 18, 2005 8:43 am (#691 of 1080)
The intense emotion attached to Marietta's betrayal of the DA is amazing. It was this intense back and forth that probably caused the thread to be closed.

Marietta’s betrayal though compared to Snape is in my opinion less evil. Snape's was calculating, purposeful, and mostly cold-blooded. Marietta is only 16 or maybe 17 when she talked to Umbridge. We don’t know what caused Marietta to betray the DA; jealousy of Harry, concern about her mother, etc have all been suggested. But, the reason as of yet is unknown. Marietta didn’t point a wand at someone and kill them like Snape did to Dumbledore.

Again, Marietta has fallen into a trap and now it seems is possibly permanently scarred with “SNEAK” across her forehead. Shouldn’t there be a limit to her punishment. No one from the DA was expelled or killed. Snape killed Dumbledore cold-bloodily and Snape should be the one permanently branded as a “SNEAK” not Marietta.

JKR certainly has branded Marietta as guilty. But others, even a killer, like Wormtail have been spared. We may never see either Marietta or Cho again in the Series (hopefully another school book to tie up loose ends and provide back story could be written by JKR though). But, I feel some mercy should be shown Marietta. There are greater villains than Marietta in the Series and both of them Snape and Wormtail are unmarked, loose, and regrettably free.

FREE Marietta from her Purple Pimple already. Hunt down Snape and Wormtail then destroy Voldermort. Let the true Villains be brought to Justice. Keeping Marietta branded with "SNEAK" is just spiteful at this point. ;-) GC



Solitaire - Sep 18, 2005 8:52 am (#692 of 1080)
Perhaps--as has been said many, many times before--the pimples will disappear when Marietta comes to terms with her betrayal and learns to repent it. Then again ... the Wizarding World (kids included) has been plunged into a full-scale war. No one is exempt from danger, and people must know whom they can trust. Marietta's pimples serve as a warning, even to kids, that betrayals can have lasting consequences.

Solitaire



Steve Newton - Sep 18, 2005 10:44 am (#693 of 1080)
Perfectly said, Solitaire. But then we are both scarred veterans of the Wars.



Nathan Zimmermann - Sep 18, 2005 10:58 am (#694 of 1080)
Solitaire I agree that Marietta's pimples are a clear statement that all betrayals have consequences. Marietta has shown no signs of repentance thus far. If she does indeed repent will the act of contrition be seen book 7.

Even if Marietta does repent and the pimples eventually disappear, I believe she will remain scarred mentally, emotionally, and spiritually long after the physical signs of her betrayal have vanished. Also, if the deeper scars remain I think that Marietta will less inclined to commit a second act of betrayal.



RoseMorninStar - Sep 25, 2005 12:40 am (#695 of 1080)
Edited Sep 25, 2005 2:24 am
Marietta, from the outset could not see the purpose or understand the seriousness of the situation because her character represents those in the population who believe what the government tells her in an unquestioning manner. The ministry told her there was nothing to fear and that Harry was a lying, attention seeking git and she believed them. She also believed that she was doing her (um, for lack of a better word I will say 'patriotic') duty to inform Umbridge.

I think JKR is making a point that part of the population will shut off their critical thinking skills and be lead like sheep to the slaughter if the government tells them to. It takes a huge personal tragedy to get them to wake up. Not only do I see what happened to Marietta as an interesting part of the plot, but also I think it says something (rather unsavory) about Cho. How she choses her friends, who she is as a person, and, given the fact that Marietta seemed reluctant to attend in the first place, why Cho felt she could compromise the rest of the group (given the climate at the school at the time).

This situation also tells us quite a bit about Hermione. First of all, she's one darn clever witch...surprise, surprise. Second, she thinks ahead and puts a high value on loyalty. Third, she doesn't forgive easily .... or, she doesn't know a 'cure' for her spell because she didn't think anyone would really betray them-but I doubt that. She has a pretty crafty mind. It is a bit harsh, but I think harsh times are a comin' in book 7 and it will be helpful to know where people stand.



Chemyst - Sep 25, 2005 5:10 am (#696 of 1080)
RoseMornin', you nailed it in the first paragragh; her character represents those who unquestioningly trust the government knows best.
If the "cure" is dependent upon Marietta taking responsibility for what she did, hope is on the edge of a knife.



Solitaire - Sep 25, 2005 7:45 am (#697 of 1080)
Rose, you have brought up some of the more cogent points made by various people on the original thread. Very nicely stated!

Solitaire



Ana Cis - Sep 25, 2005 9:13 am (#698 of 1080)
Edited by Sep 25, 2005 10:16 am
Rose, that's an exceptional assertion. The only thing I would add is that knowing how thorough Hermione is on her research, she probably knows a counterspell. Marietta hasn't yet satisfied Hermione's sense of justice criteria for her to counter the spell.





Gerald Costales - Sep 25, 2005 9:29 am (#699 of 1080)
“She (Marietta) also believed that she was doing her (um, for lack of a better word I will say 'patriotic') duty to inform Umbridge.” RoseMorninStar

Marietta was probably ‘patriotic’. But, I believe that Marietta’s loyalty to her mother was more a factor than patriotism. And I think Marietta more than likely probably felt comfortable going to Umbridge because Umbridge was her mother’s boss at the Ministry. Now, Marietta’s trust was misplaced. But can we really assume that Marietta’s decision was that influenced by the patriotic (government influenced) media? If Marietta is a typical teenager than Marietta was more likely to barely have time to read her textbooks than the Daily Prophet. And Marietta was more likely to listen to the Weird Sister than whatever Wizard radio or Wizard media that exists.

“ . . . I think it says something (rather unsavory) about Cho. How she choses her friends, who she is as a person, and, given the fact that Marietta seemed reluctant to attend in the first place, why Cho felt she could compromise the rest of the group (given the climate at the school at the time).” RoseMorinStar

Would you have judged Harry “unsavory” when Ron was brazenly snogging Lavender Brown? And the fact is that a somewhat manipulative Hermione had to convince a reluctant Harry to head the DA and then attend the first DA meeting at the Hog’s Head Inn “in the first place”. Was Hermione than as unsavory as Cho? Both needed to convince reluctant friends into something they really didn’t want?

I doubt the climate at the school at the time was that dark or gloomy. Umbridge was more a threat than the return of Voldermort and the Death Eaters. And Umbridge became even a greater threat when Dumbledore was forced to flee.

But, if Fred and George response to Umbridge’s reign was typical of most of the non-Slytherin students than Umbridge was just an irritation not a serious threat. Even being expelled from Hogwarts or banned from Quidditch would be an irritation compared to death. Umbridge did torture Harry with her quill during detention but those scars have faded (unlike some “Purple Pimples”).

“ . . . or, she doesn't know a 'cure' for her spell because she didn't think anyone would really betray them-but I doubt that. She has a pretty crafty mind.” RoseMorinStar

Firstly, there could be no cure for the “Purple Pimples”. Hermione’s Hexed Parchment was a cautious response to the DA’s situation and similar to locking the front door of your home before going to bed. Is there any doubt that Hermione has a cure for the “Purple Pimples”? Yes, I am the only one that doubts there is a cure.

Secondly, Hermione is “crafty” but remember the Poly Juice Potion. It was Hermione that became a giant cat not Harry or Ron. And the truth is all the talent in the World didn’t protect Dumbledore from his misplaced trust in Snape. Which goes to show that even the best Wizard or Witch can make serious blunders. ;-) GC

PS I do miss Dumbledore and for his sake I believe every effort needs to be made to have Hogwarts open and running in Book 7. ;-) GC



Solitaire - Sep 25, 2005 10:56 am (#700 of 1080)
all the talent in the World didn’t protect Dumbledore from his misplaced trust in Snape

Don't forget that there is an entire contingent of fans in the Potterverse who believe that Snape was following Dumbledore's orders ... and that Dumbledore's trust was not misplaced. I'm not saying they are correct. Remember, I do not like Snape. I am saying that things aren't always what they seem to be, particularly in Jo's world.

As for Marietta's predicament, we do not know whether Hermione has the anti-jinx or not. She does not strike me as the kind of person to perform a jinx without knowing the anti-jinx. It is possible that she needs the parchment in order to do this, and she may not have it. It is also possible that Marietta must do something she has not yet done (Apologize? Admit error and ask forgiveness?) in order to lift the jinx. We do not yet have all the information, do we?

Solitaire



RoseMorninStar - Sep 25, 2005 12:58 pm (#701 of 1080)
Gerald Costales, As far as the 'patriotic' duty comment I think it still stands. People do not need to be 'up' on the latest in politics to be loyal to a governments position. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be to say that she was loyal to the position held by the ministry, which her mother also believed, which they wanted everyone to believe that Harry was a lying attention-seeking git. Same idea.

Quote from Gerald C. : Would you have judged Harry “unsavory” when Ron was brazenly snogging Lavender Brown?

I am not quite sure I follow you on that point Gerald. But, as far as the discussion of friends goes... yes, Hermione was very manipulative in that situation. But she did convince Harry that it was the right thing to do. Harry agreed. He was a bit taken aback by how many people Hermione opened the meeting up to, but it was Harry's choice to accept and follow through with the idea. To be fair, we do not know what transpired between Cho & Marietta, but it was obvious from the begining that Marietta was dragged there. We all more or less manipulate situations so that hopefully things go to our advantage. It is an important survival skill.

The mistake with the polyjuice potion was an error. Hermione made the potion well, she just took a piece of hair off of someones sweater that she assumed to belong to the person she was trying to transform into and it just happened to belong to the person's cat. That is an mistake, not an error in judgement or ability.

As far as the 'climate' of the school I did not mean that literally..I meant it figuratively. It was oppressive ... like under a totalitarian regime. Harry still has a permanent scar that you can still read that says 'I will not tell lies' and this is from an adult who works for the government and is the head of a school!! I have to confess I do not understand why JKR has written it so that Marietta's pimples have not disappeared. Maybe it has something to do with JKR's own feelings about people who are disloyal.

I guess it all comes down to this, if Marietta didn't want to go to the meetings she shouldn't have been forced to go and should have said so. There is a difference between being convinced and reasoned with into doing something and being coerced. While I felt Marietta deserved what she got...she was told that signing that paper meant that they would not tell....I don't think it should be a 'forever' punishment.



Gerald Costales - Sep 25, 2005 2:58 pm (#702 of 1080)
" . . . I have to confess I do not understand why JKR has written it so that Marietta's pimples have not disappeared. Maybe it has something to do with JKR's own feelings about people who are disloyal.

I guess it all comes down to this, if Marietta didn't want to go to the meetings she shouldn't have been forced to go and should have said so. There is a difference between being convinced and reasoned with into doing something and being coerced. While I felt Marietta deserved what she got...she was told that signing that paper meant that they would not tell....I don't think it should be a 'forever' punishment." RoseMorninStar

Betrayal does invoke strong emotions and JKR must have good reasons to have Marietta still marked with “SNEAK” emblazoned on her guilty forehead.

And I have been arguing that those “Purple Pimples” should not a ‘forever’ punishment. What is in store for Marietta and Cho is anyone’s guess. ;-) GC

PS Sigh!!! Probably at least three more years before Book 7. I need to get to some other threads. My arguments are all tapped out for now. ;-) GC

PPS Solitare, if there an anti-jinx will it play out in Book 7? ;-) GC

PPPS Closing thoughts.

......................"The quality of mercy is not strained;

......................It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven

......................Upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed-

......................It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes."

......................William Shakespeare

It could also read -

......................"It blesseth her that jinxes, and her that is jinxed." ;-) GC



Mrs Brisbee - Sep 26, 2005 4:58 am (#703 of 1080)
Marietta, from the outset could not see the purpose or understand the seriousness of the situation because her character represents those in the population who believe what the government tells her in an unquestioning manner. The ministry told her there was nothing to fear and that Harry was a lying, attention seeking git and she believed them. She also believed that she was doing her (um, for lack of a better word I will say 'patriotic') duty to inform Umbridge. --RoseMorninStar

I think you may have nailed it.

This brings up another question, though, that is related to Marietta but has more to do with the Wizarding World at large: how are people on the outside going to decide who to trust if the Good Guys aren't talking --or if they are talking but can't get their story out to be heard?

Those that knew Harry or Dumbledore personally have a good basis on which to decide whether they can trust that what they say is true in OotP, despite the lack of hard evidence. Harry in OotP quite naturally didn't want to talk about Voldemort's bebirthing, and Dumbledore didn't offer the world at large any details about what happened. The students at Hogwarts were uninformed, and they wanted to know. Harry does finally go public, and it does a world of good, because people can finally factor in his story to their decision.

In HBP we see the same thing happening with the withholding of information, this time about what happened at the MoM and "The Chosen One" sticker. And this time most people are unquestioning and fawning towards Harry.

If Marietta represents the Sheep, then the Skeptics are being represented by our obnoxious Hufflepuff, Zacharias Smith.

He is obnoxious, questioning, pestering. He won't follow blindly. He wants answers to things that profoundly effect his life-- and everyone elses life for that matter. Harry's clique dislikes him. Ginny has attacked him twice because she doesn't like the things he says (he is obnoxious about it).

I wonder what Rowling is saying about those who want answers, if Zacharias Smith is an archetype like Marietta?



Steve Newton - Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm (#704 of 1080)
Rose, I think that Hermione was not being manipulative with Harry. To me manipulative means having a hidden agenda. Hermione seems to me to be convincing and persistent but not manipulative.



RoseMorninStar - Sep 26, 2005 5:19 pm (#705 of 1080)
Steve, when I was discussing 'manipulative behavior' it was because Gerald G. was comparing what I said about Marietta and Cho to Hermione's behavior. Yes, Hermionee was a bit manipulative because she wasn't up front with Harry at first about how many people she had already told about starting up a DADA group before she ran it by Harry. So, although I do not see Hermione as a negatively 'manipulative', because I think she has Harry's best interests at heart, I think she was a bit manipulative in that situation.



Steve Newton - Sep 27, 2005 4:56 am (#706 of 1080)
She did low ball him on the number of people attending, didn't she. Manipulative? I'll have to think about it.



Honour - Sep 30, 2005 8:05 pm (#707 of 1080)
Hey wouldn't it be funny if that in order for Harry to get access to the Ravenclaw horcux he has to go through Marietta, who would not be too enthusiastic and would demand that Hermione would have to grovel to her as well as reverse the 'purple pus filled pimple' hex? (try saying that 3 times - purple pus pilled pimple pex!).



Soul Search - Jun 25, 2006 9:01 am (#708 of 1080)
There may be hope for Marietta.

In HBP, "Draco's Detour," Ginny asks "What's this? Fred responds: "Guaranteed ten-second pimple vanisher. Excellent on everything from boils to blackheads, ..."

Now, it doesn't mention "purple pus-pilled pimples," but might be worth a try. Seems a strange thing to mention in a shop filled with neat magic; must be there for Marietta.

Question is, will Marietta ever go into the shop to find it?



Finn BV - Jun 25, 2006 9:35 am (#709 of 1080)
I doubt we'll hear of Marietta again, to be honest. Hermione's charm, whatever it was, wasn't strong enough to overpower a full-grown wizard's magic (such as that of her parents). I would suspect that you just have to guess that they were removed off-camera (book).



wynnleaf - Jun 25, 2006 11:46 am (#710 of 1080)
I doubt we'll hear of Marietta again, to be honest. Hermione's charm, whatever it was, wasn't strong enough to overpower a full-grown wizard's magic (such as that of her parents). I would suspect that you just have to guess that they were removed off-camera (book).

You might be right. But if that was all there was to it, why didn't JKR cease mentioning Marietta's problem after OOTP? Still, one would think that after another year has passed (at the start of Book 7) would be a little late to be still trying to figure out what to do about Marietta. Still, the curious thing is that JKR decided to bring up Marietta in HBP -- what has her intent?



Finn BV - Jun 25, 2006 11:49 am (#711 of 1080)
True, true… I have no answer… Do you have the page number where she's brought up again? Don't feel like searching for it myself.



Solitaire - Jun 25, 2006 1:41 pm (#712 of 1080)
Finn, she is mentioned in Chapter 7, The Slug Club, about half-way through. Harry sees her as he and Neville are making their way to Slughorn's compartment for lunch.

Solitaire



Finn BV - Jun 25, 2006 6:20 pm (#713 of 1080)
Thanks Soli.



Madame Pomfrey - Jul 16, 2006 1:04 pm (#714 of 1080)
That passage alone makes me think we will hear about both Marietta and Cho in book 7. When Cho saw Harry approach,she darted into her compartment and Harry saw her deep in determined conversation with Marietta,who had caked on make-up that did not totally hide the pimples etched across her face.

Was Cho trying to get Marietta to appologize to Harry? If she appologizes with sincerity,will her pimples fade? Perhaps Cho thinks that if Marietta appologizes Hermione may lift the jinx. I would really like to know what that conversation was about.

Also,the fact that she is able to wear just makeup and not having to wear a balaclava mean that the pimples are fading?



Solitaire - Jul 16, 2006 6:48 pm (#715 of 1080)
Even though I am strongly in the "Marietta got what she deserved" camnp, I would like to see the pimples eventually go and Marietta admit to learning a lesson. I would also like to know if Hermione knows the counter-jinx. Just idle curiosity ...

Solitaire



The One - Jul 16, 2006 11:07 pm (#716 of 1080)
To me it looks that Marietta and Cho no longer has any important role to play. I am not even sure we will be told what eventually happens to the pimples.

Which is a bit harsh, she has been punished enough and then some.



Solitaire - Jul 17, 2006 6:39 am (#717 of 1080)
Aren't both Cho and Marietta a year older than Harry? If so, he probably will not see them. I certainly do not expect Marietta to become involved in the Order! Like you, however, I would like to see some closure on the pimple issue.

Solitaire



haymoni - Jul 17, 2006 7:03 am (#718 of 1080)
Maybe there will be some mention of Hermione sending Marietta a jar of Fred & George's cream that she used on her black eye.

That would make ME feel better!



Madame Pomfrey - Jul 17, 2006 8:47 am (#719 of 1080)
I agree,Soli.Marietta got what she deserved. Hermione had marked a book in the RoR titled "Jinxes for the Jinxed" Hmm..maybe a counterspell? Maybe Cho will be at the wedding.Did she befriend Fleur? I can't rememeber.



Solitaire - Jul 17, 2006 9:46 am (#720 of 1080)
My only qualm about Marietta has been the memory modification. Does she truly remember why those pimples are there? I'm sure she has been told, but that is different from knowing and understanding it for herself.

One thing I cannot understand, if she does remember, is why she and Cho have not come to Harry and admitted that Marietta was mistaken about Harry's motives. I suppose they are embarrassed, but it might be a point of healing in Cho's and Harry's friendship, and it could be the key to making Marietta's pimples disappear forever. Too bad they don't try ...

Solitaire



Finn BV - Jul 17, 2006 5:15 pm (#721 of 1080)
I completely agree, Soli. Why would she just sort of shrug them (the pimples) off?

I like haymoni's idea – Hermione sending her Fred and George's cream – because that would be Hermione's "apology", in a way. She caused their existence, she caused their extinguishing.



Choices - Jul 17, 2006 5:44 pm (#722 of 1080)
I'm sorry, but I don't think Hermione owes Marietta anything. I think it is Marietta who owes the entire DA an apology for being a snitch.



Finn BV - Jul 17, 2006 6:29 pm (#723 of 1080)
Choices, I agree. What I meant more was not "apology" but more like Hermione beginning and ending the cycle. I, of course, am hoping for the apology from Marietta.



Solitaire - Jul 17, 2006 7:12 pm (#724 of 1080)
Oh, Choices, I do not think Hermione owes her. I would, however, like to see Marietta acknowledge her error and apologize. Not only do I think she owes that to Harry, but I also think it would be an important step in her own maturing process. But I have to confess, I really want to know if Hermione can do the counter-jinx for the pimples ... don't you?

Solitaire



Steve Newton - Jul 17, 2006 7:14 pm (#725 of 1080)
She got, and is getting, off easy.



Miss Amanda - Jul 17, 2006 7:15 pm (#726 of 1080)
Well, yes, I'd like to know if Hermione cast a jinx she couldn't undo, but it would be much more fun if we found out whether Hermione knows the spell Eloise Midgen used to try to curse her pimples off!



haymoni - Jul 18, 2006 4:59 am (#727 of 1080)
I thought that didn't work!

The whole episode with Hermione's black eye and the cream was sort of strange.

What was the purpose of Hermione getting a black eye? Why would Fred & George have the cure? I guess everything they create must have an antidote.

Maybe it was to show that they are respectable proprietors and take responsibility for any damage they may cause.

But that cream seems to be pretty useful.

Maybe Marietta is mentioned in the Epilogue as buying some of Fred & George's cream and living happily ever after.



Solitaire - Jul 18, 2006 7:13 am (#728 of 1080)
Wasn't Hermione hit in the eye with a punching telescope?



Madame Pomfrey - Jul 18, 2006 7:33 am (#729 of 1080)
While I agree that Marietta got what she deserved,I think that she needs to appologize and Harry needs to forgive.Harry needs every willing D.A. member that he can get. With Dumbledore gone and every eye on Harry,he will need his back watched.Hopefully the DA will keep the death nibblers at bay while the Order does the same with the DE,so that Harry can search for his horcruxes.If Marrietta is not sincere and chooses to stay out of it then the heck with her,Let the pimples stay.

Also,Marietta signed a magical contract,Does this mean that she cannot get out even if she wanted to?



Steve Newton - Jul 18, 2006 8:04 am (#730 of 1080)
My understanding of Muggle contracts is that wanting to get out of one doesn't get you out. Both sides have to agree. Who knows how magical contracts work?


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Mona on Thu May 19, 2011 12:24 am; edited 3 times in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 59
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Posts 731 to 770

Post  Mona Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:40 am

Solitaire - Jul 18, 2006 8:17 am (#731 of 1080)
If Marietta sincerely apologized, I think Hermione and Harry are big enough to accept it and move on ... don't you?

I believe Steve is right. Remember Dumbledore's comments on the event of Harry's name coming out of the Goblet of Fire? Everyone expected him to disqualify Harry, I think, but he seems to indicate that being named a champion by the Goblet signified some sort of magical agreement that the champion would see the tournament through to its conclusion. Well, that was my understanding of things.

Solitaire



Finn BV - Jul 18, 2006 8:57 am (#732 of 1080)
Obviously, if it could have happened, Dumbledore would have withdrawn Harry. The point is that it's a very serious event and not for the faint-hearted (to steal a movie line). They don't want you just throwing in your name only to find out that you don't really want to compete. If you submit your name, and it's picked, you must compete, and to make sure that there isn't any sort of bribery going on, a charm was placed upon the Goblet a long time ago to ensure that whoever was picked would compete.



TheSaint - Jul 19, 2006 8:29 pm (#733 of 1080)
My problem with that is Harry did not submit his name. The contract was forged. There had to be a way of letting him out of it, DD choose to let him go ahead. DD seems to know how things will turn out in the end...did he know what events would transpire beforehand? And were they part of the master plan?

As for Marrietta, I think Hermione should end this already. I think the lesson is learned. Her continuation of it is only spiteful now. While I know her betrayl was major, the pressures she was under from her parents as well as Umbridge were probably too much for her young years. I was hoping Hermione would have bought some of Fred and George's cream and somehow it made its way to Marietta.



Steve Newton - Jul 20, 2006 3:34 am (#734 of 1080)
Marietta may, or may not, have learned her lesson. But in time of was, which this is, everyone must learn the lesson that traitors will be punished. It encourages the others.



haymoni - Jul 20, 2006 5:03 am (#735 of 1080)
I suppose Dumbledore could have gotten him out of it, but everyone turned to Imperio'd Barty Crouch for a final decision.

Or am I movie-contaminated once again??



The One - Jul 20, 2006 6:03 am (#736 of 1080)
I am pretty sure in the book Dumbledore is the one that says it is inevitable that Harry will compete. He Maxime is angry, and he says something like: "My Dear Maxime, if you have any other solution I will be deligthed to hear it!"



haymoni - Jul 20, 2006 6:20 am (#737 of 1080)
I actually have GOF at work - miracle of miracles!

"Mr. Crouch...Mr. Bagman," said Karkaroff, his voice unctuous once more, "you are our - er - objective judges. Surely you will agree that this is most irregular?"

Bagman wiped his round, boyish face with his handkerchief and looked at Mr. Crouch, who was standing outside the circle of the firelight, his face half hidden in shadow. He looked slightly eerie, the half darkness making him look much older, giving him an almost skull-like appearance. When he spoke, however, it was in his usual curt voice.

"We must follow the rules, and the rules state clearly that those people whose names come out of the Goblet of Fire are bound to compete in the tournament."

"Well, Barty knows the rule book back to front," said Bagman, beaming and turning back to Karkaroff and Madame Maxime, as though the matter was now closed.

So, they did base their decision on Barty. The other schools wanted to drop their other students names in but the Goblet had gone out. Dumbledore asked for other suggestions when they protested, but nobody came up with anything.

I don't know if Dumbledore could have done anything or not.



The One - Jul 20, 2006 10:46 am (#738 of 1080)
Yes, but after that section there is a lot of bickering, and the matter is not closed until Dumbledore has spoken.

"Well, Barty knows the rule book back to front," said Bagman, beaming and turning back to Karkaroff and Madame Maxime, as though the matter was now closed.

"I insist upon resubmitting the names of the rest of my students," said Karkaroff. He had dropped his unctuous tone and his smile now. His face wore a very ugly look indeed. "You will set up the Goblet of Fire once more, and we will continue adding names until each school has two champions. It's only fair, Dumbledore."

"But Karkaroff, it doesn't work like that," said Bagman. "The Goblet of Fire's just gone out - it won't reignite until the start of the next tournament -" "- in which Durmstrang will most certainly not be competing!" exploded Karkaroff. "After all our meetings and negotiations and compromises, I little expected something of this nature to occur! I have half a mind to leave now!"

"Empty threat, Karkaroff," growled a voice from near the door. "You can't leave your champion now. He's got to compete. They've all got to compete. Binding magical contract, like Dumbledore said. Convenient, eh?"

Moody had just entered the room. He limped toward the fire, and with every right step he took, there was a loud clunk. "Convenient?" said Karkaroff. "I'm afraid I don't understand you, Moody."

Harry could tell he was trying to sound disdainful, as though what Moody was saying was barely worth his notice, but his hands gave him away; they had balled themselves into fists.

"Don't you?" said Moody quietly. "It's very simple, Karkaroff. Someone put Potter's name in that goblet knowing he'd have to compete if it came out."

"Evidently, someone 'oo wished to give 'Ogwarts two bites at ze apple!" said Madame Maxime.

"I quite agree, Madame Maxime," said Karkaroff, bowing to her. "I shall be lodging complaints with the Ministry of Magic and the International Confederation of Wizards -"

"If anyone's got reason to complain, it's Potter," growled Moody, "but. . . funny thing. . . I don't hear him saying a word. . . "Why should 'e complain?" burst out Fleur Delacour, stamping her foot. "E 'as ze chance to compete, 'asn't 'e? We 'ave all been 'oping to be chosen for weeks and weeks! Ze honour for our schools! A thousand Galleons in prize money - zis is a chance many would die for!" "Maybe someone's hoping Potter is going to die for it," said Moody, with the merest trace of a growl.

An extremely tense silence followed these words. Ludo Bagman, who was looking very anxious indeed, bounced nervously up and down on his feet and said, "Moody, old man. . . what a thing to say!"

"We all know Professor Moody considers the morning wasted if he hasn't discovered six plots to murder him before lunchtime," said Karkaroff loudly. "Apparently he is now teaching his students to fear assassination too. An odd quality in a Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher, Dumbledore, but no doubt you had your reasons.

"Imagining things, am I?" growled Moody. "Seeing things, eh? It was a skilled witch or wizard who put the boy's name in that goblet. . .

"Ah, what evidence is zere of zat?" said Madame Maxime, throwing up her huge hands.

"Because they hoodwinked a very powerful magical object!" said Moody. "It would have needed an exceptionally strong Confundus Charm to bamboozle that goblet into forgetting that only three schools compete in the tournament.. . . I'm guessing they submitted Potter's name under a fourth school, to make sure he was the only one in his category.. . ."

"You seem to have given this a great deal of thought, Moody," said Karkaroff coldly, "and a very ingenious theory it is - though of course, I heard you recently got it into your head that one of your birthday presents contained a cunningly disguised basilisk egg, and smashed it to pieces before realising it was a carriage clock. So you'll understand if we don't take you entirely seriously. . . ."

"There are those who'll turn innocent occasions to their advantage," Moody retorted in a menacing voice. "It's my job to think the way Dark wizards do, Karkaroff - as you ought to remember...

"Alastor!" said Dumbledore warningly. Harry wondered for a moment whom he was speaking to, but then realised "Mad-Eye" could hardly be Moody's real first name. Moody fell silent, though still surveying Karkaroff with satisfaction - Karkaroff's face was burning.

"How this situation arose, we do not know," said Dumbledore, speaking to everyone gathered in the room. "It seems to me, however, that we have no choice but to accept it. Both Cedric and Harry have been chosen to compete in the Tournament. This, therefore, they will do. .

"Ah, but Dumbly-dorr -" "My dear Madame Maxime, if you have an alternative, I would be delighted to hear it."

Dumbledore waited, but Madame Maxime did not speak, she merely glared. She wasn't the only one either. Snape looked furious; Karkaroff livid; Bagman, however, looked rather excited.

"Well, shall we crack on, then?" he said, rubbing his hands together and smiling around the room.



haymoni - Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am (#739 of 1080)
Yes - that's what I just said. People protested. Dumbledore asked for suggestions, but they have to accept "it" - I'm guessing "it" is that Harry's name came out of the Goblet so he has to compete - what Barty said.

If Dumbledore really could stop Harry from competing, I don't think he would have solicited suggestions from anyone. He would have just stopped it.

If it were truly in his ability to stop Harry from competing, I think he would have done so.

I still want to know what would have happened if Harry said no. Would he have dropped over dead?

What if he would have gone into the dragon arena, looked around and walked out? What if he had jumped into the lake and jumped back out? What if he had just hung out with the Sphinx and told her "Thanks, but no thanks, I really don't feel like a riddle today"?

Now back to our regularly scheduled program about the lovely Sneak, Miss Marietta Edgecombe.



Solitaire - Jul 20, 2006 11:53 am (#740 of 1080)
Given what happened to Marietta, I wonder what would have happened had one of the champions attempted to refuse to compete. Would a blanket refusal have invoked a type of Imperius Curse that would force him to compete? Would he have died? I'm curious to know. I hope Jo tells us at some point.

Solitaire



Regan of Gong - Jul 21, 2006 4:51 am (#741 of 1080)
Why do people feel sorry for Marietta? She's a sneak, who ratted on the DA to a Ministry official when the DA were, in theory, practising to save theirs and others lives. Keeping in mind that Umbridge would have definately expelled them, and probably not stopped short of criminally convicting them, with the worst situation being Azakaban.

The worst possible outcome is that she has endanged the lives of various people. Of course, this is a fairly extreme outcome, but nonetheless, I don't understand why you think she's learned her lesson or has been punished enough. She was adequately warned and choose to ignore the warning in which the magical contract came into effect and suitably punished her.



Steve Newton - Jul 21, 2006 5:01 am (#742 of 1080)
Regan, I have never been able to understand that, either.



haymoni - Jul 21, 2006 5:17 am (#743 of 1080)
She was 16 - it seemed as though she was coming to the meetings because Cho was dragging her. She was getting pressure from her parents not to go against Umbridge, so I could understand her wanting to do what was right, according to her parents. She'd be in trouble with her parents if she followed the DA and she'd be in trouble with her friends if she ratted them out.

Hermione's curse was mean, because no one had any warning. I think that was Cho's point - if Hermione had told them, "By the way, before you sign up to be part of this group, I have cursed this sheet of paper. If any of you rat us out, you'll be sorry!"

They would have had some sort of warning and could have made the decision right then & there if they were really, truly committed to this. We could tell from the beginning that Marietta didn't want to be there.

I think she has been punished enough. Everything Umbridge had worked against has been eliminated - everyone believes that Voldy has returned.

I think Hermione should send her a jar of Fred & George's cream.



Steve Newton - Jul 21, 2006 5:42 am (#744 of 1080)
First of all, it was a hex not a curse. (No, I don't know the difference.) I don't recall any evidence that she was being pressured by her parents. If she was weak enough to be 'forced' to attend by Cho, so be it. Her problem. Unless she was imperioed by Umbridge (I think that there are hints) to betray her friends and compatriots, she got off easy.



Solitaire - Jul 21, 2006 7:11 am (#745 of 1080)
First of all, it was a hex not a curse.

Actually, it was a jinx. "... I put a jinx on that piece of parchment we all signed," said Hermione grimly. "Believe me, if anyone's run off and told Umbridge, we'll know exactly who they are and they will really regret it." BTW, I don't know the difference between hexes and jinxes, either.

Regan, I think most of us believe she deserved what she got for breaking her contract--and yes, it was a contract. What I am curious about is whether she remembers what she did to warrant the "sneaky pimples." I hope she does, because if she does not, then the point of it all is lost on her. Remember that her memory was modified.

Since Marietta's parents have not confronted Hermione about the jinx, however, I have to believe they understand the seriousness of what their daughter did. They seem to have decided to allow her "punishment," for want of a better word, to stand.

Solitaire

Edit: Thinking about it, I suppose that even if the result of Marietta's treachery is lost on her, it is still a lesson to the others who signed ... about the importance and binding nature of magical contracts.



haymoni - Jul 21, 2006 7:48 am (#746 of 1080)
I could have sworn that Cho or somebody commented on the fact that Marietta's parents worked at the Ministry and they told her to follow Umbridge.

Quote anyone???

Marietta's parents aren't going to say a word, because Voldy is back and her daughter helped to delay the MOM's response.



Soul Search - Jul 21, 2006 8:32 am (#747 of 1080)
We have had references to magical contracts in GoF (Harry had to compete,) OotP (DA and Marietta,) and HBP (Snape's unbreakable vow.)

Harry competing in GoF was rather important to that storyline. The DA contract and Marietta breaking it was rather incidental to the OotP storyline. Snape's unbreakable vow was, or will be, important to the HBP storyline.

I guess what I am wondering, are all these references to magical contracts preparing us for something in book seven?



Choices - Jul 21, 2006 8:47 am (#748 of 1080)
"Marietta's mother, Minister," she added, looking up at Fudge, "is Madam Edgecomb from the Department of Magical Transportation."

Madam Edgecomb (Floo Network) had been helping to monitor the fires at Hogwarts.



haymoni - Jul 21, 2006 9:02 am (#749 of 1080)
Thanks, Choices.

Maybe I just assumed they were giving her a hard time, but I thought there was a quote from Cho.

Maybe in the Room of Requirement?



Solitaire - Jul 21, 2006 9:06 am (#750 of 1080)
That's what I mean ... her mom worked at the Ministry. Yet, as far as we know, she has not been up to Hogwarts, demanding to see Hermione or raising Cain about Marietta's pimples. Doesn't that seem odd to anyone else? Or do you suppose she is now ashamed/embarrassed about having (probably) told Marietta to steer clear of that nutty Harry Potter?

Solitaire



haymoni - Jul 21, 2006 9:12 am (#751 of 1080)
That's what I think, Solitare.

Or...maybe Marietta's mom is busy kissing butt at the Ministry like everyone else who was in denial over Voldy's return.

That quote is really bothering me.

I thought Cho was trying to tell Harry that Marietta was OK - that she was just getting a lot of pressure from her parents.

I'm still at work so I can't check it out. I only have GOF with me.



Solitaire - Jul 21, 2006 9:44 am (#752 of 1080)
Cho does call Harry over one evening, as he is on his way to Snape's office.

"... well, I just wanted to say… Harry, I never dreamed Marietta would tell ..."
"She's a lovely person really," said Cho. "She just made a mistake--"
Harry looked at her incredulously.
"A lovely person who made a mistake? She sold us all out, including you!"
"Well ... we all got away, didn't we?" said Cho pleadingly. "You know, her mum works for the Ministry, it's really difficult for her--"
"Ron's dad works for the Ministry too!" Harry said furiously. "And in case you hadn't noticed, he hasn't got sneak written across his face--"
"That was a really horrible trick of Hermione Granger's," said Cho fiercely. "She should have told us she'd jinxed that list--"

Is this the passage to which you were referring, Haymoni? It is in Chapter 28.

Solitaire



haymoni - Jul 21, 2006 10:00 am (#753 of 1080)
For some reason I thought it was before that.

Maybe I've just imagined it!

Or maybe I'm channelling the script writer for OotP!!!



TheSaint - Jul 21, 2006 6:06 pm (#754 of 1080)
Why do I want Hermione to fix it?

I think Marietta deserved what she got...it has now been years and the jinx is still on. It is not so much that I think it is bad for Marrietta, I think it looks bad on Hermione. Not to mention Harry who is laughing about it still.

Yes, things could have happened badly, but they didn't. Everyone in the world knows Harry was right now, I just don't see the reason for them to be scarring someone themselves. Does this make them any better than the one they have marked?



Choices - Jul 22, 2006 9:24 am (#755 of 1080)
I just can't see that Hermione is at any fault here. She simply wrote the contract. Marietta is the one who signed it, agreeing to it's terms, and then she broke the contract. She is paying the consequence. Hermione didn't force her to sign. People are always trying to worm out of promises - they don't want to be held to their word - they want to change their minds and then just forget about their promise. Marietta is being reminded that she is indeed a sneak. Hopefully, in the future, her word will mean something. I think Hermione and the other DA members have a right to expect people to keep their promises when not doing so jeopardizes the entire group.



TheSaint - Jul 22, 2006 9:43 am (#756 of 1080)
I just can't see that Hermione is at any fault here.

It is called Mercy, Forgiveness, Being the bigger person. I surely hope I would not be held to all those stupid things I said as a teenager. Can you imagine having to stay with your high school sweety because you gave him your word that you loved him? With your best friend that you vowed to become a test pilot with? With your father that made you vow never to get on a motorcycle and you never got to feel 168mph?

My little sister confided in me one day, when we were about 8 or 9 that she had snuck out of the house, gotten on her bike and rode down the main road to watch the drive thru movie that was on the end of our street. In the night mind you (and the 70's). She made me promise not to tell of course, but it was a promise I could not keep. I was terrified at the very prospect of her riding her bike down there in the middle of the night. If I had kept that promise, God knows what would have happened. Same way we have no way of knowing what might have happened had Marrieta not told, and Umbridge had caught them red handed.

Grudges are petty and only reflect poorly on yourself.



Solitaire - Jul 22, 2006 10:30 am (#757 of 1080)
Grudges are petty and only reflect poorly on yourself.

True ... look at Snape. I don't really see what happened to Marietta as a grudge, exactly. She is just bearing the consequences of her actions. Perhaps when she has learned that lesson, her spots will disappear. I'm interested, though, in finding out more about the situation--whether there is a counter-jinx, what her parents said, etc. Enquiring minds want to know!

Solitaire



Choices - Jul 22, 2006 12:40 pm (#758 of 1080)
I think when Marietta acknowledges what she has done and apologizes to all concerned, the spots will disappear.



Honour - Jul 22, 2006 10:59 pm (#759 of 1080)
Maybe also, Marietta's breaking of the contract (a contract made with friends) was also a timely reminder of the secret Peter Pettigrew told to one Voldermort that ended in the killing of Harry's parents. There are always consequences.

If Marietta's parents really wanted their daughters pimples to be healed/removed why, all they had to do was have a word with the most powerful wizard of all time, Dumbledore I am sure he or Poppy would have cleared them up quick smart! Maybe Marietta hasn't learned her lesson Yet?

And as for our Hermione well she's brilliant, scary though, but brilliant nevertheless...Smile



Solitaire - Jul 23, 2006 3:11 am (#760 of 1080)
I believe Madam Pomfrey was unable to do anything about Marietta's pimples.



wynnleaf - Jul 23, 2006 4:48 am (#761 of 1080)
What bothers me most about Hermione's "contract" is that the hex (or whatever) on Marietta wasn't part of the contract. That "sneak" hex wasn't a preventative at all, nor was it planned to be, because Hermione never told anyone about it prior to their signing. She didn't even ask Harry and Ron what they thought before she did it. So what was the purpose of the hex if not to act as a deterrent to breaking the contract?

Hermione (I think) indicated that it was so they would know who had told on the DA. But even that didn't need a permanent hex, did it? My feeling about the hex was that it was primarily a revenge measure.

No one was really warned that there'd be any penalty for divulging info about the DA, only that they shouldn't do it.

Further, HRH had a lot of inside information about LV. They knew he had returned. Most of the students have to take DD's word for it. Well, I suppose they could take Harry's word for it, but aside from all the "boy who lived stuff" and having done some other brave things, what do the other kids really know about Harry's past dealings with LV? Why should a kid who doesn't really know Harry trust him so much more than her parents and the group that her parents tend to agree with? DD is an adult, the headmaster, and famous, but that doesn't mean that all the students have some sort of obligation to believe him over their own parents. There's no ethical notion that it's "good" to trust DD, but "bad" to trust your parents or other adults if their ideas conflict with DD's.

So I don't think Marietta is terribly at fault for not believing DD or Harry and following the general opinions of her family and other ministry officials who don't think the LV threat is a big deal.

If she didn't think the LV threat was a big deal, than for her, "telling" on the DA isn't quite as bad an action as if she did think LV was back.

I'm rather amazed that a permanent brand (not literally, but the words on her face, I mean) across the face is somehow just "punishment" -- it's really vengeance -- for Marietta's action.

And Hermione has apparently absolutely no second thoughts. Of course, that's not really surprising. Hermione has no second thoughts that I can recall about her treatment of the elves which is actually a devious way of trying to force them to do something she thinks is good for them, but would totally change their lives in a way that they don't want.

wynnleaf (who has recently been informed by those who know her well, that she is much like Hermione -- oh no!)



TheSaint - Jul 23, 2006 5:55 am (#762 of 1080)
Excellent point Wynnleaf.

Enough with the scarlet letters already!



Steve Newton - Jul 23, 2006 6:04 am (#763 of 1080)
Marietta intentionally, probably, hosed twenty-some of her classmates, including her best friend. Do you really think that she needed a warning that there would be negative consequences?



TheSaint - Jul 23, 2006 6:10 am (#764 of 1080)
And do you think these negative consequences should follow her into adulthood and beyond? Where do you draw the line? Do we ever close her juvenile record? Lots of people with first stones here.



TwinklingBlueEyes - Jul 23, 2006 6:45 am (#765 of 1080)
Seems to me that some consequences of actions of actions as a teen DO follow you throughout your life.

JM2K



wynnleaf - Jul 23, 2006 6:54 am (#766 of 1080)
Seems to me that some consequences of actions of actions as a teen DO follow you throughout your life.

I believe the question was not whether they do, but whether they in this case, they should.



Steve Newton - Jul 23, 2006 6:57 am (#767 of 1080)
I could go either way on the issue. She endangered her friends and classmates. Its a lesson she should carry the rest of her life. And a lesson those who see her should also learn.



TwinklingBlueEyes - Jul 23, 2006 7:24 am (#768 of 1080)
I agree Steve.



haymoni - Jul 23, 2006 7:29 am (#769 of 1080)
It is completely possible that Hermione, like Harry with Sectumsempra, used a hex not knowing what the exact consequences would be.

I'm sure she knew it would cause the person to be marked as a Sneak, but she may not have know that it would last this long.

Maybe someone should ask JKR on 8/1 or 8/2 if there is hope for Marietta's disfigurement.



Madame Pomfrey - Jul 23, 2006 7:45 am (#770 of 1080)
Hermione said that in signing the contract,the person was agreeing not to tell nobody,especially Umbridge.Marietta told the specified person.If she was so set against the DA and going against her parents and the Ministry she should have just quit going to the meetings and kept her mouth shut.Who was she to decide what was better for everyone involved? If Marietta's pimples clear after a sincere appology,which I think she owes,then maybe it will help to unite the houses.If she doesn't appologize and the pimples stay-oh,well.Personally,I think they will fade after a time.She being able to wear makeup and discard the balaclava may prove this. Hopefully the pimple experience will keep her from making possibly worse mistakes in the future.

It is too bad that James had not done a little hexing when Wormtail agreed to become his secret keeper,It might have saved his and Lily's lives.



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Mona on Thu May 19, 2011 12:25 am; edited 3 times in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 59
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Posts 771 to 820

Post  Mona Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:42 am

Solitaire - Jul 23, 2006 8:33 am (#771 of 1080)
Further, HRH had a lot of inside information about LV. They knew he had returned. Most of the students have to take DD's word for it.

At the point where the contract was signed, Ron and Hermione had only Harry and Dumbledore's word for it that Voldemort had returned. Yes, as Harry's friends they had additional information ... but it was still only Harry's account. Even Dumbledore had not seen Voldemort with his own eyes; he was working from Barty's confession and Harry's account.

Personally, I think there must have been some caveat attached to the jinx--that telling someone about the DA had to involve intent to betray them. Otherwise, Dean Thomas would have been marked for telling Seamus about the DA, and he obviously was not.

I do think it is unfortunate that Marietta has to go through life marked, but I also believe she betrayed her schoolmates. To the question of whether or not the consequences of Marietta's actions should follow her for life ... some consequences do follow us for life. Marietta was the same age Harry is now--just one year away from legal adulthood--when she betrayed the DA. Were she to betray someone as an adult, the consequences could be far more serious than having SNEAK written across her face in pimples--they could involved death or imprisonment to her or someone else.

I hope some future opportunity arises for Marietta to redeem herself, and I hope she takes it. I still can't help feeling that going to Harry and Hermione, acknowledging her error, and apologizing for (rather than trying to justify) what she did might have the desired result of clearing the pimplest. JM2K on that, of course ... BTW, I still think the Trio really expected Zacharias Smith to be the traitor, if there was one.

Solitaire



Steve Newton - Jul 23, 2006 9:26 am (#772 of 1080)
Seamus may have been told about the DA before the signing.



Solitaire - Jul 23, 2006 9:52 am (#773 of 1080)
It is possible that he knew they were planning some sort of study group, but it doesn't appear that Hermione was fully "up front" when she was initially soliciting people to come to that first meeting. Even if he knew there was some sort of class being held, he would not know exactly where or when it was being held. Dean would still have had to reveal some specifics--unless Seamus approached and asked him, and Dean said nothing but simply brought him along.

I still hope to find out exactly how Hermione jinxed that parchment and what the counter-jinx is. As persnickety as she has always been with Harry about proper magic "protocol" and fairness, I can't imagine she would cast a jinx for which she has no counter-jinx.

Solitaire



Soul Search - Jul 23, 2006 9:57 am (#774 of 1080)
I think we might be missing the point of Marietta being mentioned in HBP.

Does Marietta regret ratting to Umbridge, now that she knows Harry was telling the truth? Is she angry with her mother? Has she had a falling out because her mother supported the Ministry's efforts to discredit Harry? Does she feel guilty?

My thoughts are that a guilt ridden Marietta will try to redeem herself in everyone's eyes by doing something heroic, and getting killed for it. The pimples will fade, then.



Solitaire - Jul 23, 2006 10:59 am (#775 of 1080)
I hope it does not take her death for that to happen.



TheSaint - Jul 23, 2006 11:37 am (#776 of 1080)
Does Marietta regret ratting to Umbridge, now that she knows Harry was telling the truth? Is she angry with her mother? Has she had a falling out because her mother supported the Ministry's efforts to discredit Harry? Does she feel guilty?

No way of knowing really, as she was a mere mention in HBP..just a remark on Harry's pleasure upon seeing her still disfigured. Sort of reminded me of Draco laughing at Harry's scar.



Choices - Jul 23, 2006 11:58 am (#777 of 1080)
First of all, I don't think it has been established that Marietta's pimples are permanent. Perhaps they will simply fade away if she acknowledges her guilt and shows remorse. Perhaps there is a counter- jinx or just time will fade them.

Also, look at the penalty for not fulfilling the Unbreakable Vow - Death!! I think Marietta got off easy.



Solitaire - Jul 23, 2006 12:55 pm (#778 of 1080)
Well, in the case of the Unbreakable Vow, Snape did take it willingly, knowing the penalty. I'll admit Marietta would probably would not have attended the meeting and definitely would not have joined the DA had Cho not dragged her along. Still, she did sign of her own free will ... no one held a gun (or a wand) to her head.

Solitaire



TheSaint - Jul 23, 2006 5:53 pm (#779 of 1080)
Started to argue that as a juvenile her contract is not binding...forgot where the heck I was! LOL

Have you ever heard those stories of the families of murder victims forgiving the murderer (even if they have not apologized)? It is not for the murderer, it is for thier own well being. Holding onto anger or a grudge is bad for your own being.



Honour - Jul 23, 2006 8:20 pm (#780 of 1080)
Since Hermione placed it on the contract, I would say the logical thought would be for her to lift the hex/charm. Until JKR writes it so then we can speculate all we want it doesn't really matter. Maybe SHE hasn't quite forgiven Marietta yet and is still toying with her?



Laura W - Jul 23, 2006 11:28 pm (#781 of 1080)
The Saint wrote, "Holding onto anger or a grudge is bad for your own being."

(*cough* Snape *cough*)

Hey guys, how can Marietta realize that what she did in telling Umbridge about the DA and breaking the contract she signed was wrong (and apologize for same)? Her mind was modified by Shacklebolt such that she couldn't even remember going to six months' worth of DA meetings. How could she remember signing a contract in which she pledged not to tell anybody about the group and remember everything else that happened since she did sign? Did she get her mind unmodified at some point? What have I missed here - or has my mind been modified without my knowing it?

Laura



TwinklingBlueEyes - Jul 24, 2006 12:33 am (#782 of 1080)
Her memory wasn't modified when she went to Umbridge, that came afterwards.



TheSaint - Jul 24, 2006 4:52 am (#783 of 1080)
Excellent Point Laura! That did come afterwards...but how she is supposed to remember to apologize now?



TwinklingBlueEyes - Jul 24, 2006 4:59 am (#784 of 1080)
Considering she is not described as having that blank, vacent, duh look now and seems to be functioning at her normal level of awareness I'd say either the memory charm wore off or was taken off. She seemed quite aware of what the, hm, outbreak meant in Dumbledore's office so I'd think it would be a good guess she knows the cause and the appropriate actions she needs to take now.



Steve Newton - Jul 24, 2006 5:06 am (#785 of 1080)
I only see 2 defenses that work for Marietta. The first is that Umbridge imperioed her, or something, to make her tell. I see only a hint of this and probably could convince no one.

The other is that Marietta and Harry both witnessed Dumbledore's escape and conversation with McGonagall after all of the MOM officials had passed out. As far as I can tell she has remained quiet about this.

I still wouldn't remove the jinx.



TheSaint - Jul 24, 2006 5:21 am (#786 of 1080)
We have not had much of a description of Marietta to determine how she is functioning. We do not know if she remembers that night or not. Last description I saw more than the hex results was when her memory was modified.

If memory modification wears off, then what is the point. When they modify a muggle's memory it is permanent as in people who see dragons, the witnesses to the 13 being killed by Wormtail. I see no reason to believe Marietta has regained hers.



wynnleaf - Jul 24, 2006 5:33 am (#787 of 1080)
Since Marietta can't remember even going to the DA meetings and therefore can't remember her decision to "tell," how can she ever truly be sorry for what she did? Of course, she can be sorry for it objectively I guess -- as though it was something she just heard about it. But that's not true personal regret anyway (at least, it doesn't seem the same at all).

So why should Hermione or Harry and Ron be satisfied with Marietta retaining the "Sneak" jinx? Marietta can't recall what she did, why she did it, or anything like that. She can't truly regret actions that she can't even remember.

So exactly why would anyone be satisfied at the continued suffering of someone who can't even remember the circumstances that lead to the revenge taken against her?

You know, to me this just seems like revenge for the sake of revenge. Hermione's jinx didn't prevent anything, nor was it designed to since Hermione didn't warn anyone of consequences to "telling."

Someone said recently that if James had a similar jinx on the secret keeper, he'd have been warned and James and Lily wouldn't have died. But there's a huge difference. James knew, as did the secret keeper, that their lives would be forfeit if the secret got out. Such a jinx (which James would never have done, trusting all of his friends, even Pettigrew, so much), could have been warranted because of that. Even so, a warning would still be justified, since it would help actually prevent the person from telling.

But in the case of the DA, Dumbledore was headmaster at the time and Umbridge didn't have as much power when Marietta joined. There was not necessarily a reason (from a student's point of view), to expect that anyone on the DA would be in real danger if the truth came out. And in point of fact, nobody got expelled over it, even Harry -- although that was because DD took the blame. But really, the problems surrounding DD's leaving Hogwarts were much more an adult political and power struggle that simply used the circumstances of the DA to come to a head. It was very likely coming anyway. Marietta's going to Umbridge became the catalyst for DD ultimately leaving, but it would likely have occurred over something else in time, since that was really what Umbridge and Fudge were working toward.

Personally, I feel that it's wrong to want continual "punishment" (really vengeance, since there was no announced set "punishment" for breaking the contract) for someone who can no longer even recall what they did. It smacks of pure revenge to me and I hope that is the kind of thing that Harry especially, and Hermione and Ron also, grow past in Book 7.

If memory modification wears off, then what is the point.

The Saint, as far as I can recall, in all of the examples of memory modification to date the modification is permanent.



TheSaint - Jul 24, 2006 5:38 am (#788 of 1080)
Agrees wholeheartedly with wynnleaf.

'I hope that is the kind of thing that Harry especially, and Hermione and Ron also, grow past in Book 7.' wynnleaf

I wish that were the case, but DD's whole speech to harry about the prophecy not being the driving force, only points to vegence as the key. Harry is now full of vegence, for his family, for the things that have happened in his life and DD has focused that on Volde.



Solitaire - Jul 24, 2006 10:24 am (#789 of 1080)
Fortunately, the series isn't over, so we do not yet have to condemn Harry forever to a Snape-like existence of trying to exact vengeance from everyone who has ever hurt him.

Regarding Marietta ... It's so amazing, I can hardly believe it, but I agree with Wynnleaf about something ... not everything, but something! I have said more than once that the memory charm would impede Marietta's ability to remember what she did. If that is the case, would she be able to express true regret?

Unless Shacklebolt has lifted that charm, she only knows what others have told her about why she has SNEAK written across her face. Even so, if her mind was not addled, she should still retain her knowledge of what is right and what betrayal means. Since her mother is a witch, I would assume she had some understanding beforehand of the seriousness of a magical contract. If this was so, then she should be able to understand the seriousness of what she did, even if she cannot personally remember it.

I guess I've argued myself around to believing that she may still be able to understand what she did, even if she cannot personally remember it. Until Jo tells us more about Marietta, her memory charm, and Hermione's jinx, we will just have to accept that Jo has a reason for keeping Marietta as she is ... for now.

Solitaire



TwinklingBlueEyes - Jul 24, 2006 10:41 am (#790 of 1080)
Don't wear off eh? Permenant eh?

At that moment, a wizard in plus-fours appeared out of thin air next to Mr. Roberts's front door. "Obliviate!" he said sharply, pointing his wand at Mr. Roberts. Instantly, Mr. Roberts's eyes slid out of focus, his brows unknitted, and a took of dreamy unconcern fell over his face. Harry recognized the symptoms of one who had just had his memory modified. "A map of the campsite for you," Mr. Roberts said placidly to Mr. Weasley. "And your change." "Thanks very much," said Mr. Weasley. The wizard in plus-fours accompanied them toward the gate to the campsite. Helooked exhausted: His chin was blue with stubble and there were deep purple shadows under his eyes. Once out of earshot of Mr. Roberts, he muttered to Mr. Weasley, "Been having a lot of trouble with him. Needs a Memory Charm ten times a day to keep him happy." GoF: The Portkey



Steve Newton - Jul 24, 2006 10:56 am (#791 of 1080)
I can't understand the sympathy that Marietta seems to get. I figure she got off easy. Its not like she is in pain or dead or anything. Acne may not be a thrill but people seem to live with it with no serious problems.



Solitaire - Jul 24, 2006 11:02 am (#792 of 1080)
Twinkles, I don't think Mr. Roberts needed all those charms because they kept wearing off. I think he kept hearing and seeing different things, so each one needed to be "obliviated" from his memory. It seems those memory modifications can be very specific.

Perhaps Kingsley wiped only her specific knowledge of the meetings from Marietta's memory. Perhaps he left the memory of her squealing to Umbridge very much intact.

Solitaire



haymoni - Jul 24, 2006 11:59 am (#793 of 1080)
Steve!!! The girl has "SNEAK" written in zits across her forehead!!!!

This isn't the usual "pizza face" acne or the occasional breakout that ProActive can erase away.

I'm guessing it is a bit more embarrassing than the usual puberty problem.

Not that I don't think she deserved it...I'm just saying it isn't run-of-the-mill acne unless you are used to seeing people's pimples spelling out actual words, like Charlotte's web.



wynnleaf - Jul 25, 2006 9:20 am (#794 of 1080)
Hi Solitaire,

You said Twinkles, I don't think Mr. Roberts needed all those charms because they kept wearing off. I think he kept hearing and seeing different things, so each one needed to be "obliviated" from his memory. It seems those memory modifications can be very specific.

Guess what?? I agree with you, too!!



Madame Pomfrey - Jul 25, 2006 9:56 am (#795 of 1080)
Perhaps Kingsley wiped only her specific knowledge of the meetings from Marietta's memory. Perhaps he left the memory of her squealing to Umbridge very much intact. Solitaire

Soli,I think this is right.I think she may be very aware of what she did to deserve the acne.Maybe,upon seeing Harry, the reason Cho was in deep conversation with Marietta is to get her to appologize.

I agree,Steve.She got off easy as did Umbridge.



Solitaire - Jul 25, 2006 10:55 am (#796 of 1080)
LOL Wynnleaf! Miracles do happen, don't they? hehe Thanks for the giggle.

Madame Pomfrey, I agree Umbridge got off way too easy. Perhaps we should toddle on over to her thread and abuse her for a while! LOL

Solitaire



TwinklingBlueEyes - Jul 25, 2006 2:21 pm (#797 of 1080)
What I was saying before WX so rudely interrupted; is that memory charms need not be permanent, and can be broken. Voldemort broke the memory charm on Bertha Jorkins, Barty Jr. broke the memory charm his father put on him. Barty Sr. was trying to throw his off when he was killed.



Madame Pomfrey - Jul 25, 2006 2:49 pm (#798 of 1080)
Good point,TBE!



Ponine - Jul 25, 2006 3:22 pm (#799 of 1080)

rubs hands and grins enthusiastically* This is probably pretty low of me, but I love this thread and its heated ethical discussions! My two knuts: When Harry last noticed Marietta wearing heavy makeup, I assumed her to be healing up, and that, while they may fade quite a bit, they might always be there. Like the gashes from Ron's brain incident and Harry's "I must not tell lies" carving on his arm, Marietta's scars might be just that, for the rest of her life. IS that unfortunate for her, yes, absolutely. But they are consequences of her actions. I too am inclined to believe that they will disappear the second she apologizes, or perhaps even the second she truly regrets her actions. I don't believe at all that Dumbledore would have condoned any permanent memory modification of Marietta, and I don't think Shacklebolt would have performed one on someone underaged. As far as breaking contracts, magical or not, I don't believe that most contracts outline concequences. Perhaps with the exception of Microsoft...

Oh -- and I think Steve, Soli, and TBE's points raise some excellent points!



Catherine - Jul 25, 2006 3:34 pm (#800 of 1080)
Harry is scarred.

Other characters remain scarred, emotionally and physically.

Why give Marietta a pass?



wynnleaf - Jul 25, 2006 3:58 pm (#801 of 1080)
LV did break the memory charm on Bertha Jorkins, but I thought it pretty much broke her to do it.

I thought (forgive me, but no book here), that Crouch Jr. and Sr. threw off the Imperious, not a memory charm.



Madame Pomfrey - Jul 25, 2006 4:04 pm (#802 of 1080)
Excellent,Ponine and Catherine! I agree wholeheartedly.She deserved her scars while poor Harry and Ron did not.I think the only thing Shack erased was the meetings she attended after the Hogs Head.I think she is very much aware of her deception and Cho is trying to get her to swallow her pride.

Wynnleaf,I think you may be right about the memory charms,Look at Lockhart.However,I think you can modify certain parts of the memory without erasing the whole part such as Sluggy did with his own memory.



Choices - Jul 25, 2006 5:04 pm (#803 of 1080)
Dumbledore did make the comment that "scars can come in handy". Perhaps Marietta's will be a constant and lasting reminder of her deception, and keep her from making that mistake again in the future.



Laura W - Jul 25, 2006 5:15 pm (#804 of 1080)
I see no canon that Obliviate has any time limit on it (ie - can be temporary). All those Muggles who saw dragons only had to have the Memory Charm put on them once and the dragons were gone from their minds forever - or until another dragon showed up, at which time another spell would have to be administered.

It is true that certain very talented wizards have the power to break through a Memory Charm, such as Voldemort did with Bertha, but we know that the process of doing so killed Bertha. I seriously doubt if anyone would or should similarly try to break the one that was placed on Marietta: even if doing so would make her realize that she did wrong in breaking the contract and even if doing so would result in her apologizing to Harry and the other DA's. (Unless one thinks she should die or have serious permanent mental damage for her crime -and it was a crime -, as long as she apologizes. Guess that's a moral judgement, isn't it?)

Yes, of course, the charm can be directed at certain specific memories. When a Ministry wizard (Obliviator) uses it on a Muggle so that the Muggle can't remember seeing a flying car - just to use one example -, the rest of the memories that the Muggle has accumulated are still intact in his or her brain. And when Lockhart placed all those Memory Charms on the wizards and witches to make them forget it was *they* who performed all the feats he claimed for himself, I assume that was all that was removed; everything else they would be able to remember.

So, it seems to me that once the specific memory of the DA was removed from Cho's friend by Shacklebolt, it was and is gone forever - but the rest of her memory, brain and mind is whole.

Laura



Solitaire - Jul 25, 2006 5:51 pm (#805 of 1080)
when Lockhart placed all those Memory Charms on the wizards and witches to make them forget ... I assume that was all that was removed; everything else they would be able to remember.

One can only hope. While Lockhart isn't evil in the same way as Voldemort, he is deeply dishonest and he doesn't care whom he hurts in the process. As for specific memories being all he removed, who knows? I don't think he was a particularly gifted Wizard, despite his claim to be gifted at memory charms. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that he'd done some serious damage to some of his victims.

As for removing Marietta's memory charm, I wonder if Kingsley could remove it easily, without harming her mind, since he is the one who cast it. I also wonder if there are different kinds or degrees of memory charms--perhaps those which remove a memory only temporarily. It would be interesting to know.

Solitaire



Mediwitch - Jul 25, 2006 6:23 pm (#806 of 1080)
It also makes me wonder how wizards can pinpoint specific memories. I wish neurology in the "real world" would catch up to these wizards!



TheSaint - Jul 25, 2006 8:27 pm (#807 of 1080)
Edited Jul 25, 2006 10:23 pm
"Don't wear off eh? Permenant eh? " Twinkling Blue Eyes

"... I don't think Mr. Roberts needed all those charms because they kept wearing off. I think he kept hearing and seeing different things, so each one needed to be "obliviated" from his memory. " Solitaire...... I agree Solitaire. The quote provided is preceeded by Mr. Robert's once again piecing together things he was observing and coming to the conclusion it was a rally of some sort.

"I can't understand the sympathy that Marietta seems to get." Steve...... I don't understand the desire to permanantly scar a 15 or 16 year old CHILD who has made a wrong decision under tremendous pressure from not only a woman that also scars children but the entire adult world.

"Harry is scarred. Other characters remain scarred, emotionally and physically. Why give Marietta a pass? " Catherine....... And why not let the good guys use Unforgivables? The good guys are supposed to be better than the bad guys (though this seems to be true less and less in this world).

"I'm just saying it isn't run-of-the-mill acne unless you are used to seeing people's pimples spelling out actual words, like Charlotte's web" wynnleaf...... OMG..I actually choked on my Diet Dr. Pepper!

"I thought (forgive me, but no book here), that Crouch Jr. and Sr. threw off the Imperious, not a memory charm. " wynnleaf.....It was.



Honour - Jul 26, 2006 12:23 am (#808 of 1080)
Maybe JKR is giving her young (and slightly older) readers a lesson in Honour, excuse the er pun... Now as for forgiveness, like said before maybe JKR hasn't quite forgiven Marietta, but I should think by book 7 all will be well in the Magical World ... After all (and I paraphrase here) didn't Dumbledore say that it is the choices we make, the right choice rather than the easy choice? Or something to that effect, I am sure someone will come up with the right quote. I bet Marietta will think twice the next time ... Smile



Miss Amanda - Jul 26, 2006 4:30 am (#809 of 1080)
Catherine - Jul 25, 2006 4:34 pm (#800 of 808) Harry is scarred. Other characters remain scarred, emotionally and physically. Why give Marietta a pass?

TheSaint - Jul 25, 2006 9:27 pm (#807 of 808) I don't understand the desire to permanently scar a 15 or 16 year old CHILD who has made a wrong decision under tremendous pressure from not only a woman that also scars children but the entire adult world.... And why not let the good guys use Unforgivables? The good guys are supposed to be better than the bad guys (though this seems to be true less and less in this world).

I guess my big problem with the scarring, or alternatively viewed as my sympathy for Marietta, comes from who did the actual scarring. The other scars people have mentioned have been caused by adult wizards who cause evil. Hermione is a child herself, younger than Marietta. It bothers me to see a child do something irreparable. If it is never undone, how will we see Hermione's character?



Catherine - Jul 26, 2006 5:22 am (#810 of 1080)
Hermione is a child herself, younger than Marietta. It bothers me to see a child do something irreparable. If it is never undone, how will we see Hermione's character?--Miss Amanda

I really don't think Hermione did anything to Marietta. The jinx was a precaution, and it would have affected anyone who told Umbridge too much about the DA. Good thing it worked, because it kept Marietta from volunteering too much information until Kingsley could modify her memory. We do not know that it is truly permanent.

Marietta knew that the DA wasn't doing anything harmful. She waited six months to report on the DA to Umbridge. That is six whole months where she could have confided her concerns to any other trusted authority figure in her life: "Mum, I'm worried that I'll get in trouble because I joined a group that didn't have Professor Umbridge's seal of approval" or "Professor Flitwick, did you know that some students are meeting without permission?"

It appears to me, however, that Marietta was toadying to Umbridge, and that is why she told Umbridge about the DA's activities. Perhaps Marietta coveted a spot on the Inquisitorial Squad, or perhaps she wanted a good job at the Ministry after she graduated. Marietta may have been trying to find a way to hurt Harry, and it was no secret at Hogwarts that Delores Umbridge had it out for Harry. Imagine that--punishing Harry and gaining esteem from the Hogwarts High Inquisitor. Rather like dropping a knut and finding a Galleon.

I would feel sorry for Marietta that she may have become a pawn of the Ministry of Magic, but I wouldn't blame Hermione.

Also, I just don't take the incident with the SNEAK pustules that seriously. JKR sometimes employs wickedly exaggerated humor, ala Roald Dahl in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, for instance. No one would really suggest that a child should turn into a giant blueberry and remain purple for life, but it is an amusing consequence for misbehavior. I look at Dudley's pig tail in SS/PS in a similar way. JKR is just indulging a little bit of nasty humor, and I think it will all clear up in the end.



Steve Newton - Jul 26, 2006 5:29 am (#811 of 1080)
"Perhaps Marietta coveted a spot"

Catherine, good word choice.



Catherine - Jul 26, 2006 5:40 am (#812 of 1080)
Thank you, Steve. I indulged in a nasty giggle when I typed that.



Mrs. D. - Jul 26, 2006 6:48 am (#813 of 1080)
I don't have any problem with a hex applied to the contract. No one should make a promise that they do not intend to keep. There are consequences to every decision; unfortunately we do not have reliable crystal balls to show us what the snowballing effect of each may be.

Had one of the DA been maimed or killed as a result of what she had done, Marietta would not be given so much pity. The trio are extremely loyal to one another and perhaps it is just their innate personalities so they naturally expect the same from everyone else. That personality type is not going to boo hoo over her punishment.

Should the pimples last forever? I don't think so. Marietta needs not only to apologize and mean it, she also needs to realize that commitment, promises, and oaths are not to be taken lightly.

I find in my experience that often, NOT always, the same people who cry about a poor teen child and their inability to recognize the seriousness of a situation are the first to stand up and shout that those same children are responsible and able to make grown up decisions and don't need their parents' permission for very serious decisions. It's fine to let them decide things until they make a ghastly error, then it is "oh the poor baby didn't fully realize what they were doing." It makes me cringe but I see it every week where I work.



Choices - Jul 26, 2006 9:01 am (#814 of 1080)
Excellent post #810 Catherine. All I can say is I totally agree.

Laura - "...but we know that the process of doing so killed Bertha"

(Nit-pick alert)---- It wasn't actually the process of extracting Bertha's memories that killed her, it was Voldemort - "....but the means I used to break the Memory Charm upon her were powerful, and when I had extracted all useful information from her, her mind and body were both damaged beyond repair. She had now served her purpose. I could not possess her. I disposed of her." Although, I am sure Bertha was in bad shape from Voldemort's efforts, it was actually Voldemort that killed her.



Solitaire - Jul 26, 2006 9:36 am (#815 of 1080)
Should the pimples last forever? I don't think so. Marietta needs not only to apologize and mean it, she also needs to realize that commitment, promises, and oaths are not to be taken lightly.

Excellent point, Mrs. D.

Catherine, excellent post! Marietta knew that the DA wasn't doing anything harmful. She waited six months to report on the DA to Umbridge. That is six whole months where she could have confided her concerns to any other trusted authority figure in her life ... Great point! I think Marietta was a bit jealous of Harry and wanted to put a stop to any influence he might have had over Cho.

Interesting point, too, about her possibly wanting to be on the IS. I hadn't considered that. I know it has been suggested that Marietta may have been under the Imperius Curse. If so, would seeing the pimples appear have been enough of a motivation for her to throw off the curse and suddenly stop talking? Is she that strong a witch? Just wondering ...

Solitaire



Honour - Jul 26, 2006 2:51 pm (#816 of 1080)
"...Great point! I think Marietta was a bit jealour of Harry and wanted to put a stop to any influence he might have had over Cho." - Solitaire

Or maybe she was jealous of Cho and thought this might hinder any relationship between Cho and Harry?



Solitaire - Jul 26, 2006 3:07 pm (#817 of 1080)
I still think Marietta was probably jealous of Harry. I believe she felt him to be a threat to her friendship with Cho. At that age, some girls are not able to juggle both girlfriends and boyfriends. They often tend to get so wrapped up in the business of having boyfriends that they neglect their girlfriends.

Cho was a busy girl, and Quidditch already took up a lot of her time. It is only speculation, but perhaps Marietta had been through this before--when Cho was in love with Cedric--and maybe she got tired of being left on her own. This would certainly fit in with why she waited for so long before she finally approached Umbridge. Even Seamus finally accepted that Harry was telling the truth. Kids began to believe him ... so Marietta could no longer hope that Cho would eventually see Harry as a lying nut. Just a thought ...

Solitaire



Laura W - Jul 26, 2006 6:23 pm (#818 of 1080)
You are quite right, Choices. Thanks. Voldemort tells Peter, "her mind and body were both damaged beyond repair" (GoF, P.16), but she wasn't actually dead after he broke the Memory Charm that was put on her. As you said, Riddle then finished off the job he started so no questions would be asked in case anyone she had known before her disappearance ever ran into her again.

Still, if breaking a Memory Charm damages the mind and/or body to that degree - as it apparently does -, do we think Mariette Edgecombe deserves to experience that for what she did -- just so she could remember everything, feel badly, and apologize?

Also, Tom tells Peter that Memory Charms can only be broken by a "powerful wizard," which leads me to think that it is a particularly difficult spell not able to be done by your average wizard or witch on the street. I wonder who would be the one to perform it on Mariette. Dumbledore would have been able to, of course, and probably a very few others. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mrs. D wrote, "No one should make a promise that they do not intend to keep."

She was 16 years old, for Merlin's sake! It's interesting that we all think more highly of Snape because he joined the Death Eaters at 17 years of age (was it?), realized what a mistake he made and then renounced it (we assume) to the point where he was willing to spy for the other side (again, one theory). Yet, when Mariette starts to feel uncomfortable with and regret her decision to join an illegal organization and decided to play by the rules of the school she is attending - regardless of what we, who both love Harry and hate Umbridge, think of those rules -, people wish permanent purple pustules (pretty good, eh?) on her ... and I emphasize the word "permanent," because that is the part that sort of bothers me (along with Hermoine's deception).

Quite frankly, I do not agree with what Mariette did but that's probably my Harry-bias kicking in. If she had an ethical dilemma with the DA or was worried that she would get in trouble or be expelled by continuing on with it (ie - if her motives were altruistic or selfish), I think what she should have done was to go to Harry and tell him that she had decided to resign from the club but that she would not tell anyone about it -- as she had agreed to in the Hog's Head.

Galloping gargoyles! Between sort of disagreeing with Catherine which almost never happens, and starting to sound like wynnleaf - also a great rarity - in partially-defending the alleged bad guy, I'm beginning to experience an identity crises. Better get out of the apartment till it passes. (big grin)

Till later,

Laura W (I think)



TheSaint - Jul 26, 2006 7:15 pm (#819 of 1080)
I love the assignment of jealousy of Harry or wanting to join the IS as the reason she told. Could it be though, that her lame friend Cho drug her to the meeting, convinced her to join and she spent those six months debating that decision. Add her mother's constant reminders (which I would assume was the ministries side as her mother was one of the watchers), and she broke.

I don't think telling was the best option, but I also don't think marking or scarring her for three years is appropriate. I am sure she feels like a big enough donkey after the truth came out and she is basically considered "Judas."

Laura, I was interested in what you said about seeing adults flip-flop thier opinions everyday. I myself have no children and the most I see of them is the end results of thier mayhem in the hospital. Probably why I have a problem with this in fact. But I wonder what your personal opinion is in regard to the age of culpability? (not for this argument, just interested as you see it every day)



Laura W - Jul 27, 2006 1:07 am (#820 of 1080)
Saint, as the greatest most-inflexible believer in personal responsibility in the world and as a very unforgiving person (not an attractive trait, I know), I too am very surprised at what I wrote in my last post.

However, I was not talking about flip-flopping one's opinion; but about coming to a considered second thought about a past decision or promise one had made which, in retrospect, one wishes one hadn't. Especially if the original decision or promise was made before legal age.

I know nobody else credits Mariette with this thought-process and I myself am not sure that is what happened in this case. But it *does* happen. Snape was the most obvious case of this (assuming one believes he left the DEs), and everybody - including me - lauds him for it. So, if one hooks up with the bad guys and turns "traitor" that is a good thing, and if one hooks up with the good guys and turns "traitor" that is a bad thing? Looking at it objectively, deciding to go over to the other side is the same act (assuming one is doing it for the same reason in each case), regardless of what the other side is - which, of course, depends upon where you are standing.

I have a feeling I have not answered your question, Saint. Hmmm. Had I not thought so much about Snape's actions, I might have looked at Mariette differently. Sure, it would be easy - and my natural inclination - to say, "I like what Snape did in forsaking Voldemort and joining Dumbledore because DD is out to protect Harry and I care so much about Harry, so ultimately I forgive Severus his youthful mistake; I will never forgive Mariette for forsaking the DA and telling the authorities about this illegal organization because, by telling, she was putting Harry at risk and I care so much about Harry." That would be easy, but would it be right?

Rats, I still haven't answered, have I? I believe that every teenager who commits a criminal act in the Muggle world should have to pay the consequences as decreed by the laws of the country in which they live. And the punishment should be appropriate to the crime. That's what I believe. On the other hand, we all have a legal system (British Common Law, etc.) and lawyers which advise us of the consequences of breaking the laws of the land. Hermoine did not feel obliged to let those who signed her parchment know that there even would be consequences. As a contract worker myself, I guess I'm kind of sensitive to that fact.

I don't think I did a very good job here. Maybe I'll try it again at another time. Sorry.

Laura

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Mona on Thu May 19, 2011 12:26 am; edited 4 times in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 59
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Posts 821 to 860

Post  Mona Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:44 am

Laura W - Jul 27, 2006 2:20 am (#821 of 1080)
I wrote: "So, if one hooks up with the bad guys and turns "traitor" that is a good thing, and if one hooks up with the good guys and turns "traitor" that is a bad thing?"

In the interests of clarity, I'd like to rephrase that to: "So, if one initially hooks up with the bad guys and then subsequently turns 'traitor' that is a good thing, and if one initially hooks up with the good guys and then subsequently turns 'traitor' that is a bad thing?"

LW



Solitaire - Jul 27, 2006 2:59 am (#822 of 1080)
"So, if one initially hooks up with the bad guys and then subsequently turns 'traitor' that is a good thing, and if one initially hooks up with the good guys and then subsequently turns 'traitor' that is a bad thing?"

Um ... yes. The first scenario shows that one is capable of admitting an error and taking steps to correct it. The second shows that one is willing to betray his friends in order to save his own neck or possibly advance his own position. Hm ... this sounds a lot like Peter Pettigrew, doesn't it?

Solitaire



Laura W - Jul 27, 2006 3:30 am (#823 of 1080)
The second one could be "admitting an error and taking steps to correct it" too. The error - according to the person in question - being having joined the wrong side in the first place. And "the wrong side" is in the eyes of the beholder. Remember, my next sentence in post 820 was: "Looking at it objectively, deciding to go over to the other side is the same act (assuming one is doing it for the same reason in each case), regardless of what the other side is - which, of course, depends upon where you are standing."

For me, Voldemort is the wrong side because it brings death and destruction and pain and suffering and injustice to the wizarding and muggle worlds, and for me, Dumbledore is the right side because it champions peace and tolerance and social justice in the wizarding and muggle worlds (values to which I, personally, hold). Nonetheless, to people like Bellatrix and Mrs. Black, Voldemort's actions and values - which mirror their own - will ultimately produce the better society. (we well may shudder)

As they (who's "they"?) say, "One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist."

Peter is in a category of his own, being a total opportunist with no principles whatsoever. But those people can be - and are - found on *all* sides.

Anyway, this is probably getting way too philosophical for a discussion about such a minor character as Marietta Edgecombe. I doubt if her and her pimples will even appear in Book Seven.

Laura



Solitaire - Jul 27, 2006 3:52 am (#824 of 1080)
"the wrong side" is in the eyes of the beholder

I think I know what you are trying to do, but when comparing the morality of betraying the DEs to the morality of betraying the DA ... well, there is no comparison. It is like trying to equate the betrayal of a group of murderous thugs to the betrayal of a group of people who are trying to defend themselves against the murderous thugs. The "wrong side" seems pretty obvious here. On that note, I am going to bed!

Solitaire



Catherine - Jul 27, 2006 4:49 am (#825 of 1080)
I don't think telling was the best option, but I also don't think marking or scarring her for three years is appropriate. --TheSaint

In "book time," Marietta was marked by the pustules at the end of the school year, wore a balaclava on the train going home, and Harry saw her on the train wearing heavy makeup in September. Not three years yet.



Madame Pomfrey - Jul 27, 2006 5:06 am (#826 of 1080)
Also,having switched from a balaclava to makeup may mean the pimples are fading.

Still, if breaking a Memory Charm damages the mind and/or body to that degree - as it apparently does -, do we think Mariette Edgecombe deserves to experience that for what she did -- just so she could remember everything, feel badly, and apologize? Laura

I think when Shack modified Mariettas memory he only took out the memories of the meetings between the first meeting at the Hogs Head and her memory of reporting to Umbridge.What I'm trying to say is that Marietta has both the memory of signing the contract and telling Umbridge,meaning she knows exactally why she has the pimples.Perhaps she has not appologized because she is too proud to admit she was wrong.We have seen selective memory modification with Slughorn,in which he took out only the undesired memories.



TheSaint - Jul 27, 2006 5:19 am (#827 of 1080)
What was it that she was supposed to be telling Fudge? What she told Umbridge? The meetings that followed the decree making them illegal? Books are in sale pile somewhere.(*ducks head in shame*...but I can't carry everything to Europe and he has the Brit editions already!) I am guessing it is the latter, the question put forth by Dumbledore before the mind eraser was placed. Anyone with a book want to check? LOL

Okay, time adjustment, One year, and a summer.

'It is like trying to equate the betrayal of a group of murderous thugs to the betrayal of a group of people who are trying to defend themselves against the murderous thugs. The "wrong side" seems pretty obvious here. On that note, I am going to bed!'

'Right side' and 'wrong side' are definately a perspective issue. Depends on what 'book' you were raised by.

Laura, You did a great job. I was just wondering in general, as I don't have much experience with kids. Thanks!



Catherine - Jul 27, 2006 6:39 am (#828 of 1080)
Okay, time adjustment, One year, and a summer. --TheSaint

Did we see Marietta's pimples a year later? Harry saw them on the train returning to Hogwarts in September, but I'm not sure they were "spotted" after that. I see that as just a few months.

I think the makeup versus the balaclava suggests that the spots were fading, although we won't know unless JKR thinks it's important to tell us.



wynnleaf - Jul 27, 2006 8:14 am (#829 of 1080)
I think JKR took the time to point out Marietta's continued, possibly permanent, condition, not to show us how bad Marietta was, but to show us how the "good guys" can go overboard and consider that the end justifies the means and if you're on the "good side," any methods can be considered acceptable.

I equate Hermione's jinx on Marietta to what the twins did to Montague. In both cases, the "good guys" did something to punish another student who was doing something that helped Umbridge's "side." Both students ended up with possibly permanent injuries. Montague's is apparently worse, since it seems to affect his brain.

But in both cases, the perpetrator(s) of the "punishment" (more like vengence) have absolutely no remorse, although other students (Cho in the case of Marietta, and Hermione in the case of Montague), are concerned with what has happened and whether or not it's really the right course.

I consider Hermione's comments to Ron about Montague to have a similar attitude as Cho's to Harry. Hermione has different reasoning from Cho, but she's still concerned about the degree of retribution the twins took.

"Should we say something?" said Hermione in a worried voice, pressing her cheek against the Charms window so that she could see Mr. and Mrs. Montague marching inside. "About what happened to him? In case it helps Madam Pomfrey cure him?" "Course not, he'll recover," said Ron indifferently. "Anyway, more trouble for Umbridge, isn't it?" said Harry in a satisfied voice.

then later Hermione says.. "That's all very well, but what if Montague's permanently injured?" "Who cares?" said Ron irritably, while his teacup stood drunkenly again, trembling violently at the knees. "Montague shouldn't have tried to take all those points from Gryffindor, should he?"

Really, Hermione's attitude about Montague's permanent injury is interesting in light of her lack of concern for Marietta. But the response is similar from Harry and from Ron -- Marietta and Montague deserved it. And in both cases, the twins and Hermione show no remorse.

But because we see JKR both times challenging this thinking through the words of other students, and in particular because she has Hermione doing the challenging when it's not her doing the punishing, I believe that JKR is trying to make us think. I hope she pursues this in Book 7, although not necessarily with the Marietta and Montague cases. But I hope she has at least Harry, or the trio, and certainly the reader understand that just because the good side's ultimate goals are good, it doesn't make it okay to use any means at their disposal to make their points.



Solitaire - Jul 27, 2006 9:23 am (#830 of 1080)
Then again, perhaps Hermione simply considers an injury that may have permanently damaged the mind to be more serious than one that involves the skin. Or maybe she knows that Marietta's pimples will eventually fade. I guess we will have to wait and see ...

Solitaire



wynnleaf - Jul 27, 2006 9:44 am (#831 of 1080)
I doubt if JKR will bring up Marietta again in Book 7 just to reinforce the notion that it was bad of Marietta to tell Umbridge about the DA. No, I think we all got that and she doesn't need to reinforce it. In fact, I don't think she needed to reinforce that idea in HBP either. If she brings up Marietta again, it will be for some other purpose.

So if JKR tells us anything about Marietta's purple skin problem -- how it gets cured or that it's permanent -- she'll almost certainly have another reason. Why waste space telling us something we already know about an incident in book 5? If we hear more about Marietta, JKR is still trying to tell us something else. Just my opinion of course.



Chemyst - Jul 27, 2006 12:12 pm (#832 of 1080)
I 'get' the opposing pressures Marietta must have felt… from parents, from friends, from teachers, from the ministry via educational decrees; even plain old self-preservation. I can understand her being 'honestly' confused about her loyalties.

But she would not have been confused about the purpose of the DA. Quotes from "In the Hog's Head," chapter sixteen:

well, you know why you're here
it might be good if people who wanted to study Defense Against the Dark Arts, .. really study it (not Umbridge rubbish) took matters into our own hands
I mean learning how to defend ourselves properly, not just theory but real spells
to be properly trained in Defense
if you want to learn some defense
moving on…the point is, are we agreed to take lessons from Harry?

So Marietta had to have known the purpose of the meetings from the outset. She had participated enough to know their content. Unlike her mother who probably heard rumors of Dumbledore's plotting, or the paranoid Fudge who probably started them, Marietta knew full well the DA was not plotting to overthrow the ministry. She knew this was not a case of kids being in commercial neighborhoods after hours; they were at school taking defense lessons during their regular free time.

Marietta had also heard Hermione say, "if you sign, you're agreeing to not tell Umbridge…" and she had been a part of the group experience: "There was an odd feeling in the group now. It was as though they had just signed some kind of contract." It was unspoken but still understood that this was serious and it would be reasonable, especially for an intellegent Ravenclaw, to think that there would be some sort of price for betrayal.

She knew this. So to go to Umbridge, the one person who was specifically mentioned as not the person to tell, could be interpreted as a deliberate and malicious intent. I don't think arguing that she is an 'Oops–I goofed' minor child is at all accurate.


♦ ♦ ♦


And "the wrong side" is in the eyes of the beholder. Remember, my next sentence in post 820 was: "Looking at it objectively, deciding to go over to the other side is the same act (assuming one is doing it for the same reason in each case), regardless of what the other side is - which, of course, depends upon where you are standing." Laura W

No. That won't do. That is relativism, not objectivity. We have Wizarding World rules & absolutes established in canon. Voldemort is bad.


♦ ♦ ♦


As for JKR bringing up Marietta again, I'm hoping we get a line in the epilogue that Marietta won the Miss Wizarding Britain pageant.



Steve Newton - Jul 27, 2006 12:17 pm (#833 of 1080)
I believe that there is also mention, at the first lesson, that they unanimously elected Harry as leader. That would seem to mean the Marietta voted for him.



Madame Pomfrey - Jul 27, 2006 12:52 pm (#834 of 1080)
You are right on,Chemyst!



Catherine - Jul 27, 2006 1:23 pm (#835 of 1080)
Well, Chemyst's posts was simply excellent, and I love the "wizarding beauty pageant" idea. Lovely.

Really, Hermione's attitude about Montague's permanent injury is interesting in light of her lack of concern for Marietta. --Wynnleaf

First of all, there is nothing to suggest that Montague has not recovered by now. He has certainly regained enough sense to tell Malfoy about the Vanishing Cabinet. The twins did deliberately shove him into the Cabinet. Hermione did not duel or fight with Marietta and disfigure her face. The twins actions toward Montague were deliberate and personal; Hermione's actions were not.

Next, who is to say that Hermione isn't concerned? We know that Harry is not that fussed about Marietta, but we do not know how Hermione feels about the results.

Finally, why does Hermione need to be concerned, assuming that she isn't? For example, should I feel concerned if I put treasure in a box, tell everyone that by signing the contract they should not open the box, and booby-trap the box? Should I be concerned if someone who agreed to keep the box shut decides to open the box and gets a face full of something unpleasant and is incapacitated enough that she cannot steal my treasure or tell anyone else what is in the box?

Hermione did not injure Marietta. She placed a protective spell around an important object to keep dozens of students safe from expulsion. What if Marietta had named individual students in front of Fudge and other Ministry workers in that office? If they weren't expelled, they could expect that the Ministry would refuse to hire them.

There is precedent in the novels about wizards placing protection around important places or objects: all of the enchantments surrounding the Sorcerer's Stone in SS/PS, many of which were deadly; the Whomping Willow in PoA; the age line in GoF; the insanity jinx around the Prophecies at the Ministry in OoP; the potion surrounding the "fauxcrux" in HbP, just to name a few.

I don't see what Hermione did as being out of line with what we've seen in the novels.

Edited for a typo.



wynnleaf - Jul 27, 2006 1:33 pm (#836 of 1080)
Hermione did not injury Marietta.

Hermione intentionally set that jinx to affect whoever broke the contract. She intended for whoever broke the contract to get jinxed. Certainly she injured Marietta.

One might possibly say that Marietta injured herself if Marietta had knowingly signed a contract for which there was a magical jinx penalty attached. But she did not. Not even pureblood Ron expected there to be a jinx attached -- it was only after Hermione told Harry and Ron about it that they knew such a thing was part of the contract. (I mention that because so many have implied or directly said that Marietta should have known that the contract was a magical contract and would have magical consequences.)

But since Hermione wrote the contract and secretly included a jinx which she fully intended to affect anyone breaking the contract, there's no way around the fact that it was Hermione who injured Marietta.



Catherine - Jul 27, 2006 1:51 pm (#837 of 1080)
But since Hermione wrote the contract and secretly included a jinx which she fully intended to affect anyone breaking the contract, there's no way around the fact that it was Hermione who injured Marietta.

Hermione told the students that if they chose to sign, then they agreed to not tell Umbridge about the DA. I think her intent was not to "injure" but to protect. Marietta knew that she was placing dozens of her school mates in danger of expulsion, and she chose to divulge the secret to the one person specifically named not to tell.

Signing the paper was not tantamount to coming to every DA meeting, or even agreeing to stick with the DA. It was agreeing to remain silent about the DA to Umbridge.

Hermione did not injure Marietta. Marietta faced an impersonal consequence as a result of her own choices. She's humiliated because everyone knows she sold her friends to Umbridge. Marietta got off lightly. Plenty of folks in the novels are scarred much worse than she is, but the difference is that Marietta is somewhat disfigured because she's a sneak.

I'm not too fussed.



John Bumbledore - Jul 27, 2006 2:15 pm (#838 of 1080)
Ah, Wynnleaf, it was Marietta that took the action that triggered the curse. Marietta decided to brake her oath and violate the contract.

The difference is Fred and George forced Montague into the vanishing cabinet and Hermione did not force Marietta to sign nor to break the contract.

Wasn't it Umbridge that forced Marietta to break her vow and the contract by telling about the DA? Was this, perhaps, by use of the Imperius, an unforgivable curse? Umbridge threatened Potter with the Cruciatus, so she may have resorted to the Imperius with Marietta. JM2K

<)B^D≈ John Bumbledore

Edit: cross posted with Catherine. **waves**



wynnleaf - Jul 27, 2006 2:22 pm (#839 of 1080)
In the legal world, a contract made under false pretenses is not legal and not binding. Not that Marietta knows about the false pretenses. It's like Hermione put in a hidden clause -- one that nobody knows about except herself.

Marietta is wrong to break the contract which, as far as she knows, is all "above board." But Hermione has actually cheated on the contract with her hidden clause. While Marietta's action did make her deserving of some sort of punishment, there is no way that her unknowingly activating a completely secret part of the contract could be construed as her having injured herself.

Hermione created what is technically an illegal contract.



Catherine - Jul 27, 2006 2:24 pm (#840 of 1080)
Edited Jul 27, 2006 3:57 pm
Wasn't it Umbridge that forced Marietta to break her vow and the contract by telling about the DA? Was this, perhaps, by use of the Imperius, an unforgivable curse? Umbridge threatened Potter with the Cruciatus, so she may have resorted to the Imperius with Marietta. JM2K

There is no actual evidence from the text that Umbridge used the Imperius. If Umbridge can be believed (I know, I have trouble with this, too), Marietta came to Umbridge.

I believe that if Marietta had been under the Imperius Curse, she wouldn't have stopped telling Umbridge about the DA when she glimpsed her face. At that point, she was certainly aware enough that she stopped speaking.

Hermione created what is technically an illegal contract.

In the muggle world, if it involved money or penalties, I could see this. I don't think magical contracts work this way.

I don't see that Hermione "cheated," but I'll say that it "takes one to know one." Hermione's "cheating" could only be brought about by someone else "cheating" first. It's very tit-for-tat, and very effective in enforcing ethical behavior.

::waves back::



Solitaire - Jul 27, 2006 3:00 pm (#841 of 1080)
Catherine and Chemyst ... great posts!! Steve, I love your point about Harry being unanimously elected.

In the legal world

I do not think we can apply our laws to Hermione's contract, because the kids are not operating in the Muggle world. They exist and operate in Jo's fantasy Wizarding World, which has its own rules and laws. Besides, even in our world, people get stung on contracts every day because they misunderstand a point, they don't read the fine print, or they do not ask the right questions before they sign.

One more thing ... Stop to consider Harry's "contract" with the Goblet of Fire. He didn't even enter that contract himself--Barty did it on his behalf and even lied about it--yet he was still held to the contract. Contracts in the Wizarding World obviously operate in different ways than they do here in our Muggle world.

Solitaire



wynnleaf - Jul 27, 2006 4:23 pm (#842 of 1080)
Oh, I don't mean that in the WW there'd be any legal vs. illegal considerations. But for all the arguing in Hermione's favor, I just thought I'd point out how in the real world, making a contract under false pretenses is illegal.

This wasn't a case of a misunderstanding or not reading the fine print. Hermione did this in secret. She didn't provide any fine print, or any details to misunderstand.

And once again, if pureblood Ron didn't expect an accompanying magical consequence, there's no evidence that Marietta should have expected one.



Chemyst - Jul 27, 2006 4:35 pm (#843 of 1080)
And once again, if pureblood Ron didn't expect an accompanying magical consequence, there's no evidence that Marietta should have expected one.

Yes, a lot of things get past Ron. It's particularly unlikely he'd be suspicious of Hermione. But some of the other students raised concerns and the text clearly states the group had an "odd feeling" about what they'd signed.

All of which is secondary because good character is good without threats & penalties or carrots & bribes. Good character keeps its word regardless of whether or not a parchment is jinxed.

You seem to think that non-disclosure is the same as cheating; but cheating would have a motive of personal gain or advantage. In this case, non-disclosure was more about school security than personal gain. Hermione had no personal gain from the jinx, not even schadenfreude. She would have been happier if the pimples had never popped at all.

A classified jinx was used to defend a defense class on jinxes, wasn't it? — someone should make a pun out of that.



Soul Search - Jul 27, 2006 5:34 pm (#844 of 1080)
Help. What's schadenfreude?



TheSaint - Jul 27, 2006 6:30 pm (#845 of 1080)
I respectfully decline to further this argument. *Goes about cleaning glasses house*



Solitaire - Jul 27, 2006 8:24 pm (#846 of 1080)
Well, one of the meanings of schade is harm. Freude is joy. Shadenfreude ... harmful joy? Joy that harms? If it is an idiom, it may have a different meaning.

Solitaire



Laura W - Jul 27, 2006 11:06 pm (#847 of 1080)
"And "the wrong side" is in the eyes of the beholder. Remember, my next sentence in post 820 was: "Looking at it objectively, deciding to go over to the other side is the same act (assuming one is doing it for the same reason in each case), regardless of what the other side is - which, of course, depends upon where you are standing." Laura W

"No. That won't do. That is relativism, not objectivity. We have Wizarding World rules & absolutes established in canon. Voldemort is bad." (Chemyst)

And didn't I write the following in my post 823? " *For me*, Voldemort is the wrong side because it brings death and destruction and pain and suffering and injustice to the wizarding and muggle worlds, and for me, Dumbledore is the right side because it champions peace and tolerance and social justice in the wizarding and muggle worlds (values to which I, personally, hold)."

Does that sound like *I* don't see Voldemort as evil?! Obviously I do! I'm just saying that his followers don't see him, his ideas and his methods that way.

As a life-long news junkie (and with a closer connection to same, which I won't go into now), every single day I see, hear and read about people on both sides of a conflict, issue, dispute, and ideology who are equally convinced of *their rightness* and of *the wrongness of the other*.

It is up to each of us to choose our side based on our values, consciences, personal life experiences and best judgement.

Looking at the Muggle world throughout history, it may be inconceivable that *anybody* could intelligently and deliberately choose Voldemort (or Umbridge, for that matter), but history and current events teach us that it happens all the time. And I would not be surprised if that is one of the messages Jo herself is giving us in this series.

Laura



Catherine - Jul 28, 2006 5:04 am (#848 of 1080)
Chemyst, I'd like to award you ten points for using "schadenfreude" in a sentence. That gave me a chuckle!

Psssst...since someone asked...."schadenfreude" is a malicious satisfaction one receives from the misfortunes of others...

Schadenfreude aside, I like Chemyst's arguments about Hermione and cheating.

I'm also confused (and off to look up Marietta) why Ron being a pureblood has anything to do with Marietta's plight?



Chemyst - Jul 28, 2006 7:58 am (#849 of 1080)
'Schadenfreude' has been used on the forum several times in the past. I remember a conversation with Gina shortly after I joined, and I believe Loopy used in in a post a few weeks ago. It is a good word for describing a lot of the slytherin students at Hogwarts; and yes, as Catherine said, it means taking a secret delight in someone else's bad luck.

Does that sound like *I* don't see Voldemort as evil?! Obviously I do! I'm just saying that his followers don't see him, his ideas and his methods that way. I never thought for a second that you did, Laura. Oh dear, was I being too brief again? My intended point was: If a DE thinks Voldemort is a swell guy, that is not objectivity. The Wizarding World operates on some moral absolutes; for example, they have Unforgivable Curses. These are by definition "bad."

What you were talking about was not objectivity but relativism– what a person sees relative to his/her own point of view. A relativist society has no absolutes, so concepts such as right and wrong change with the situation. The wizarding society does have absolutes, so Voldemort is bad no matter what the DEs think.

I thought you were actually making a good point about wizards who reject the staus quo until you said they were being "objective." Objectivity is being free of any bias or prejudice caused by personal feelings. The DEs operate almost exclusively on personal feeling and predjudice.



Solitaire - Jul 28, 2006 10:58 am (#850 of 1080)
The wizarding society does have absolutes, so Voldemort is bad no matter what the DEs think.

The DEs know what they are doing is not right, just as the KKK knew. If they honestly believe in the rightness of the "works" they do, why do they cloak their identities under hoods and masks? I realize some have abandoned the masks at this point. Perhaps they realize everyone knows who they are by now, anyway, so what is the point?

Solitaire



Laura W - Jul 28, 2006 1:38 pm (#851 of 1080)
Edited Jul 28, 2006 3:15 pm
"The Wizarding World operates on some moral absolutes; for example, they have Unforgivable Curses. These are by definition "bad." " (Chemyst)

Yeah, that's what I always thought, too. Until Barty Crouch Sr. decided it was all right for Aurors to use these not only illegal but horrendous curses. So, what kind of moral absolutes are in play if the Unforgivables are bad when the bad guys use them but are not bad when the good guys use them? (Talk about relativism!)

Sirius had a problem with that line of reasoning in GoF, Chapter 27, and he's not the only one, I can tell you! (For anybody interested in reading a discussion about this specific point, I would direct you to the Curses, Hexes, and the Unforgivables thread, posts #84 to #97.)

"The DEs know what they are doing is not right, just as the KKK knew. If they honestly believe in the rightness of the "works" they do, why do they cloak their identities under hoods and masks?" (Solitaire)

What they know is that what they are doing is "illegal"; that is not the same as "wrong" for a lot of people. If you come from the position that the laws of the land are what are wrong, even if they are legal (eg - apartheid in South Africa, the rules of the MOM which govern the wizarding world), defying it is a legitamite act of civil disobedience. Lucius Malfoy, for example, genuinely believes Arthur Weasley's Muggle Protection Act is the worst thing that could happen to the WW. And, in order to work/take necessary action towards getting the societal changes you want, you have to be able to do your business without being thrown in jail (ie - anonymously): thus the disguises.

Please note that I am not saying that I, in any way, approve of this method of changing society - I'm more a peaceful-protest-write-letters-to-the-editor-work-for-a-candidate-with-your-values kind of gal -, but it *is* how the DEs would think: those of them who have joined for ideological reasons, at least.

Now back to Marietta Edgecombe: her actions, her motives for what she did, her punishment, Hermoine's ethics, and whatever else there is to say about this ...



timrew - Jul 28, 2006 2:18 pm (#852 of 1080)
Yes, there is no word in the English Language that describes what is meant by 'schadenfreude' (taking pleasure from the misfortune of others) - which is, no doubt, why we have to use 'schadenfreude'.

What is my point - I can't remember............retires for a cup of hot cocoa..............



Lavandula - Jul 29, 2006 6:08 pm (#853 of 1080)
Edited by Jul 29, 2006 7:10 pm
Forgive me for not reading the entire 852 previous posts. I did read the first 8 or so and then skipped to the last 15-20.

I apologize if this has been mentioned previously, but this situation with Marietta is really one of "It's the Choices you make".

Good Choices-Good Consequences , Bad Choices-Bad Consequences

She shouldn't have made the choice to join the DA if she didn't feel committed to the cause especially in light of the position of her mother. Bad Choice-Bad Consequence!

She made a choice (as far as I know) to go to Umbridge with the information. Bad Choice-Bad Consequence!

Let me know if I'm missing something here and I'll go back and read more of this thread.



Chemyst - Jul 29, 2006 8:43 pm (#854 of 1080)
Bad Choice-Bad Consequence!
Let me know if I'm missing something here and I'll go back and read more of this thread.

Nope. I think that is pretty much it.

The advantage of going back and reading more is not in discovering anything new, but would be to get an idea of the personality of the posters.



The One - Jul 30, 2006 4:03 am (#855 of 1080)
I just want to add my few knuts. Marietta was a young person under considerable cross pressure.

Her choice was not as clear-cut as pro-Voldemort or anti-Voldemort. Because at that point most people did not believe that Voldemort was back. People believed that Harry was a nutcase, and the Ministry thought that Dumbledore was stirring up things for his own means.

In this situation the Ministry choose to downplay the practical side of DADA, because they fear that Dumbledore might recruit an army among the students.

And then the said nutcase, which is very loyal to Dunmbledore, sets up a secret organisation to practice exactly the stuff the Ministry has banned, and the organisation is named in honour of said Dumbledore, who the Ministry fears has an agenda of his own.

Remember that the distrust of Harry and Dumbledore was more or less universal at that point, and that DA might very well be viewed as a subversive group preparing to use violence against the Ministry if needed.

We know this is crap, but would a 16-year-old girl getting feed information from her mother realise that? Marietta was drawn into the DA by Cho, but she may very well have had seconds thoughts about Cho's judgment, as she was still mourning her dead boyfriend and was having a crush on the said nutcase heading the DA.

Is it necessarily so that anyone happens to join a terrorist organisation and then sees the error of their ways should not report it to the authorities? Because that is what this was as seen from Marietta. A illegal revolt against Umbrigde and the Ministry, that might in best case get her and her mother in serious trouble, in the worst case do something horrible in the future. We know they would not, but how would a teenager in her situation judge it?

I, for one feel no desire to judge Marietta to harshly. She did what she felt was the best, it was a bad move as seen from Harry's (and the readers) POV, but not a move that should haunt a young girl for the rest of the life.

I also find it interesting that the jinx has no preventive effect, as no one knows about it, it is purely a punitive measure. And of course, as Marietta no longer remembers the circumstances around her betrayal, it is a meaningless punishment to her.

I did not feel happy about the morality of the jinx when we reached the end of OotP and it was still active.



wynnleaf - Jul 30, 2006 4:50 am (#856 of 1080)
The One,

That is exactly the way I feel about it. We readers see this from the viewpoint of knowing that Harry is right and DD is right. Most of the students in the DA are basically believing DD and Harry on faith -- they have little direct evidence.

I don't think we can say that good vs. bad equates to having faith in DD and Harry, vs not having faith in them.

Of course, you can say that if Marietta didn't believe DD and Harry, she shouldn't have joined in the first place. But while that has some impact, it's not the whole point.

Suppose Harry had truly been a deluded nutcase and DD a manipulative liar with an agenda of his own (basically the stance the MOM took about it). Then all the kids joining the DA could have been furthering the designs of a manipulative liar and a nutcase. If that were the case, it wouldn't matter too much why Marietta joined; it would have been the right thing to expose the group.

Since Marietta apparently did buy into the "Harry is a nutcase and DD is lying" position, it makes sense for her to make the choice to tell, especially given the pressures she would have been getting from family about the extent of DD's designs and Harry's nuttiness.

As The One said, the secret punitive nature of the hex as well as her now not even being able to remember signing up for and attending the meetings, makes the long-term nature of the hex wrong.



Catherine - Jul 30, 2006 5:25 am (#857 of 1080)
Then all the kids joining the DA could have been furthering the designs of a manipulative liar and a nutcase. If that were the case, it wouldn't matter too much why Marietta joined; it would have been the right thing to expose the group.

It was never the aim of the DA to attack the Ministry, and there was never any rhetoric at the meetings that encouraged students to injure anyone or to try to overthrow the government. Marietta knew this.

Is it necessarily so that anyone happens to join a terrorist organisation and then sees the error of their ways should not report it to the authorities? Because that is what this was as seen from Marietta. A illegal revolt against Umbrigde and the Ministry, that might in best case get her and her mother in serious trouble, in the worst case do something horrible in the future. We know they would not, but how would a teenager in her situation judge it?

Since when is the DA a terrorist organization? Did Marietta really feel like the DA was threatening the safety of wizarding citizens, or did she want some brownie points from Umbridge?



The One - Jul 30, 2006 5:52 am (#858 of 1080)
Since when is the DA a terrorist organization? Did Marietta really feel like the DA was threatening the safety of wizarding citizens, or did she want some brownie points from Umbridge?

We do not know what she thought, we only know what the Ministry thought and thus what Marietta probably got as input from her mother.

The DA was not a Terrorist organisation, but it was in fact illegal, and it was named in honour of a man that the Ministry believed might want to overthrow them.

My point is not that the DA was a bad thing, and that Marietta was right, it is that the situation as seen from her point may have been very different from as seen from a reader's POV. My point is also that the world is not as simple as "Have you joined anything in the first place, you are to be loyal no matter what!"

And the situation in OotP is more complicated then "Marietta betrayed the good guys, she deserves whatever she got."

Marietta was in what she probably considered a very difficult situation, and made a bad choice. She has paied for it, but how much should she pay?



Laura W - Jul 30, 2006 6:40 am (#859 of 1080)
Thank you, The One, for backing me up - in your messages 855, 858 - in the position I was taking in my posts (starting #818, ending #851). If I have to be alone in this, so be it; but it's nice to have company. (smile)

And you are so right, Chemyst! On all Forum threads, the collective posts of each member of Lexicon Forum tell as much about the personality, values, experiences and POV of that member as it does about *anything* Harry Potter related. Over time we are learning more about each other and learning more about our beloved HP books.

Laura



Catherine - Jul 30, 2006 6:53 am (#860 of 1080)
Well, I certainly hope that no reduces my arguments to "and the situation in OotP is more complicated then "Marietta betrayed the good guys, she deserves whatever she got" or "[M]y point is also that the world is not as simple as "Have you joined anything in the first place, you are to be loyal no matter what!" TheOne

Umbridge's aim was to have Harry removed from Hogwarts. She and Fudge did not believe that Dumbledore was part of the meetings until they read the member roster list titled "Dumbledore's Army" and got Dumbledore's fake confession.

If Umbridge really thought that the students were dangerous, would she have gone by herself with a few student helpers to apprehend the DA members in the Room of Requirement? I don't think so.

It's ridiculous that Umbridge was willing to put the wizarding student population at risk by denying them education in Dark Arts Defense. To make student organizations suddenly illegal is an infringement on their liberties, and is sinister in the extreme.

We don't know how long Marietta endured pimples. But I am surprised at those who think that Marietta got such a raw deal when one compares her situation with other students: Harry is scarred by Voldemort's Avada Kedavra attempt and for openly defying Umbridge and suffering the "bloody quill" punishment; Bill Weasley defended Hogwarts against Death Eaters and will suffer cursed facial wounds the rest of this life. Is this "fair?"

I still think the jinx that zinged Marietta was "just," even if the outcome may be temporarily unfortunate (obviously, I don't think the pimples are permanent).


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Mona on Thu May 19, 2011 12:27 am; edited 3 times in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 59
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Posts 861 to 900

Post  Mona Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:46 am

Mrs Brisbee - Jul 30, 2006 7:20 am (#861 of 1080)
It was never the aim of the DA to attack the Ministry, and there was never any rhetoric at the meetings that encouraged students to injure anyone or to try to overthrow the government. Marietta knew this.--Catherine

The only exception I take to this is that after everyone signed the paper in the Hogshead meeting, and after Harry is voted in unanimously as leader at the first RoR meeting, then the group names itself "Dumbledore's Army"-- not unanimously. We don't know what Marietta was thinking at that point to suddenly find herself a member of an organization with that name, when she had agreed to join a DADA study group.

At any rate, it apparently wasn't a catalyst for her dropping out at that point. We have the Quibbler article later, but Rowling still doesn't tie Marietta's betrayal closely to that event either. The only thing that happens right then is Seamus joining up, and no clear connection is made between the two events.

Why Marietta stayed quiet for six months, but then suddenly went to Umbridge at that point is a mystery.



wynnleaf - Jul 30, 2006 7:30 am (#862 of 1080)
We haven't got the slightest bit of evidence that the hex is not permanent. Since no one (one assumes including the staff) can get the hex to stop, I think we have to assume it is permanent. I certainly don't get the impression Hermione knows.

As regards the sufferings of others, I really I don't see that a list of others who have suffered more for more worthy reasons has anything at all to do with whether or not what happened to Marietta was just and right. If a question of injustice is decided based on the personal merit of the recipient or victim of the injustice, then we are basically saying that injustice isn't a concern unless you're worthy enough to merit justice. For instance, one might as easily say "a criminal isn't worthy of being treated with good ethics, because they're a criminal."



Mediwitch - Jul 30, 2006 8:12 am (#863 of 1080)
wynnleaf: I certainly don't get the impression Hermione knows.

I'm wondering if there is any canon evidence either way. I don't recall any mention of Hermione's reaction to Marietta still having the pustules - one way or the other. I'm reluctant to speculate on Hermione's feelings on the matter.



wynnleaf - Jul 30, 2006 8:48 am (#864 of 1080)
Um, that was my point. We have no canon evidence that Hermione knows how to get rid of the pustules. All of the students must be aware that the pustules were still there. Yet if Hermione did know how to get rid of them, she certainly didn't give Madam Pomfrey or any staff member that information, or else one assumes that Marietta's pustules would be gone.

Based on that, I think we can assume that either Hermione doesn't know how to get rid of them, or doesn't care to pass the info along to anyone else. I prefer to think the former, but perhaps Hermione does know.

I agree that we don't know her feelings about it.



Soul Search - Jul 30, 2006 8:55 am (#865 of 1080)
I think the timing of Marietta's betraying the DA and Harry is important to understanding her motivation for the betrayal.

She had been attending the DA meetings for over six months. She might not have been the most enthusiastic participant, but she went and participated. No doubt, she learned some things. (She is, after all, in Ravenclaw, with Cho.) The only negative opinion she expresses is with Cho when she lingers to talk with Harry. Marietta seems impatient to leave, but nothing more.

Harry and Cho go on one date, into Hogsmeade, which ends badly. Cho, mostly, loses interest in Harry after that one date. After the date, there were only brief encounters outside the DA meetings. I don't see Marietta betraying the DA because she is jealous of Harry. There wasn't anything to be jealous of.

Harry gives the interview and the Quibler article is published. From that point students (and the wizarding world) start to believe Harry and Dumbledore, casting doubt on Fudge, Umbridge, and the Ministry.

It is after the Quibler article that Marietta betrays the DA to Umbridge. Why then? If she thought the group subversive, she would have, more likely, betrayed it before the Quibler article. It almost seems like her betrayal was a last ditch effort to save Fudge, Umbridge, and the Ministry.

Why go to Umbridge? (We do know that Marietta "went to Umbridge," or at least Umbridge says it.) Umbridge has not been the most friendly person. The only students she has "befriended," if that is the right word, are the Slytherins in the inquisitorial squad. After six months of Umbridge and her decrees and punishment of other students, why go to her? Sounds very risky. Marietta has to know that detentions with Umbridge are no fun and usually painful.

If Marietta, now, has doubts about the DA, why not go to Dumbledore or the Ravenclaw head of house? Why not just drop out of the DA? Talk to Cho? Even go to Harry? Marietta did none of these things; Marietta chooses(?) to go to Umbridge!

My read is something like this.

After the Quibler article, Marietta is proud to have been in the DA. She brags to her mother, Madam Edgecombe. She doesn't exactly betray Harry or the DA, but she does give her mother enough information so she can guess something involving the dreaded Harry Potter is afoot. She recognizes an opportunity to discredit Harry, get him expelled, and sway wizarding opinon to favor the ministry.

Madam Edgecombe relates her daughter's information to Fudge. Fudge is excited; now is his chance! He informs Umbridge, but tells her to wait for Marietta to come to her. Fudge tells Madam Edgecombe to force Marietta to go to Umbridge with the details of the DA and Harry. Maybe, something like "make your daughter tell all to Umbridge," or lose your job.

Madam Edgecombe tells Marietta to go to Umbridge, perhaps invoking the strongest of parental command. Family is more important than anything else. Marietta then has to go to Umbridge and betray Harry, the DA, and her friends. She didn't want to become a traitor. In fact, she was feeling rather good about being in the DA. It was either betray the DA or let her mother down. And maybe become destitute, as well.

Now, this scenario brings everything back to Fudge and the Ministry. Other topics have well explored Fudge and the Ministry and suggested ways they will play out in book seven. This is just another part of it. A minor role, perhaps, but another nail in the Fudge/Umbridge/Ministry coffin.

Marietta hasn't told anyone, even Cho, the true reason for her betrayal. So Hermione thinks that Marietta's betrayal was completely voluntary. I can see this all coming out in book seven, and Hermione taking pity on Marietta, removing the pimples. (Maybe even giving them to Madam Edgecombe. Or Umbridge. Or Fudge. All rather fitting, no?)



Catherine - Jul 30, 2006 8:57 am (#866 of 1080)
We haven't got the slightest bit of evidence that the hex is not permanent. Since no one (one assumes including the staff) can get the hex to stop, I think we have to assume it is permanent. I certainly don't get the impression Hermione knows.

One could infer that the change from balaclava to heavy makeup implies that the hex may have lessened.

If a question of injustice is decided based on the personal merit of the recipient or victim of the injustice, then we are basically saying that injustice isn't a concern unless you're worthy enough to merit justice.

I'm not sure where anyone has suggested that Marietta is unworthy of justice. For example, Dumbledore prevented Umbridge from physically harming Marietta, and that was "just," in my opinion. I would never have condoned the betrayed students hazing Marietta after lights-out, either, for example.

"Justice" is not always a happy outcome. I use "just" in the sense that it is reasonable that breaking faith would have a consequence applied without prejudice--it was impartial. Keep in mind that I have wondered if Hermione may, in turn, have to face the consequences of her actions as well. She has probably made a true enemy in Marietta and Cho, (not to mention Marietta's mum at the Ministry) and this could have an unhappy effect later.

EDIT: I can see this all coming out in book seven, and Hermione taking pity on Marietta, removing the pimples. (Maybe even giving them to Umbridge.) --Soul Search

Aside from the centaurs having another go at Umbridge, I quite like the idea of Umbridge having the pimples!



Solitaire - Jul 30, 2006 9:45 am (#867 of 1080)
The One: Is it necessarily so that anyone happens to join a terrorist organisation and then sees the error of their ways should not report it to the authorities? Because that is what this was as seen from Marietta.

Merriam-Webster.com defines terrorism as the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. First, I really do not see how anything the DA has done could be construed to be terrorism. Second, we do not know that is how the DA was seen by Marietta. We have never actually been told how she perceived the DA, have we (no books handy to check)? As I remember--and it has been a while, so forgive any inaccuracies--she told Umbridge that if she went to the ROR, she would see "something to her advantage." Isn't that all we actually see?

Suppose Harry had truly been a deluded nutcase ... Since Marietta apparently did buy into the "Harry is a nutcase and DD is lying" position

I can't help thinking that it was painfully obvious during the six months of DA meetings that Harry was not acting irrationally ... or none of the kids would have returned to the meetings. And, once again, I do not think we have yet heard Marietta refer to Harry as a nutcase, even before her betrayal.

Fudge tells Madam Edgecombe to force Marietta to go to Umbridge with the details of the DA

If he did not know there was a DA, how could Fudge have forced her to tell Umbridge about it? I can't believe Marietta gave her mother emough information for Fudge to have figured out anything, or her pimples would have sprouted out sooner than they did. JM2K, of course ...

Sorry if I've repeated some things already addressed by others. I've been away from the forum for a few days and simply dealt with ideas as they popped up.

Solitaire



Chemyst - Jul 30, 2006 10:54 am (#868 of 1080)
A refresher for those who don't have your books at the moment…

The name, D.A., was not chosen at the Hog's Head, but at the first meeting in the RoR. Hermione introduces the subject by saying they need to choose a name that "would promote a feeling of team spirit and unity." So the importance of being a team player was emphasized from the start.
Among the first suggestions were "Anti-Umbridge League" -Angelina, and the "Ministry of Magic Are Morons Group" - Fred. Fred's suggestion earns a frown from Hermione. Cho next suggests the "Defense Association, The D.A. for short." The following quote is–

"Yeah, the D. A.'s good, " said Ginny. "Only let's make it stand for Dumbledore's Army because that's the ministry's worst fear isn't it?"
There was a good deal of appreciative murmuring and laughter at this.
Hermione calls for a vote and it passes with a majority.

Whatever Marietta was thinking at that point, at least three things were clear and she should have known that:
This group considered themselves a team.
This team did not like that the ministry had given them a DA DA teacher who did not teach defense.
The name "Dumbledore's Army" was chosen as a spoof on the ministry's fears and not to be subversive.

______________________________


Before the detour into fan fic, Soul Search was making a valid point about Marietta's timing. Her timing was good for the plot and heightening the conflict at Hogwarts, but for her personally, why then? Since she clearly knew what the DA was and was not, her long wait and her decision to report to Umbridge rather than to her Head of House (or even to report it to Dumbledore himself) makes it probable her motive was more selfish than altruistic.



Choices - Jul 30, 2006 4:11 pm (#869 of 1080)
Wynnleaf - "We haven't got the slightest bit of evidence that the hex is not permanent."

On the other hand, we haven't got the slightest bit of evidence that the hex is permanent.



Mediwitch - Jul 30, 2006 4:37 pm (#870 of 1080)
Thanks, Choices, that's the point I was trying to make. You made it ever so much more succinctly!



Catherine - Jul 30, 2006 4:37 pm (#871 of 1080)
Indeed, Choices.

I still think that the make-up vs. balaclava shows that it was fading....



wynnleaf - Jul 30, 2006 4:52 pm (#872 of 1080)
On the other hand, we haven't got the slightest bit of evidence that the hex is permanent.

Yes, we do. Many hexes are mentioned as wearing off within a few minutes. This one has gone on for months by the time we hear of it again in HBP. No one has yet figured out how to get rid of it (unless Hermione knows and won't tell). That means that even adult wizards, and probably staff, can't break the hex. I think that's enough evidence to at least say the weight of what we do know leans more toward permenant than temporary.

Plus, you just can't go around with a balaclava constantly. Marietta would have to find some other way to cover it up, even if it were not any better. The cosmetics vs. balaclava don't necessarily indicate anything. I know people with pretty terrible scars on their face that use makeup on them.



TwinklingBlueEyes - Jul 30, 2006 5:20 pm (#873 of 1080)
"That means that even adult wizards, and probably staff, can't break the hex."

Methinks can't break the hex is one of them there assumption things, assuming they'd want to in the first place? Fireworks, anyone?

...toddles off assuming I'm going elsewhere...



Catherine - Jul 30, 2006 5:25 pm (#874 of 1080)
I know people with pretty terrible scars on their face that use makeup on them.

I commend you that you have such brave friends....although I do not think that this anecdotal evidence proves the point.

JKR used the balaclava vs. makeup scenario...I choose to believe that the marks have faded.

...toddles off assuming I'm going elsewhere... --TBE

LOL!



wynnleaf - Jul 30, 2006 5:36 pm (#875 of 1080)
Edited Jul 30, 2006 7:29 pm
Catherine,

You said:

JKR used the balaclava vs. makeup scenario...I choose to believe that the marks have faded.

Certainly. But if I understand the reasoning behind your choice to believe this, it was because you felt that switching from a balaclava to cosmetics most likely meant that the hex had gotten better. That perhaps a person whose disfigurement is so great that they'd hide it under a balaclava, would not switch to cosmetics unless it got better.

JKR didn't ever say that. Her choice to have Marietta use cosmetics, instead of the balaclava could possibly mean the hex was better -- but JKR never, ever said that. The decision to switch to cosmetics could just as easily mean that Marietta had had enough of wearing the balaclava. Perhaps she realized that things weren't getting better, so she'd better get used to exposing her face to others, simply using makeup to cover the hex marks.

Because that's just as possible as your idea, it means that the switching from balaclava to cosmetics doesn't necessarily mean any particular thing at all. The cosmetics can be "evidence" for either scenario just as easily, and therefore don't add any greater weight to either the hex getting better or staying the same.

I'm not quite sure why "anecdotal" comments are considered so unworthy of consideration. I could just as easily have said, "many people with bad scars use makeup to cover them up, rather than hiding their faces under clothing." Would that somehow suit better? By mentioning that I've known several people who actually did this, I'm simply saying that the above sentence isn't my opinion, but something I know for a fact. Using an anecdotal comment as evidence for something that's contraversial is one thing -- I can see that the anecdotal comment isn't useful in that case. But using an anecdotal comment to illustrate something that most people already know to be true -- why does that make the comment unacceptable?

By the way, I go with my daughter to state level debate meets. I hear anecdotes commonly used even in formal debate. It's not "proof," but it's certainly okay in the giving of examples. And this is simply an informal discussion, not a formal debate.

Edit: Sorry to get so touchy over the anecdote comment, but I had someone else on the Forum not so long ago completely discount a comment I made because I included an anecdote in it.



TheSaint - Jul 30, 2006 8:26 pm (#876 of 1080)
"Harry is scarred by Voldemort's Avada Kedavra attempt and for openly defying Umbridge and suffering the "bloody quill" punishment; Bill Weasley defended Hogwarts against Death Eaters and will suffer cursed facial wounds the rest of this life. Is this "fair?" "

No it is not fair, but puts Hermione in most unpleasant company. Umbridge, Greyback and Hermione Granger, those who scar others.



Solitaire - Jul 30, 2006 9:19 pm (#877 of 1080)
puts Hermione in most unpleasant company. Umbridge, Greyback and Hermione Granger, those who scar others

Well, not quite ... Harry didn't actually do anything wrong to get those scars. Even Umbridge knew he was not lying when she had him write those lines with the vicious quill. It also sounds like Greyback prefers children and young adults, which means that most of his victims were probably innocent of any wrongdoing or betrayal. Marietta, on the other hand, betrayed everyone in the DA and could have gotten them expelled (or worse, in Harry's case) by her actions. She wouldn't have been scarred had she not broken her word.

As I have said in previous posts, I want to know more before I condemn Hermione. Marietta has committed what some would call treason--during a time of war, when trust is essential--and she does not appear to have expressed any kind of remorse for her actions. I must have more information from Jo's mouth or her pen before I condemn Hermione as merely vindictive.

Solitaire



TheSaint - Jul 31, 2006 3:18 am (#878 of 1080)
So during this war, it is okay to use the same tactics as the other side, no matter the motivation? I also do not think canon tells us whether Umbridge knows Volde is out there or not. All I am aware of is she believes Fudge, and is a nasty piece of work.

You, I and Hermione know it is war, but the other characters did not.

You and I and Hermione know it is war, but the other characters did not.



Chemyst - Jul 31, 2006 4:00 am (#879 of 1080)
So during this war, it is okay to use the same tactics as the other side...

The reason we are doomed to disagree is because I don't call it using "the same tactics." The outcomes may have similarities, but the motives were very different.

(Voldemort wanted power for himself at any cost. Umbridge was another control freak who wanted her own power. Greyback wanted self-gratification. Hermione wanted to protect those who were teaching others how to defend themselves against power-hungry psychopaths and perverts.)



Catherine - Jul 31, 2006 4:28 am (#880 of 1080)
JKR didn't ever say that. Her choice to have Marietta use cosmetics, instead of the balaclava could possibly mean the hex was better -- but JKR never, ever said that. The decision to switch to cosmetics could just as easily mean that Marietta had had enough of wearing the balaclava. Perhaps she realized that things weren't getting better, so she'd better get used to exposing her face to others, simply using makeup to cover the hex marks.

Of course I realize that JKR had "never, ever said that." That is why I said that I "choose to believe," based on the presence of makeup vs. balaclava, that the marks are fading.

Other members of the Forum may not interpret it the same way. That is their perogative.

By mentioning that I've known several people who actually did this, I'm simply saying that the above sentence isn't my opinion, but something I know for a fact. Using an anecdotal comment as evidence for something that's contraversial is one thing -- I can see that the anecdotal comment isn't useful in that case. But using an anecdotal comment to illustrate something that most people already know to be true -- why does that make the comment unacceptable? -- Wynnleaf

I never said your comment was unacceptable.



haymoni - Jul 31, 2006 5:23 am (#881 of 1080)
Perhaps Marietta's entry in the Epilogue states that she is finally able to rid herself of Hermione's hex marks by purchasing some of Fred & George's cream. She presently lives in Hogsmeade, designing balaclavas for hags.



Solitaire - Jul 31, 2006 8:18 am (#882 of 1080)
LOL Haymoni!

You and I and Hermione know it is war, but the other characters did not. Alas, I don't believe this. By the time Marietta rats out the group, the DEs have escaped from Azkaban and some people have begun to take Harry seriously. Even Seamus, one of Harry's loudest and most volatile critics, has joined the DA.

Had she acted earlier in the year, I might have accepted the idea that Marietta didn't understand that they were in a war. Even so, by the time she betrays the group, she knows that it is really just another study group, but for practical experience. She also knows that the kids are not practicing Dark Curses; they are learning simple hexes and jinxes and how to defend themselves against them. Marietta knew the truth. It is her motives that are in question.

Solitaire



Mrs. D. - Aug 1, 2006 2:42 pm (#883 of 1080)
I am wondering if people who suffered from acne as youths are more inclined to feel sorry for Marietta than those for whom it was not as big a problem. Does that play into the situation at all? I know I feel more for characters that I closely identify with.

On a side note, Marietta's age does not come into play for me regarding her pledge. I have held pretty tight to my moral compass all my life. I was once told it was rather unusual at my age to hold the expectations I had of people. I am now 38, but was only an early teen during the discussion. It was pointed out that I had very sharp ideas of right and wrong and expected too much of people. I of course disagreed.



TheSaint - Aug 1, 2006 3:35 pm (#884 of 1080)
No idea on the acne aspect. Perhaps it is easier for some to put themselves in another's shoes. Maybe it is people who understand the word 'victim' too much. Maybe it is just differences.



Madame Pomfrey - Aug 1, 2006 3:39 pm (#885 of 1080)
Solitaire,Good point. What was her motive? She acted after both the escape of the DE and Harry's Quibbler interview.Why then? Why wait til after there is some evidence that what Harry and Dumbledore have been saying may be true?

Mrs.D I have had problems with acne in the past and have no problem what so ever with Marietta's punishment.It could have been much worse.



wynnleaf - Aug 1, 2006 5:50 pm (#886 of 1080)
Maybe it's just me, but I never thought Marietta just got a bad case of acne. Anyway, personally -- I was blessed with almost no acne problems, so that's got nothing to do with my feelings about this case. I'm not sympathetic to Marietta. I have no problems with her getting hexed even. I have a lot of problems with Hermione placing what at least appears to be a permanent hex on someone without saying it was part of the contract.



Ponine - Aug 1, 2006 9:33 pm (#887 of 1080)
Wow -- The Marietta thread lives again...

I think this is one of the most interesting discussions we have, and I truly hope that JKR will share her take on it one day. A few things popped up that I want to get my two knuts in on -- although many of my thoughts on both sides of the subject has been touched on already by many of the forumers I respect a lot.

In no particular order -- I'm not that great at the quoting stuff, so please bear with me..

The Sceptic One uses the words terrorist organization, and that is not appropriate at all, imho. This is a group consisting of twenty or so people Marietta has gone to school with for at least four years, people she has met with on a regular basis for six months, and all they have done is school work!! What they are working on is not Dark Arts, it's DEFENSE against them, and it has up until the same woman who banned all sports teams, adores Draco Malfoy and cancelled Christmas, been a part of the school curriculum for years and years -- they are actually expected to demonstrate their knowledge of them on their OWLs. As has been pointed out by several others, the timing is a huge factor in this.

Pure speculation of course, but that as any boils/zits/acne/whatever are temporary (albeit perhaps stubborn) in nature, I never believed the SNEAK to be permanent. As a matter of fact, I believe the word itself says a lot about Hermione's intent and lack of malice. I mean -- it could have read betrayal, liar, culprit -- and the r-rated list goes on and on -- but it doesn't. It said sneak. Also, based on JKR's writing style, I'm convinced that the reason Marietta was brought up again was to point out that she is -- slowly -- healing. We know nothing about Marietta's mother and her possible influence on her daughter, with the exception of Cho's one comment, but as that is from a sixteen-year-old girl defending her best friend to her love interest, I have a hard time accepting her words at face value.

Furthermore, it is evident that it is not something Hermione took lightly -- she actually "steeled" herself, if I remember correctly. Hermione as a Prefect and Harry's bestfriend is going out on a limb here, risking everything, for the sole reason of her fellow students's personal learning and protection. The threesome could easily have practiced alone, but both Harry and Hermione decided to go the extra distance for the others' benefit.

About good and bad and war and all that -- brought up by Laura and Wynnleaf in a few posts. I think this is JKR proving a point. The wizarding world is not perfect. It is very much like our world, it's not black and white, only murky and less murky greys. Obvious parallels would be the death penalty -- as as far as I'm concerned it has many of the same ethical dilemmas attached to it as Auror usage of the Unforgivable Curses, although I personally know where I stand on both issues.

I do think Mrs. D is on to something -- it may be that some identify more with one character than the other and that that influences the way we perceive the situation. I'm personally not a fan of bringing in the word 'victim' here, particularly not in the context implied The Saint. I don't think Marietta is the victim of anything but her own shortcomings, and whether or not it applies or is familiar to the rest of us should remain irrelevant IMHO. (If I misunderstood, I apologize.) I do not believe that the pimples would have appeared at all had Marietta been coerced or imperioed, and finally, I wonder -- say, if I had a mushroom, and I left it on a table, with a great big sign, that said 'don't touch - and definitely don't eat,' and someone did just that -- would that be my fault?

Finally -- for sure -- Wynnleaf -- I think you really nail it in your last post when pointing out that we seem to perceive the event itself very differently -- I'd be interested to know if your perspectives would change at all if you learned that boils were temporary? What about you others? Would your perspectives change if you learned she would walk around with oozing boils for the rest of her life?

Have a great night, everyone! Ponine



The One - Aug 2, 2006 2:32 am (#888 of 1080)
Just to clearify:

I never said that the DA was a terrorist organisation. That word was just an extreme example to show that there is situations where it will be right to back out and rat out on your friends. The discussion is if this situation warrants it. The use of the word terrorist was just to emphasis that "she joined up, she should be loyal" is to simple.

One of you wrote about high moral standards. That only give meaning if it is clearcut what is right and what is wrong.

My point is: Any governemt is dependent on the citizens loyaly abiding by the laws and rulings made by the lawful authorities, even if all citizens does not necesarily agree with everything: This loyalty has it limits as the people punished by war criminal courts for following order clearly shows.

On the other hands, you are also expected to be loyal to your friends. But that also has limitations, there is cases where your friends actions are iegal, harmfull to themself or to others, or in oher ways questionable. Where does loyalty end then?

THe question about loylaty is difficult in manyy situations. Marietta was in a situation where loyalty towards her mother and towards the ministry was conflicting with loyalty towards a group fellow students.

It does not help how high your moral standards are, when the sitation oes not offer a clear distinction between right and wrong.

To us, the reader, it is evident what is right and wrong, but to Marietta it was not. We know that everything Harry says is the truth, she does not, and most people around her thinks it is not.



Laura W - Aug 2, 2006 2:46 am (#889 of 1080)
The Saint wrote "So during this war, it is okay to use the same tactics as the other side, no matter the motivation?"

I don't know if any of you guys know who Erna Paris is but she is an author who has won ten national and international writing awards for her books - part-fiction and part not - on history, war and such. (If anyone is interested, you can Google her.) Anyway, further to the above comment, quite by co-incidence just yesterday there was a letter by Paris in one of Canada's two national newspapers. Here is a quote from it:

"As Telford Taylor, chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, put it so many years ago: 'The laws of war are not a one-way street.' They apply to all parties, regardless of political justifications and propaganda."

Laura

I still contend that Mariette and Snape took the same actions in going over to the other side; but we cheer Snape for doing so and we boo Mariette for doing so. *My* side is with Harry and Dumbledore - one hundred per cent -, but I still see the equivalencies in what Serverus and Cho's friend did. That is all I have been trying to say.



Ponine - Aug 2, 2006 4:48 am (#890 of 1080)
The Sceptic One said: Marietta was in a situation where loyalty towards her mother and towards the ministry was conflicting with loyalty towards a group fellow students.

-- I contend that we know nothing about Marietta's loyalties or motivation for telling Umbridge, as there is nothing in the canon to warrant this assumption.

Laura said: I still contend that Mariette and Snape took the same actions in going over to the other side; but we cheer Snape for doing so and we boo Mariette for doing so.

-- I have entirely missed Snape's place in this discussion, but my gut reaction is to wonder how Marietta's actions, which are clearly detrimental and to the best of our knowledge not part of any plan of Dumbledore's can be compared to any of the motives behind Snape's actions, which we, due to JKR's careful writing, know nothing about. JM2K, of course.

Oh -- and I apologize for writing somewhat incoherently in my last post -- I had a lot on my mind and it was late..



Laura W - Aug 2, 2006 5:34 am (#891 of 1080)
I know it was a long time ago, but from my post #820 on this thread:

"However, I was not talking about flip-flopping one's opinion; but about coming to a considered second thought about a past decision or promise one had made which, in retrospect, one wishes one hadn't. Especially if the original decision or promise was made before legal age.

"I know nobody else credits Mariette with this thought-process and I myself am not sure that is what happened in this case. But it *does* happen. Snape was the most obvious case of this (assuming one believes he left the DEs), and everybody - including me - lauds him for it. So, if one hooks up with the bad guys and turns "traitor" that is a good thing, and if one hooks up with the good guys and turns "traitor" that is a bad thing? Looking at it objectively, deciding to go over to the other side is the same act (assuming one is doing it for the same reason in each case), regardless of what the other side is - which, of course, depends upon where you are standing.

"I have a feeling I have not answered your question, Saint. Hmmm. Had I not thought so much about Snape's actions, I might have looked at Mariette differently. Sure, it would be easy - and my natural inclination - to say, "I like what Snape did in forsaking Voldemort and joining Dumbledore because DD is out to protect Harry and I care so much about Harry, so ultimately I forgive Severus his youthful mistake; I will never forgive Mariette for forsaking the DA and telling the authorities about this illegal organization because, by telling, she was putting Harry at risk and I care so much about Harry." That would be easy, but would it be right?" (Laura W)

Hope that gives you the reference and context of my point about Snape (889), Ponine.

And I don't think your previous post was incoherent at all. Far from it.



timrew - Aug 2, 2006 6:04 pm (#892 of 1080)
Ponine:- I never believed the SNEAK to be permanent.....

I agree. Marietta, I never thought, would be marked for life (much as she deserved to). I don't think Hermione's that evil, much as I think she should ought to..............



Regan of Gong - Aug 3, 2006 4:12 am (#893 of 1080)
Why are people so concerned about Marietta? She entered into a magical contract, and as others have said, she would have been a fool not to think there would be no consequence in breaking the rules. She's gambled the freedom and magical education of 20+ of her fellow students. What did she expect "Oh don't worry, everything's fine and dandy"?

Basically, it was a serious contract, and she should've realised there would most likely be serious consequences. The time came for her to choose between what was right and what was easy, and chose what was easy, therby suffering the consequences later on.

Thank-you and goodnight (I'm off to bed)

Regan



haymoni - Aug 3, 2006 4:44 am (#894 of 1080)
Regan - nothing like a quote from Dumbledore to set us straight!



Solitaire - Aug 3, 2006 7:41 am (#895 of 1080)
Go, Regan of Gong! You tell 'em!



Madame Pomfrey - Aug 3, 2006 8:20 am (#896 of 1080)
Excellent post,Regan! I agree 100%



Choices - Aug 3, 2006 5:11 pm (#897 of 1080)
We have seen all through these books that breaking the rules brings consequences - loss of house points, detention, facing a hearing, expulsion, a stint in Azkaban, etc. When Marietta signed the contract, she agreed to abide by it's rules. She broke the rule about not telling Umbridge, so she suffers the consequences. I doubt the pimples are permanent, they'll last just long enough to teach her a really good lesson - nobody likes a "sneak"!



wynnleaf - Aug 4, 2006 6:09 am (#898 of 1080)
She entered into a magical contract, and as others have said, she would have been a fool not to think there would be no consequence in breaking the rules.

Apparently pureblood Ron didn't realize there were "consequences" until Hermione told him about what she'd done -- even then she didn't tell him exactly what she'd done. I guess that makes Ron a fool?

Basically, it was a serious contract, and she should've realised there would most likely be serious consequences.

I wish I understood why so many of you assume that all of the students would consider this some sort of "magical contract" and that they'd all know there would be "consequences." Ron, who is pureblood and even knew about things like unbreakable vows, didn't know there was a consequence to it until Hermione told him.

While we have learned about the Triwizard Tournament being a sort of magical contract, and the unbreakable vow is, well, unbreakable, I don't think we've had some major evidence that every time you sign your name to something in the WW, that you've made a "magical contract," and that there will be consequences if you break it.

Anyone who thinks this, please explain why you think Marietta would just simply know this; why Ron doesn't know it if Marietta should; and where in canon we learn that signing your name onto a club list automatically creates a magical contract; and where in canon we learn that all magical contracts create consequences and punishments.

We have seen all through these books that breaking the rules brings consequences - loss of house points, detention, facing a hearing, expulsion, a stint in Azkaban, etc.

The rules that bring consequences in the book are stated school policies and laws of the WW. Marietta broke an agreement with other students and that was wrong. But there was no stated school policy or WW law that said she couldn't break an agreement with students. Hermione's punishment is not stated, not an agreed upon rule, and Hermione herself has no personal authority to exact such punishment.

Do you think that if a student were to break the rules of another school "club," they'd be punished? I think that it's not really the breaking of a school club agreement that is getting Marietta in trouble -- it was because she broke this particular agreement with this particular club, over a particularly sensitive issue of informing Umbridge about the DA. The issue here isn't "can you tell school administration about unauthorized school clubs that you've joined, but later decide you shouldn't have joined?" It's "can Marietta tell one particular school administrator about this particular club which this particular administrator is going to dislike?"

For instance, how many of you would think badly of Marietta if she'd gone to Flitwick and told him? After all, the agreement was to not tell Umbridge "or anybody else" about the DA. But if Marietta had gone to Flitwick, she'd have still got the "SNEAK" pustules and they'd have still been just as permanent as they appear to be now. So would everyone still think Marietta got just what she deserved?? Because that's the way Hermione set it up.

If Marietta had just gone to her head of house, a person probably sympathetic to the endeavor, and asked his advice, she'd have still been hit with the hex. Would it have been fair to everyone then? I'm just curious.



Steve Newton - Aug 4, 2006 6:25 am (#899 of 1080)
It is clear from reading the chapter that everyone realized that signing was a serious business. And, in fact, there was no known obligation on anyone to continue attending. I do think that it is somewhat disingenuous (I think that this is the first time that I have ever used that word) to say that they were just studying. It may have only been a side effect, but they did become an army. Just not Dumbledore's. I think that there is definitely a Potter's Army. I'm guessing that there will be a mention in book 7, Harry Potter and the Really Great Conclusion, of several former members performing heroic deeds off camera. I'd bet on Angelina.



Choices - Aug 4, 2006 1:07 pm (#900 of 1080)
Well, even if Marietta hadn't signed anything, I think it is well known among kids that you don't rat on each other. It's just not something you do if you want to be liked and trusted by your friends. I have no sympathy for Marietta, being a rat is not a good thing. Just ask Peter Pettigrew!


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Mona on Thu May 19, 2011 12:28 am; edited 3 times in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 59
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Posts 901 to 940

Post  Mona Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:48 am

Solitaire - Aug 4, 2006 1:31 pm (#901 of 1080)
I'd bet on Angelina.

Well, Angelina is no longer at Hogwarts. I wonder if she is even in touch with any of the kids, including the Twins.

Like Steve, I think the kids realized signing the paper was serious. Even Ernie hesitated a bit before signing ... and I think this underlines the fact that he knew he was making a commitment. Surely if he realized it, others did.

Solitaire



Mediwitch - Aug 4, 2006 5:28 pm (#902 of 1080)
wynnleaf: I wish I understood why so many of you assume that all of the students would consider this some sort of "magical contract" and that they'd all know there would be "consequences." Ron, who is pureblood and even knew about things like unbreakable vows, didn't know there was a consequence to it until Hermione told him.

While we have learned about the Triwizard Tournament being a sort of magical contract, and the unbreakable vow is, well, unbreakable, I don't think we've had some major evidence that every time you sign your name to something in the WW, that you've made a "magical contract," and that there will be consequences if you break it.

Anyone who thinks this, please explain why you think Marietta would just simply know this; why Ron doesn't know it if Marietta should; and where in canon we learn that signing your name onto a club list automatically creates a magical contract; and where in canon we learn that all magical contracts create consequences and punishments.

Because Ron is generally pretty clueless (if he put as much effort into thinking most things through as he does chess, he'd be a lot better off) and Marietta is in Ravenclaw, which implies that she's smart and she knows how to use her brains.



Chemyst - Aug 4, 2006 5:55 pm (#903 of 1080)
Apparently pureblood Ron didn't realize there were "consequences" until Hermione told him about what she'd done
Ron, who is pureblood and even knew about things like unbreakable vows, didn't know there was a consequence to it until Hermione told him. ...
please explain [...] why Ron doesn't know - wynnleaf

Because it's HERMIONE! Ron is never suspicious of Hermione about his safety. He trusts her in that regard. (He may not trust her with Viktor, but Viktor wasn't at the Hog's Head that day.) Doubt about Hermione's leadership would not enter his thoughts. She has supported him ever since the troll incident in PS/SS. They may not be a romantic item at this point yet, but they have been building a foundation of reliance, trust, friendship and affection for years. Even during their squabbles they would not have sold each other out. He wasn't going to tell Umbridge, so what did it matter?

If anyone else had been organizing the DA, Ron would have been more on guard. He was not thinking with his pureblood knowledge. He was making decisions with his blood-traitor emotions.



wynnleaf - Aug 4, 2006 8:02 pm (#904 of 1080)
Okay, think about this. Hermione put the hex in. It didn't automatically happen. It was Hermione's decision. We were never told that some magical muse appeared to Hermione and forced her -- "Hermione, as you make this parchment contract you must have a consequence -- remember Hermione, all magical contracts have consequences, you must include one." No, no, Hermione put the hex in just because she decided to -- not some magical imperative coming into play.

If Ron was clueless to not know about a consequence, it's not because there was some magical imperative for one, but perhaps because he should have known Hermione well enough to think she'd have put one in.

Marietta, on the other hand, probably didn't know Hermione that well.

You can't have it both ways. If the consequence was there because "it's a magical contract and all magical contracts have consequences" then Hermione has no responsibility for the hex -- it was just an imperative -- it automatically inserted itself. On the other hand, if Hermione put that hex in -- and she did -- then she did it. The hex was there because she chose to do it, not because of some sort of necessity for all contracts in the WW to have consequences.



Solitaire - Aug 4, 2006 9:16 pm (#905 of 1080)
I, on the other hand, think Hermione thoroughly understood the seriousness of what they were about to do, and she probably spent a good deal of time in the library, researching how to construct a magical ageements. She probably figured that, if someone was there as a spy and did decide to go back and rat them out to Umbridge, they needed to know whom to trust and not trust, for their own safety.

You see, Hermione knew from Umbridge's little speech at the welcoming feast on that first night that she was going to be a problem. By the end of the first few DADA classes, I think Hermione realized that Umbridge's teaching methods were designed to prevent the kids from learning any defensive magic. After Harry's encounter with The Quill, I think Hermione had figured out that Umbridge was truly the enemy.

Hermione knew that if the Defense Association was going to succeed, there needed to be absolute secrecy. Since the endeavor was opened up to more than Gryffindors, she did not have the personal assurance that kids in the other houses were all trustworthy. As I said above, she needed to know if there were traitors among them. I think Hermione realized that, in the current climate of wizarding affairs, betrayal could have worse consequences than just being expelled.

Solitaire



Chemyst - Aug 5, 2006 6:02 am (#906 of 1080)
At the risk of horribly dating myself, Right On! Solitaire.

Marietta, on the other hand, probably didn't know Hermione that well.
You can't have it both ways.
- wynnleaf

Oh, I think there is a lot of middle ground with writing a contract; it does not have to be an Either/Or situation.

Contracts are written by their authors, who decide the terms. I don't see why a jinx should be mandatory on a wizard's contract. On the other hand, jinxing is probably a popular option for ensuring compliance. At the time, study groups were still legal and enough people still doubted Harry that it made sense to take an extra step to protect the group's leadership.

For me, it's easy to imagine Ron having faith in Hermione's knowing what she is doing and not questioning the details too much. The very fact that Marietta probably didn't know Hermione very well should be cause for her to be skeptical and get more in formation about what she is signing. If Marietta could not trust Hermione, she should not have signed.

Marietta had been given one of the meeting calendar coins. Every time she handled it she'd have a physical reminder of the precautions and security levels Hermione had used to protect the DA. From this alone she could have concluded that to cross Hermione would be to cross a very determined and clever witch. Or she may have trusted Hermione's pro-protection stance enough by then to gamble that nothing too bad would happen after all, were she to tell.

As I study this situation, I keep coming back to the fact that, as confused and unsure as Marietta may have been, she ratted out to Umbridge, the one and only person specifically named to not tell. Marietta consciously chose to strike where she could do the greatest amount of damage to her classmates as possible – or alternatively, to come off as the greatest hero should she succeed.



wynnleaf - Aug 5, 2006 8:29 am (#907 of 1080)
I keep coming back to the fact that, as confused and unsure as Marietta may have been, she ratted out to Umbridge, the one and only person specifically named to not tell.

Umbridge was the only one specifically named, but the agreement was to not tell anybody. That being the case, the hex would have occurred regardless who Marietta told -- Umbridge, her mom, Draco, Flitwick, anyone outside the DA.

Hermione included a hex that was neither required by the contract, nor revealed to those who were in the agreement. Her hex could have affected anyone who told anyone, not just the extreme of Marietta telling Umbridge. Hermione's hex was wrong and unfair, because she didn't tell anyone it was there and there's no reason they should have expected it.

Maybe part of "trusting Hermione" would be trusting her to tell people what they were signing on to.



Choices - Aug 5, 2006 9:26 am (#908 of 1080)
Wynnleaf - "Hermione's hex was wrong and unfair, because she didn't tell anyone it was there and there's no reason they should have expected it."

Marietta's telling Umbridge about the DA after she signed a promise not to, is wrong and unfair to all the kids who got into big trouble because of her. If you signed something promising to keep something secret, would you really expect to go Scott-free if you blab to the very person you promised not to tell? At the very least you would lose lots of friends and be known as an untrustworthy person from then on. If I had been in that group and she had betrayed us, I would want more than "sneak" plastered across her face....I would want her mouth permanently glued shut. In my opinion, there are few things worse than someone who would rat-out her friends - especially to a monster like Umbridge. As Sirius said, she should have died rather than tell.



Solitaire - Aug 5, 2006 11:00 am (#909 of 1080)
I would want her mouth permanently glued shut.

Yeah ... she's lucky it wasn't Choices who wrote that contract! She'd be dead from starvation! I can't help thinking Marietta is lucky that Cho and some of the other Ravenclaws still stand up for her.

Solitaire



Choices - Aug 5, 2006 11:33 am (#910 of 1080)
LOL Well.....maybe I'd leave a little slit for a straw. ;-)



Chemyst - Aug 5, 2006 3:58 pm (#911 of 1080)
...the hex would have occurred regardless who Marietta told — Umbridge, her mom, Draco, Flitwick, anyone outside the DA.

If she'd told her mum, it would be easier to see her as a naive victim.
If she'd told Flitwick, it would be easier to see her as genuinely concerned about school rules and protocol.
If she'd told Draco, we could debate whether she was jealous of Pansy or just plain nuts.
But since she chose Umbridge, she looks like she was intentionally playing what she thought would be her trump card. ('Not a big sympathy magnet, is it?)



Regan of Gong - Aug 6, 2006 2:17 am (#912 of 1080)
Here, here Solitaire, Chemist and Choices! Excellent points, especially Chemyst. I remember debating earlier in this thread about why Dean didn't get "Sneak" across his face for telling Seamus. Come to think of it...I can't actually remember our conclusiuon.



*Imagines Marietta sucking a cornflakes, toast and pumpkin juice smoothie for breakfast- "blend your breakfast?"**



Madame Pomfrey - Aug 6, 2006 4:44 am (#913 of 1080)
The only thing I can think of Regan, is that Dean's telling Seamus didn't lead to Umbridge finding out or to the disbandment of the DA. I think the D.A. would probably always be able to recruit new members.

LoL Choices!!!



Soul Search - Aug 6, 2006 5:32 am (#914 of 1080)
I don't think Seamus told Dean. He just brought him along to his first, and last, meeting.



Catherine - Aug 6, 2006 5:44 am (#915 of 1080)
I also think that Dean could have suggested to Seamus, "Look, man, do you want to learn some defense? I can take you tonight, but you have to keep it quiet."

Marietta's jinx didn't manifest itself until she revealed details to Umbridge.



Solitaire - Aug 6, 2006 12:30 pm (#916 of 1080)
The business with Seamus has always made me wonder about intent where the jinx was concerned. Did the "SNEAK" have to intend for the DA to get into trouble in order for the jinx to activate? I realize Seamus probably knew that Harry was planning to teach a defensive magic study group before it actually started, given that so many kids from different houses showed up at the info meeting. He would never have attended the Hog's Head meeting, because he was on the outs with Harry at that time. However, he might have noticed the fact that all of the other Gryffindors in his year, plus the entire Quidditch team, were frequently missing at the same time. The escape of the DEs from Azkaban simply served as the catalyst that caused him to seek out information about the group from Dean. I mean, maybe Dean didn't say anything ... but if he did, then it seems that intent must have played some role in the jinx. Does this sound nuts, or does it make sense to anyone else?

Solitaire



Choices - Aug 6, 2006 4:26 pm (#917 of 1080)
I think that sounds like a perfectly logical idea, Solitaire. Intent would definitely have been important in whether or not the hex would be activated.



Madame Pomfrey - Aug 7, 2006 10:15 am (#918 of 1080)
I like that too,Soli. Had Umbridge overheard Marietta talking about the DA and therefore got them in trouble, I doubt very much she would have a sneak face. She intended to tell Umbridge,knowing that in doing so,would cause it's disbandment and expulsion of it's members.Dean had no such intent.



Steve Newton - Aug 10, 2006 12:18 pm (#919 of 1080)
I see no reason to think that Seamus wasn't told of the group before any vow was made. He was feuding with Harry and chose not to attend. Being a friend of Dean I figure that he would have had some idea when the group was meeting and tagged along for what turned out to be the last on. Didn't he produce some kind of Patronus? He never signed the pledge, did he?



Solitaire - Aug 10, 2006 1:39 pm (#920 of 1080)
That is kind of what I said in my last post, Steve. And Seamus did say--while practicing the Patronus--"Harry, I think I'm doing it!... Look--ah--it's gone … but it was definitely something hairy, Harry!"

I do not know if he signed the paper or not. I suppose he could have signed it when he came to the first meeting ... or not.

Solitaire



Steve Newton - Aug 10, 2006 5:01 pm (#921 of 1080)
Wasn't trying to steal your thunder. I was away for a few days and had hundreds of posts to catch up on. I admit to taking a couple of short cuts.



Solitaire - Aug 10, 2006 5:26 pm (#922 of 1080)
Oh, I didn't think that, Steve. If you notice the last line of that previous post--Does this sound nuts, or does it make sense to anyone else?--I thought maybe I was not clear. BTW, I take shortcuts frequently ... especially with looooooooooooooong posts.

Solitaire



Steve Newton - Aug 30, 2006 10:27 am (#923 of 1080)
I'm rereading OOTP and notice that the day after the raid on the DA that Umbridge invites Harry to her office and offers him some tea spiked with Veritas Serum. Since Snape later berates Umbridge for using so much of the Serum I wonder if this could be the reason that Marietta suddenly spills the beans.

Although I have given Marietta no slack in the past I think that there is a hint that she was not acting under her own volition. Umbridge's explanation of Marietta coming to her with sudden confessions always sounded a little weak to me.

No, since I see no way that Hermione would know of this, I still would see no reason for her to assist in the hex removal.



Madame Pomfrey - Aug 30, 2006 2:49 pm (#924 of 1080)
Didn't Dumbledore tell Harry later that Snape had given Umbridge fake veritaserum? Snape didn't mention giving her any at another time.I think Marietta acted on her own free will. I wouldn't put it past Umbridge to imperio her though.



Meoshimo - Aug 30, 2006 4:37 pm (#925 of 1080)
Steve- I noticed something interesting regarding the spiking of drinks. Harry offers Ron the exact sequence of drinks when he's pretending to lace it with Felix Felicis as Umbridge offers Harry when she intends to use the veritaserum. (I felt good about myself when I noticed that Razz )



Madame Pomfrey - Aug 30, 2006 6:40 pm (#926 of 1080)
Could catch,Meoshimo! Same sequence..both fakes.The only difference is Harry knew he was faking,Umbridge didn't.



Finn BV - Aug 30, 2006 8:22 pm (#927 of 1080)
Wow, that's quite an observation, Meoshimo.

I think Marietta decided to inform Umbridge of the D.A. by her own free will, but, surrounding the sub-theme of fate, her not telling Umbridge that more than one meeting had occurred before she was placed uner a memory modifying charm, Umbridge was foiled in her greed.



Madame Pomfrey - Aug 31, 2006 5:19 am (#928 of 1080)
Finn,being that you are young and I am not, what are your feelings on the whole Marietta issue? Do you think she deserved what she got and that Hermione was right in jinxing the contract or do you you think it was harsh?



Vulture - Aug 31, 2006 10:13 am (#929 of 1080)
Could it be though, that her lame friend Cho drug her to the meeting, convinced her to join and she spent those six months debating that decision. Add her mother's constant reminders (which I would assume was the ministries side as her mother was one of the watchers), and she broke. (TheSaint - Jul 26, 2006 8:15 pm (#819))

The trouble is, almost every traitor has a list of such pressures (often genuine) behind their treachery. Wormtail had. The issues around dealing with a traitor are never nice and clean _ watch "The Wind That Shakes The Barley" (a great movie). But my opinion is that, no matter how distasteful it may be, the welfare of the traitor must be ranked far below the welfare (and protection) of the betrayed. This, by the way, means that the punishment must not, by its leniency, encourage other potential traitors. I think Hermione got the balance about right _ the punishment was a shock, but not inhuman. And unlike many others, I don't think Hermione was under any obligation to signal the punishment beforehand _ people should choose what's right because it's right, not because of what'll happen if they don't.

I've recently had long discussions about what Marietta did on the Hermione and Snape threads, so I won't repeat them here. (See posts #1976 to #2015 on the Hermione thread, and (roughly) #153 to #161 on the (fifth) Snape thread. My own contributions are #1976 _ #1978, #1985, and #2009 _ #2010 on the Hermione thread, and (specifically on Marietta) #159 on the Snape thread.)

But my bottom line is this _ if the Sneak Jinx shocks Marietta into not growing up to be a Wormtail, it'll have been a good day's work by Hermione _ not least for Marietta herself.

"So, if one initially hooks up with the bad guys and then subsequently turns 'traitor' that is a good thing, and if one initially hooks up with the good guys and then subsequently turns 'traitor' that is a bad thing?" (Laura W - Jul 27, 2006 2:07 am (#821))

Yes. Absolutely. As C.S. Lewis said, all the things the Allies said about the Nazis are wrong unless right is something they (the Nazis) knew in their hearts and ought to have practised. "If they did not, then _ though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for not knowing than for the colour of their hair". The D.A. did not launch into action without thinking and talking _ there was a comprehensive discussion at its beginning about issues of secrecy, duty towards authority (Eddie brought up problems for Prefects), and Voldemort's return. Sixteen is old enough to know right from wrong. Trust me on this _ I've been sixteen. :-)

Besides, in this case, the "bad guys" (Voldemort and the Death Eaters) are all, themselves, traitors to start with _ traitors to the Wizard World. When Dumbledore speaks about Severus Snape's defection from the Death Eaters, he generally says things like " returned to our side" _ referring, in other words, to the fact that being a Death Eater is a betrayal.

Chemyst, on your post #832 _ well said. Round of applause for every word.



Madame Pomfrey - Aug 31, 2006 12:45 pm (#930 of 1080)
Great post,Vulture! I agree whole-heartedly.



Finn BV - Aug 31, 2006 1:16 pm (#931 of 1080)
Well, Madame Pomfrey, I thank you for your confidence in my "young" answer, but my school and Hogwarts certainly don't fall on the same plane! Hermione was dealing with a much, much different environment, one where there really are people trying to kill your best friends. This "Dumbledore's Army" was a group which was against school rules, but the school rules were corrupt and in favor, slightly, of that person who is trying to kill your best friend.

Wikipedia, which is a high-class online encyclopedia with many long and detailed policies and guidelines, also features this rule: Ignore all rules. It has a short explanation following: If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them.

So, Hermione followed the rule to ignore all rules, because they prevented the D.A. and Harry from improving and maintaining Hogwarts' DADA classes' quality, not to mention the improvement they had on students' practical skills should they come face-to-face with Voldemort.

Ergo, I think Hermione was absolutely justified in what she did to Marietta, considering that the jinx would take itself upon anybody who snitched on the D.A., which meant that they were for Umbridge and, though they may not have meant to be so, against Harry, and, again, for Voldemort. Though Marietta, herself, may not have been for Umbridge, or against Harry, or for Voldemort, she was against the D.A., and Hermione wanted to make it clear what loyalties there meant.



Choices - Aug 31, 2006 4:24 pm (#932 of 1080)
Well said, Finn, well said! Loyalty is an important quality in these books and what happened to Marietta stressed that there are repercussions to being disloyal. It's never too early to learn that lesson.



TwinklingBlueEyes - Aug 31, 2006 5:37 pm (#933 of 1080)
I for one, am glad the books pay more than lip-service to loyalty. In my opinion a persons word means more than anything you can put on paper, or try and excuse away with fine print. Be it a piece of paper, verbal contract, an oath, or just a declaration of your loyalty by your actions, it is still binding. I think Maritta got off lightly. The cost of being a disloyal DE is your life. Welcome to the real world Marietta, its one of them growing up lessons.

Waves at Loopy! If people were loyal to themselves a lot of lawyers would be harder pressed to find work.



Laura W - Sep 1, 2006 3:59 am (#934 of 1080)

"Well said, Finn, well said! Loyalty is an important quality in these books and what happened to Marietta stressed that there are repercussions to being disloyal. It's never too early to learn that lesson." (Choices)


And what about Snape's disloyalty to Voldemort when Snape changed sides upon thinking about his initial decision re who to be loyal to? Guess Jo is telling us that there is good loyalty and bad loyalty/good disloyalty and bad disloyalty, is she? Talk about a mixed message were that so.

It all depends upon which side of the fence you are sitting on. If loyalty to the one you originally pledged to is the message here, we should all condemn Severus for being such a traitor as to take up with DD - assuming he has - at age 21(?). But we don't, do we?

As Telford Taylor, chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, put it so many years ago: 'The laws of war are not a one-way street.' They apply to all parties, regardless of political justifications and propaganda.

Anyway, I've really tried to present my position as best I can in my posts 818, 820, 823, 847, 851, and 889. That's all I can do. I gave it my best shot; if I failed, I failed. Guess, for me, it is now the agree-to-disagree moment.

This, along with some of the other ethical, philosophical and sociological questions and circumstances in the HP books that we take so seriously, is obviously for some of us (right, Vulture?) - and i include myself - a deep-felt and emotional issue/debate that far transcends a series of children's novels.

Laura



Gerald Costales - Sep 1, 2006 6:18 am (#935 of 1080)
(I read some old posts to try and catch up, sorry for jumping into the middle of a thread. ;-) GC)

The problem I’ve had with this Marietta and Hermione thing is the permanence of the Purple Pimples. Should Marietta be branded for life? If Marietta shows remorse and tries to amend her betrayal by recanting etc.; should or would the pimple be removed (by Hermione) or disappear because of some magic that is part of the Jinxed/Hexed Parchment? I don’t think that the Purple Pimples should be permanent. But, how long is enough one year, two years, etc.

Another problem is that Marietta memory has been altered. Marietta now doesn’t remember betraying the DA. Should Marietta be branded (possibly for life) for something Marietta can’t even remember? I know that the not remembering doesn’t lessen Marietta’s act of betrayal. But, what about fairness - What is a fair punishment for what Marietta did? Now, I agree being 16 years old is old enough to understand the situation. But, how many people make sometimes terrible choices in their past and go on to be good people. (People stop drinking, smoking, arson, stealing, etc.; given some help, understanding, support, maturity, etc.)

I was thinking about the Dean and Seamus thing. We know that Magic can determine age – Dumbledore placed an Age Line around the Goblet of Fire. And Magic can also some how determine intent – remember that the Mirror of Erised would only reveal the Stone to someone who desired the Stone but wouldn’t use the Stone. So, the Jinxed/Hexed Parchment had some precautions. Dean could invite Seamus and didn’t get Purple Pimples because the Jinxed/Hexed Parchment could determine the intent of Dean’s invitation and possibly the age of who Dean invited.

This is probably one of the most passion filled threads in the Forum. (I was posting here before it was closed. If any of you remember this Thread before its closure. Waves to Solitaire.)

More later. Don’t want to make the post too long. ;-) GC

PS Will we ever hear Fawkes phoenix song again? ;-) GC



Steve Newton - Sep 1, 2006 7:06 am (#936 of 1080)
I don't think that Dean had to invite Seamus. Seamus probably knew of the group through watching Dean's activities and once his feud with Harry was over he tagged along.



Choices - Sep 1, 2006 10:07 am (#937 of 1080)
I can, to a degree, see what you are saying Laura. With Snape, he (hopefully) left the evil side to join the good side, and with Marietta, she betrayed the good side to the evil side. We look with favor on Snape and with disfavor on Marietta, but that is the nature of the game. If we were all on the evil side, it would be just the opposite. I guess it all depends on which side you are on as to whose disloyalty you approve of. (Did that make any sense at all? LOL)



Vulture - Sep 1, 2006 2:20 pm (#938 of 1080)
As Telford Taylor, chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, put it so many years ago: 'The laws of war are not a one-way street.' They apply to all parties, regardless of political justifications and propaganda. (Laura W - Sep 1, 2006 4:59 am (#934))

Hi, Laura: I'm confused about where you stand. Do you believe (a) that right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder, that there is no universal moral standard _ in short, relativism ?

Or do you believe (b) that there is a single universal standard of right and wrong (even if none of us understands it perfectly or obeys it perfectly), and that everyone, good or evil or in-between, knows it in their hearts ?

I'm with (b). But understand _ I respect your right to choose differently. However, what confuses me is that, in your posts, you seem to be saying that (a) is true, that what's "right" is in the eye of the beholder. But then you quote Telford Taylor, above _ which as far as I'm concerned, supports (b), and with which I agree 100% (though there I have all sorts of reservations about whether Telford Taylor and friends actually lived up to those fine words, which I won't go into here).

Putting it in this Lexicon's context, do you believe that the Death Eaters think that what they're doing is right, and that they have a different morality to Dumbledore's ? Or do you belive that there is only one universal morality, not owned by Dumbledore or Death Eaters, which _ in their hearts _ the Death Eaters know as well as he does, but which he obeys better than they ?



Laura W - Sep 1, 2006 4:48 pm (#939 of 1080)
Edited Sep 1, 2006 6:27 pm
Vulture wrote: "Hi, Laura: I'm confused about where you stand. Do you believe (a) that right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder, that there is no universal moral standard _ in short, relativism ?"

I believe in the same rules for all. If something is wrong, it is wrong no matter whether your best friend or your worst enemy does it; if something is right, it is right whether your worst enemy or your best friend does it. That is not relativism. Exactly the opposite. It is fairness and even-handedness. Relativism is where you condemn those you disagree with for doing such-and-such but decide it's alright for those you agree with to do or say or think that exact such-and-such. It is the behavior - or thought or action - that is to be examined when determining morality; not who did it or which side of the conflict that they are on. Exactly, as i say, the *opposite* of relativism or situation ethics. (This is how I see it at least.)

My issue is not with the Death Eaters as opposed to the Order. In my posts I have made it very clear that *my* sympathies lie 100 per cent against the former and with the latter. As I wrote: "For me, Voldemort is the wrong side because it brings death and destruction and pain and suffering and injustice to the wizarding and muggle worlds, and for me, Dumbledore is the right side because it champions peace and tolerance and social justice in the wizarding and muggle worlds (values to which I, personally, hold)."

But this is the Marietta Edgecombe thread and it has been her action and the possible motivation behind it that I have been addressing. And, of course, comparing it to Snape's action and motivation, which I see as absolutely parallel (although they seem to evoke very different reactions from many Forum members).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And what you said in your last post makes perfect sense, Choices. You caught it exactly. Except that is not how I see things. *That*, to me, is relativism when it comes to morality and ethics. (Hmm, maybe I should have been a diplomat for the UN or something. grin)

Laura



Vulture - Sep 1, 2006 6:55 pm (#940 of 1080)
Hi, Laura: I wrote the stuff below offline before coming back and seeing your post #939. From what you say, it seems that, like me, you endorse position (b) in my last post _ the same rules for all, a universal law of right and wrong (which, of course, none of us obey perfectly).

And don't worry, I never thought you were on the Death Eaters' side !!

=========================================================================================

And what about Snape's disloyalty to Voldemort when Snape changed sides upon thinking about his initial decision re who to be loyal to? Guess Jo is telling us that there is good loyalty and bad loyalty/good disloyalty and bad disloyalty, is she? Talk about a mixed message were that so. (Laura W - Sep 1, 2006 4:59 am (#934))

No, it's not a mixed message, though I understand why it might seem so. I personally believe (unless and until I find out differently) that JKR would endorse what I described as position (b) in my last post _ that everyone, in their consciences, knows the universal law of right and wrong, and that they ought to do what is right.

Now, let's apply this to what you said above about Snape. For present purposes, let's assume that Snape is on Dumbledore's side. Let's also assume what I defined as (b), in the last post, to be true: that there is a universal moral law of right and wrong, and though we may disagree about it, and about how much others obey it, we all know it's there, and broadly agree on its essentials.

One of the odd things about the moral law is that setting up one good quality above all else and following it at all costs is not the way to obey it. For example, I doubt if I'm the only one who admired Bellatrix during her trial for her bravery in the face of the Dementors and her loyalty to Voldemort. But when we see her in Book 5, we see that bravery and loyalty are not enough on their own. Brave and loyal she still is, and she has followed those qualities at all costs, but she long ago left out compassion, mercy or love, and has thus become monstrous. Moreover, her very bravery and loyalty are now part of what makes her a monster. Read her own words about being a mother in "Spinner's End".

So loyalty can, depending on circumstances, be good or bad. Let's examine Snape. If Snape, when he served Voldemort, genuinely believed Voldemort to be good and Dumbledore to be evil, then his loyalty _ though mistaken _ was good conscience, and his desertion of what he genuinely believed to be the good side was _ by the universal moral law _ an act of evil, even though it benefited the side we know to be good. In short, we would say that he did a good action for bad motives.

But does anyone seriously believe that Snape (or any other characters) think Voldemort to be good and Dumbledore evil ? Why then would Snape, playing his Death Eater role in Spinner's End, gloat about Dumbledore believing the best of people ? Do we really imagine that there's a single Death Eater who thinks of their cause as good ? Aren't they all in it for something they can get out of it, like power ? Excluding Snape and his enigmatic loyalties, the only one to show a trace of goodness is Narcissa _ and that trace leads her to do something against the Dark Lord.

So, as far as I'm concerned, when Snape was serving Voldemort, it is highly likely he knew in his heart and conscience that he was doing evil. Of course he wouldn't have put it to himself like that _ when we want to do something wrong, we are all ingenious at producing reasons why what we want is right, or why it doesn't matter because right and wrong don't exist anyway. Remember Quirrell's words ? "Lord Voldemort showed me ... There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it ..." That might as well be the Death Eaters' manifesto.

Anyway, because I believe that Snape knew in his heart what right and wrong are, then _ if he is really on Dumbledore's side, he was following his conscience when he deserted Voldemort. When Marietta betrayed the D.A. to Umbridge, she was not following her conscience. For Snape, to have remained loyal would have led him into evil; for Marietta, to remain loyal was her duty. A complex message perhaps _ but not a mixed one.

Yes, there were pressures on her: it's called temptation. I don't believe that she was confused about what was right and wrong, because the way she betrayed them (going to Umbridge, of all people, and doing nothing to save her friend) tells me otherwise. I also have a hunch that JKR would not have punished her if she really was in an agony of divided loyalties.

No, it's significant that when Cho (with more loyalty than sense) tries to defend her, she (Cho) keeps hopping from one excuse to another rather than standing four-square over a genuine extenuating circumstance. First out of the bag is that mantra of 21st-century moral cowardice, shallowness, and refusal to ever take blame _ "a lovely person who made a mistake". Harry is absolutely right to blow this to bits (and bear in mind all the incentives he had to keep quiet and stay on Cho's right side). Then Cho shifts to how "hard" it is for Marietta with her mother at the Ministry and all, boo-hoo (of course, it wouldn't at all have been "hard" for the D.A. to have Voldemort playing turkey-shoot with them after they'd been expelled). When that excuse goes down like a lead balloon, Cho goes for the last refuges of someone whose argument hasn't a leg to stand on _ anger and "it's not fair": Hermione "should have told us she'd jinxed that list".

Now, don't get me wrong _ Cho deserves great honour for defending her indefensible friend out of loyalty and friendship. But her arguments demonstrate clearly that Marietta hasn't a moral leg to stand on. If it was Marietta herself making them, I wouldn't give her an inch. Note that the argument made with most conviction is the one about not being told about the list _ in other words, that Marietta shouldn't have been caught.

The problem I’ve had with this Marietta and Hermione thing is the permanence of the Purple Pimples. Should Marietta be branded for life? (Gerald Costales - Sep 1, 2006 7:18 am (#935))

No, I don't think she should, necessarily. But if we want to blame someone for this, I'm afraid I think we should blame JKR, not Hermione. My impression is that JKR got tired of writing about Marietta _ she may once have thought about coming to a conclusion with that sub-plot, but didn't feel it could be fitted in. It's one of what I consider to be the many leaks in Book 6.

Another problem is that Marietta memory has been altered. Marietta now doesn’t remember betraying the DA. (Gerald Costales - Sep 1, 2006 7:18 am (#935))

Are we sure of this ? I've seen a lot of argument about whether Memory Modification wears off or not. I'm inclined to think that either may be the case, depending on the purpose of the spell, but that's just my hunch. Is there any canon that makes clear whether Memory Modification is permanent ? (I myself don't think there is.)

I can, to a degree, see what you are saying Laura. With Snape, he (hopefully) left the evil side to join the good side, and with Marietta, she betrayed the good side to the evil side. We look with favor on Snape and with disfavor on Marietta, but that is the nature of the game. If we were all on the evil side, it would be just the opposite. I guess it all depends on which side you are on as to whose disloyalty you approve of. (Did that make any sense at all? LOL) (Choices - Sep 1, 2006 11:07 am (#937))

It makes perfect sense, Choices _ it's the relativist position (which I defined as (a) in my last post). But if this is your position, what do you mean when


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Mona on Thu May 19, 2011 12:29 am; edited 4 times in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 59
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Posts 941 to 980

Post  Mona Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:50 am

Vulture - Sep 1, 2006 7:05 pm (#941 of 1080)
Hi, Laura: I wrote the stuff below offline before coming back and seeing your post #939. From what you say, it seems that, like me, you endorse position (b) in my last post _ the same rules for all, a universal law of right and wrong (which, of course, none of us obey perfectly).

And don't worry, I never thought you were on the Death Eaters' side !!

=========================================================================================

And what about Snape's disloyalty to Voldemort when Snape changed sides upon thinking about his initial decision re who to be loyal to? Guess Jo is telling us that there is good loyalty and bad loyalty/good disloyalty and bad disloyalty, is she? Talk about a mixed message were that so. (Laura W - Sep 1, 2006 4:59 am (#934))

No, it's not a mixed message, though I understand why it might seem so. I personally believe (unless and until I find out differently) that JKR would endorse what I described as position (b) in my last post _ that everyone, in their consciences, knows the universal law of right and wrong, and that they ought to do what is right.

Now, let's apply this to what you said above about Snape. For present purposes, let's assume that Snape is on Dumbledore's side. Let's also assume what I defined as (b), in the last post, to be true: that there is a universal moral law of right and wrong, and though we may disagree about it, and about how much others obey it, we all know it's there, and broadly agree on its essentials.

One of the odd things about the moral law is that setting up one good quality above all else and following it at all costs is not the way to obey it. For example, I doubt if I'm the only one who admired Bellatrix during her trial for her bravery in the face of the Dementors and her loyalty to Voldemort. But when we see her in Book 5, we see that bravery and loyalty are not enough on their own. Brave and loyal she still is, and she has followed those qualities at all costs, but she long ago left out compassion, mercy or love, and has thus become monstrous. Moreover, her very bravery and loyalty are now part of what makes her a monster. Read her own words about being a mother in "Spinner's End".

So loyalty can, depending on circumstances, be good or bad. Let's examine Snape. If Snape, when he served Voldemort, genuinely believed Voldemort to be good and Dumbledore to be evil, then his loyalty _ though mistaken _ was good conscience, and his desertion of what he genuinely believed to be the good side was _ by the universal moral law _ an act of evil, even though it benefited the side we know to be good. In short, we would say that he did a good action for bad motives.

But does anyone seriously believe that Snape (or any other characters) think Voldemort to be good and Dumbledore evil ? Why then would Snape, playing his Death Eater role in Spinner's End, gloat about Dumbledore believing the best of people ? Do we really imagine that there's a single Death Eater who thinks of their cause as good ? Aren't they all in it for something they can get out of it, like power ? Excluding Snape and his enigmatic loyalties, the only one to show a trace of goodness is Narcissa _ and that trace leads her to do something against the Dark Lord.

So, as far as I'm concerned, when Snape was serving Voldemort, it is highly likely he knew in his heart and conscience that he was doing evil. Of course he wouldn't have put it to himself like that _ when we want to do something wrong, we are all ingenious at producing reasons why what we want is right, or why it doesn't matter because right and wrong don't exist anyway. Remember Quirrell's words ? "Lord Voldemort showed me ... There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it ..." That might as well be the Death Eaters' manifesto. But conscience is not fooled by manifestoes _ we may ignore it and suppress it, but we can't fool it.

Anyway, because I believe that Snape knew in his heart what right and wrong are, then _ if he is really on Dumbledore's side, he was following his conscience when he deserted Voldemort. When Marietta betrayed the D.A. to Umbridge, she was not following her conscience. For Snape, to have remained loyal would have led him into evil; for Marietta, to remain loyal was her duty. A complex message perhaps _ but not a mixed one.

Yes, there were pressures on her: it's called temptation. I don't believe that she was confused about what was right and wrong, because the way she betrayed them (going to Umbridge, of all people, and doing nothing to save her friend) tells me otherwise. I also have a hunch that JKR would not have punished her if she really was in an agony of divided loyalties.

No, it's significant that when Cho (with more loyalty than sense) tries to defend her, she (Cho) keeps hopping from one excuse to another rather than standing four-square over a genuine extenuating circumstance. First out of the bag is that mantra of 21st-century moral cowardice, shallowness, and refusal to ever take blame _ "a lovely person who made a mistake". Harry is absolutely right to blow this to bits (and bear in mind all the incentives he had to keep quiet and stay on Cho's right side). Then Cho shifts to how "hard" it is for Marietta with her mother at the Ministry and all, boo-hoo (of course, it wouldn't at all have been "hard" for the D.A. to have Voldemort playing turkey-shoot with them after they'd been expelled). When that excuse goes down like a lead balloon, Cho goes for the last refuges of someone whose argument hasn't a leg to stand on _ anger and "it's not fair": Hermione "should have told us she'd jinxed that list".

Now, don't get me wrong _ Cho deserves great honour for defending her indefensible friend out of loyalty and friendship. But her arguments demonstrate clearly that Marietta hasn't a moral leg to stand on. If it was Marietta herself making them, I wouldn't give her an inch. Note that the argument made with most conviction is the one about not being told about the list _ in other words, that Marietta shouldn't have been caught.

The problem I’ve had with this Marietta and Hermione thing is the permanence of the Purple Pimples. Should Marietta be branded for life? (Gerald Costales - Sep 1, 2006 7:18 am (#935))

No, I don't think she should, necessarily. But if we want to blame someone for this, I'm afraid I think we should blame JKR, not Hermione. My impression is that JKR got tired of writing about Marietta _ she may once have thought about coming to a conclusion with that sub-plot, but didn't feel it could be fitted in. It's one of what I consider to be the many leaks in Book 6.

Another problem is that Marietta memory has been altered. Marietta now doesn’t remember betraying the DA. (Gerald Costales - Sep 1, 2006 7:18 am (#935))

Are we sure of this ? I've seen a lot of argument about whether Memory Modification wears off or not. I'm inclined to think that either may be the case, depending on the purpose of the spell, but that's just my hunch. Is there any canon that makes clear whether Memory Modification is permanent ? (I myself don't think there is.)



Solitaire - Sep 1, 2006 7:13 pm (#942 of 1080)
**waving back to Gerald!**

And what about Snape's disloyalty to Voldemort when Snape changed sides upon thinking about his initial decision re who to be loyal to?

Since Voldemort's aim was really the subjection of the Wizarding World to his corrupt power, I really do not see how one can compare "violating" one's "loyalty" to Voldemort with violating one's loyalty to those (the DA or the Order) who are trying to free the WW of his tyranny. Voldemort does not really prize loyalty to him ... he makes use of it. As soon as any of his "loyal followers" become liabilities, my guess is that he cuts them loose.

I believe in the same rules for all. If something is wrong, it is wrong no matter whether your best friend or your worst enemy does it; if something is right, it is right whether your worst enemy or your best friend does it.

I agree with this, although not in the way you seem to be meaning it. I'd say supporting Voldemort is wrong for all. I'd also say keeping the DA's activities at Hogwarts confidential is right for all. I think that is what Jo supports, and I certainly do not think that is a mixed message. Not ratting out the DA would have been the tougher position for Marietta to maintain given her mother's role in the ministry. She chose the easier way, I think.

Solitaire



Madame Pomfrey - Sep 1, 2006 7:22 pm (#943 of 1080)
Thanks for the reply,Finn.I was curious about how the younger generation view this situation.I, myself at 15,would have gone against family wishes rather than betray a friend,but that's just me.If Marietta was so against the DA after having been coaxed in by Cho,she should have just quit going and kept her mouth shut.It wasn't her call to decide what was best for everyone else.

Great post,by the way,Finn!

As for Snape,It's all about the choices we make,as with Marietta.Both made a wrong choice.Even with going over to the good side (turning over a new leaf) there is still going to be consequences to pay.Snape may end up dead,Marietta with acne.Had they chose what was right to begin with their outcomes would have been different.



Vulture - Sep 2, 2006 9:29 am (#944 of 1080)
Cho deserves great honour for defending her indefensible friend out of loyalty and friendship. (Vulture - Sep 1, 2006 8:05 pm (#941))

I'm afraid that, since I wrote the above, it has occurred to me that Cho might have had less worthy motives. After all, Harry was in some sense her boyfriend _ it's possible that she was trying (in her conversation with Harry after Marietta's betrayal) to have things both ways: to be able to keep both Harry and her friend. When Harry's reaction makes clear that she has to choose, she chooses Marietta.



Solitaire - Sep 2, 2006 5:48 pm (#945 of 1080)
Several posts back it was suggested that Marietta may have been the victim of either the Imperius Curse or Veritaserum at the hand of Umbridge. I addressed both of those issues back in post #504 of this thread. I still think I'm right ... and Marietta acted on her own initiative.

Solitaire



Meoshimo - Sep 2, 2006 5:56 pm (#946 of 1080)
Marietta definitely told on the DA of her own free will. How would Umbridge have known to Imperius her or use veritaserum? She didn't even know who was in the group, let alone the fact that the group even existed.



Gerald Costales - Sep 3, 2006 9:04 am (#947 of 1080)
“. . . Marietta acted on her own initiative” Solitaire

.“. . . Marietta definitely told on the DA of her own free will.” Meoshimo

Can we with a certainty state that Marietta was not under the Imperius Curse or Vertaserum? I believe not.

What examples do we have of people under the Imperious Curse? We have some students under the Imperius Curse during Mad-Eye’s demo of the Imperius Curse in his DADA classes. Barty Crouch Jr was under it (but it was mentioned and not really written about). And the last example is Madame Rosmerta.

Now, Rosamerta was under the Imperious Curse for most the HBP and no one suspected Rosmerta had been cursed. And whose to say how different people would behave under Veritaserum. (Barty Crouch Jr used Polyjuice Potion for most of GoF and no one suspected; he was Mad Eye Moody either.) My point being is that Magic, Curses, Hexes, Jinxes, etc. can not be easily detected. (And don’t forget Invisibility Cloaks.)

So, I don’t know if at this point we can really say Marietta was under either the Imperius Curse or Veritaserum. I don’t think Marietta was under the effects of either, but at this time we can’t be certain of it.

“How would Umbridge have known to Imperius her or use veritaserum? She didn't even know who was in the group, let alone the fact that the group even existed.” Meoshimo

It has been already suggested that through just simple observation (and some thought); that people could simply figure out that something (the DA) existed.

(from post # 936) “I don't think that Dean had to invite Seamus. Seamus probably knew of the group through watching Dean's activities and once his feud with Harry was over he tagged along.” Steven Newton

So, couldn’t Umbridge or one of her helpers have notice Marietta missing at times and connected the dots just like Seamus? Or once you observed Marietta missing; observe and tail her to see what Marietta was doing. If Seamus could “tagged along” to the DA without being asked, why not Umbridge? ;-) GC



Choices - Sep 3, 2006 9:29 am (#948 of 1080)
But my question would be, "Why Marietta?" Umbridge did know about the forming of the DA - we know she had a spy in the Hog's Head the day they met and decided to organize. Willy Widdershins had been injured when one of his regurgitating toilets exploded and was heavily bandaged, but he could still hear quite well. He went immediately and informed Umbridge of what he had overheard in the Hog's Head, so she knew about the proposed defense group. But why would she pick Marietta to put under the Imperious Curse or to give VeritaSerum? No, I think Miss Marietta acted entirely on her own. I don't think the jinx would have activated had she been under a curse or truth serum.



Meoshimo - Sep 3, 2006 9:44 am (#949 of 1080)
The main problem I have with your theory, Gerald is this: If Umbridge had been using the imperius curse or veritaserum on Marietta, then she would have known for some time (most likely) that that group existed. Given Umbridge's character, I find it hard to believe that she would not have busted the DA as soon as she found out about it.

I don't think the jinx would have activated had she been under a curse or truth serum. -Choices

That's probably the best evidence that she wasn't forced in to snitching.



Catherine - Sep 3, 2006 9:50 am (#950 of 1080)
What examples do we have of people under the Imperious Curse? We have some students under the Imperius Curse during Mad-Eye’s demo of the Imperius Curse in his DADA classes. Barty Crouch Jr was under it (but it was mentioned and not really written about). --Gerald Costales

Barty Crouch, Jr., to our knowledge, was not under the Imperious Curse. His father, Barty Crouch, Sr., was under the Imperious Curse. Perhaps that is what you meant?

I think the evidence supports that Marietta chose to tell Umbridge about the DA. We know that Umbridge did not have access to the true Veritaserum, thanks to Snape. We also have Marietta refusing to speak when she realizes that she has the pimples on her face. I have to believe that if she were Imperioused, she would have continued her cooperation with Umbridge.

Also, while Umbridge is a vile person, I did believe that her willingness to Crucio Harry in her office in OoP was her first "foray" into Unforgiveable Curses. She did a lot of rationalizing, and seemed to talk herself into it.

In the end, it really wouldn't be necessary for Umbridge to Imperious Marietta, who had an apparent dislike of Harry and an opportunity to curry favor with The Hogwarts High Inquisitor who also disliked Harry.



Solitaire - Sep 3, 2006 1:41 pm (#951 of 1080)
Rosamerta was under the Imperious Curse for most the HBP and no one suspected Rosmerta had been cursed.

The point is that if Marietta had been under the curse, she probably would not have been able to resist giving information just because pimples appeared on her face.

As to how people act under real Veritaserum ... we do know that Dumbledore used it on Barty Jr., and he spilled his guts. However, the Veritaserum Snape gave to Umbridge was fake, according to Snape, so it wouldn't have done anything, would it? This pretty much leaves Marietta out there on her own.

Solitaire



Gerald Costales - Sep 3, 2006 4:54 pm (#952 of 1080)
. . . “I think Miss Marietta acted entirely on her own. I don't think the jinx would have activated had she been under a curse or truth serum.” Choices

Do we know the minute details or enough details about the Jinxed/Hexed Parchment to state that _if_ Purple Pimple appear _then_ you are unconditionally guilty of being a traitor?

If the Parchment acted similar to a bobby-trap or let’s say a landmine - Don’t landmines explode if an innocent child happened to step on it? (Now, I too believe that Marietta is a traitor, but I can not with a certainty and unconditionally state that she is guilty of treason/lying.)

“Given Umbridge's character, I find it hard to believe that she would not have busted the DA as soon as she found out about it.” Meoshima

Umbridge could have been waiting for what she believed as the ideal moment or Umbridge needed to wait for support (Draco and his like) to help her complete the trapping of the DA. Umbridge is a bureaucrat and should know how somethings need to or can wait and other things need to happen immediately. (Umbridge took her time with Harry using her Quill.) I don’t see Umbridge as that impulsive or impatient to spring a trap too early.

When it comes to knowing the details, isn’t JKR the only one that knows everything and all the back-story. I may believe that Marietta is a SNEAK but I really can’t know the motivation or intent of Marietta’s betrayal of the DA. (Marietta doesn’t really have a big enough part in the Book to draw some definite conclusions.)

(re: post #950)

. . . . . . . . . . . “How did your father subdue you?” said Dumbledore.

. . . . . . . . . . . . “The Imperious Curse,” Crouch (junior) said. “I was under my father’s

. . . . . . . . . . . control. I was forced to wear an Invisibility Cloak day and night. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (pg 685, GoF American hardback edition)

Yes, I meant Barty Crouch Jr and when I skimmed that part of the Book to confirm it; Moody was under the Imperious Curse while in his Magical Trunk also. ;-) GC

PS Wanted to response to Solitaire in post #951 but didn’t have time. ;-) GC



Steve Newton - Sep 3, 2006 5:16 pm (#953 of 1080)
Do we know the minute details or enough details about the Jinxed/Hexed Parchment to state that _if_ Purple Pimple appear _then_ you are unconditionally guilty of being a traitor?

I think that we do.



Chemyst - Sep 3, 2006 5:39 pm (#954 of 1080)
Don’t landmines explode if an innocent child happened to step on it?

Only the ones that haven't been jinxed to identify the guilty.



Meoshimo - Sep 3, 2006 5:48 pm (#955 of 1080)
Sure, Umbridge took her time with Harry and the quill, but that's because she really enjoyed it. With regards to the Harry and the DA, she wouldn't have waited. She wanted Harry out of the picture as quickly as possible, and Draco & Co. would not be difficult to convinve to help.



Mrs Brisbee - Sep 4, 2006 5:24 am (#956 of 1080)
I have no idea what caused Marietta to suddenly turn betrayer after six months of meetings (and I do wonder what her motive was), but I seriously doubt either the Imperious Curse or Veritiserum were involved.

We have no evidence that the Imperious Curse causes people to blurt out the truth, do we? I could be wrong on this, but I only remember it causing the victims to physically do as told, and mentally feel in a blur.

As others have pointed out, Snape gave Umbridge fake Veritiserum, and once "SNEAK" appeared on her face, Marietta was able to choose not to say anything more. So Veritiserum wasn't compelling her to speak.



Gerald Costales - Sep 4, 2006 8:26 am (#957 of 1080)
My exploration of the possible use of either the Imperious Curse or Veritiserum has been, by most of you, nullified. So, on to other Marietta related topics for discussion.

What I gather is some of you think that if the SNEAK is not permanent then Hermione’s punishment is fair. Also, I assume that some think that Hermione is clever enough to enchant the Hexed/Jinxed Parchment that only a guilty person (Marietta) would be branded SNEAK (Herimone certainly could have chosen a more severe word than SNEAK).

Now, Wormtail was spared by Harry for the betrayal of his Parents and Dumbledore would later comment that sparing Wormtail was a good choice by Harry. An act of mercy was good for Wormtail but not Marietta? (I hope most of you think that Wormtail’s betrayal is worse than Marietta’s betrayal by the way. Wormtail is a mass murder.). So, the passage with Marietta in Book 6 was simply to demonstrate the severity of Marietta’s betrayal? A lesson of responsibility and grim consequences? If the passage on Marietta and Cho was just tying off a loose end from Book 5 – Will Marietta (or Cho) appear in Book 7?

I think that Wormtail was spared because Wormtail will redeem himself for his betrayal of Harry’s parents and this will be achieved in Book 7 with Wormtail aiding Harry. (Peter/Wormtail will show himself a true Gryffindor. Maybe by use of his Silver Hand.) I think that Marietta will have a similar role. I picture Marietta’s mother getting Marietta a position at the Ministry; Marietta passing important information to Harry and redeeming herself of her betrayal of the DA.

If Marietta (somehow) redeems herself of her betrayal – Should Hermione then remove the Purple Pimples? (I think Marietta is the Wormtail of her generation. So, Wormtail and will have similar roles to play in the Story. ) ;-) GC



Choices - Sep 4, 2006 9:25 am (#958 of 1080)
Harry spared Wormtail because he did not want his father's friends to become murderers. I think Harry fully expected Wormtail to be taken up to the castle and turned over to the dementors - a fate worse than death perhaps, awaited Wormtail. It certainly was not intended that he go free, just that Sirius and Lupin not murder him.



Chemyst - Sep 4, 2006 9:28 am (#959 of 1080)
What I gather is some of you think that if the SNEAK is not permanent then Hermione’s punishment is fair. - Gerald Costales

That is not an accurate summary of my position though. Marietta got herself into this, and Marietta needs to take some responsibility to fix it. We have not seen remorse. We have not seen an apology. We have not seen any offer of restitution. We have not seen her seek redemption. We have not seen her give an affidavit to the Ministry that would counter or explain any of her actions. If we have seen any effect at all, it has been that Marietta was able to manipulate Cho's sympathies.

I need some evidence that Marietta has done everything wizardly possible to ask forgiveness and make amends before I start judging Hermione's lack of fairness.



wynnleaf - Sep 4, 2006 9:32 am (#960 of 1080)
That is not an accurate summary of my position though. Marietta got herself into this, and Marietta needs to take some responsibility to fix it. We have not seen remorse. We have not seen an apology. We have not seen any offer of restitution. We have not seen her seek redemption. We have not seen her give an affidavit to the Ministry that would counter or explain any of her actions. If we have seen any effect at all, it has been that Marietta was able to manipulate Cho's sympathies

How can Marietta do this without any memories of it??? I'll grant she could be sorry for what everyone tells her she did. But remember, she now has no personal memory of it at all. No DA membership, no telling on the DA, nothing.

And before anyone asks, memory charms are permanent -- that's how Lockhart got away with using other people's memories for his books.



Solitaire - Sep 4, 2006 9:45 am (#961 of 1080)
Marietta must have some memory of what happened and why. How else would Cho have gotten her information about Marietta being under pressure because her mother worked at the Ministry--unless Marietta either 1) told her beforehand that her mom had been asking questions or 2) told her after the fact that her mom was why she had gone to see Umbridge? If the first is true, why didn't Cho tell Harry that Marietta was being pressured? Just wondering if anyone else is wondering ...

Oh, yeah ... is it even remotely possible that there are short-acting memory charms--which wear off after a short time--and that this is what Shacklebolt used?

Solitaire



Madame Pomfrey - Sep 4, 2006 10:31 am (#962 of 1080)
Kingsley modified Mariettas memory,he did not erase it.There must be a difference.After the modification and questioning by Umbridge Dumbledore said: "Tonight was supposed to be the very first meeting," said Dumbledore,nodding."Merely to see whether they would be interested in joining me.I see now that it was a mistake to invite Miss Edgecombe,of course." Marrietta nodded.

By Marietta nodding she is answering parts that she remembers truthfully,so doesn't this mean she acknowledges her deception?



Choices - Sep 4, 2006 12:31 pm (#963 of 1080)
I have always thought that only a small part of Marietta's memory was modified. I do not think the whole thing was blotted out, only a small part that might be somewhat incriminating. Dumbledore does admit that there was to be a DA and that night was supposed to be the first meeting. I think the part of Marietta's memory that was modified was that there had been several meetings already.



Gerald Costales - Sep 4, 2006 1:03 pm (#964 of 1080)
(re: post 962)*

Madame Pomfrey, rereading the quote you used. Dumbledore nodded then Marietta nodded. It seems to me that Marietta was only copying Dumbledore. ;-) GC

PS It was Dumbledore talking to Marietta not Umbridge. ;-) GC

.* edited post GC



Chemyst - Sep 4, 2006 1:10 pm (#965 of 1080)
Oh, yeah ... is it even remotely possible that there are short-acting memory charms--which wear off after a short time--and that this is what Shacklebolt used?

I find it hard to believe that in a society as highly developed and complex as the wizarding one that memory charms are all-or-nothing. It would certainly make sense that there would be variations in strength, scope, and duration, even if we don't have hard canon for it.

What canon that does exist offers a few hints that as charms age, there is a bit of deterioration in the spell. Lockhart, who specialized in memory charms – they were his one area of expertise, and who was fully aware of the ramifications of casting an incomplete charm, surely would have tried to give Ron the full dose. If Ron's wand returned the curse without a change in "voltage" then we'd expect that Lockhart was hit with a nearly perfect erasure. Yet, at Christmas during the trio's 5th year, Lockhart looks at Harry and asks, "Haven't we met?" And the healer tells the group that "we very much hope that this liking for giving autographs is a sign that his memory might be coming back..." She goes on to say intensive remedial potions and charms can produce some improvement, adding "Gilderoy does seem to be getting back some sense of himself, and we've seen a real improvement in Mr. Bode." So we have an expert who works with "permanent" damage offering hope.

Moreover, Marietta's memory was plenty good enough for her to return to her studies at the same grade level. She wasn't kicked out because she failed; she wasn't transferred to a learning disabled classroom; we have no indication she suffered any permanent memory loss.



Gerald Costales - Sep 4, 2006 1:28 pm (#966 of 1080)
I've been a juror on two trials and you can get experts to agree and disagree on any topic. The first trial was a malpractice suit. One set of experts said the child in question was born brain damaged. The other side had experts that said the surgeon caused the brain damage. ;-) GC



Chemyst - Sep 4, 2006 1:38 pm (#967 of 1080)
Point taken, however, there is a bit of difference: the healer had no galleons, sickles, or knuts to gain or lose. Expert witnesses at trials are usually paid.



Madame Pomfrey - Sep 4, 2006 2:01 pm (#968 of 1080)
Gerald,yes I know it was Dumbledore talking.I can see it interpreted that Marietta was only mimicing Dumbledore.However,Marietta didn't nod until after Dumbledore made his statement,In my opinion she was agreeing with that statement,whether of her own free will or because of a cue from Dumbledore I don't know.



wynnleaf - Sep 4, 2006 5:11 pm (#969 of 1080)
I'm not sure where the basis is for the suggestions that Marietta was mimicing DD. Umbridge asks most of the questions. It is Umbridge who told Marietta to shake her head yes or no.

Dumbledore said Kingsley modified Marietta's memory. The questions which she was asked, to which she could only answer no for, were regarding

1. Whether the DA meetings were regular over the six months. She shook her head no.

2. Whether she'd been going to the meetings. She shook her head no.

3. And McGonagall asked, "There have been no secret meetings for the past six months. Is that correct, Miss Edgecombe?" To which Marietta nodded in the affirmative.

4. She was asked if the meetings were in the RoR, and if Harry organized it and was the leader. To all of which, Marietta shook her head no.

Now Dumbledore said her memory was modified, not that she was Imperiused to answer a particular way. Since it was her memory modification that caused her answers, that means that Marietta could no longer recall the meetings, how long they occurred, where they occurred, who organized them, who the leader was, or even that she ever attended.

Now what else could be left of her memories regarding the DA? I can't think of anything else that she could remember about it.

No one ever said her memory was wiped clean. Of course she can still function and study and carry out her normal activities. But she can't remember anything about the DA or her involvement in it. That's really pretty clear from her responses to the questions.

Now as far as assumptions about how her memory probably got better. Well, for those assumptions to have any canon base, I'd think we'd need some examples, somewhere, of a character's memory of something being taken away, and then they regain it over time. I can't think of an instance of this, but perhaps others can. Otherwise, we have absolutely no evidence that Marietta's memory would have returned -- guesses, but no evidence.



Steve Newton - Sep 4, 2006 5:21 pm (#970 of 1080)
I do recall the Muggle at the World Cup who had to have several memory charms put on him. I'm not sure that this is what you are getting at.



Mrs Brisbee - Sep 4, 2006 6:39 pm (#971 of 1080)
The Muggle at the World Cup had to have multiple memory charms because he kept being exposed to multiple wizarding oddities-- a new spell to cover each new situation, I believe.

Lockhart seemed to be just starting to recover some rudimentary memories after two-and-a-half years in hospital under care of healers.

It appears that the memory charms we know of in canon last a long time.



Solitaire - Sep 4, 2006 7:45 pm (#972 of 1080)
I just posted the following on Hermione's thread, but I think it applies here, as well ...

Once again, Dumbledore was present in the office that day and saw Marietta's face. He also knew about Shacklebolt's spell to modify Marietta's memory. He had a year between that day and the time he died to do something about it--or direct Hermione to do something about it--but he didn't. Why not?

I certainly do not consider Dumbledore thoughtless or cruel or even unconcerned about his students. I don't think he would allow Marietta to suffer unjustly with no idea why. Just because we have not been told, isn't it possible that Dumbledore talked to Marietta (off-camera, of course) about the pimples and her actions? Harry isn't the only student to have been in Dumbledore's office. At the Hog's Head meeting, Terry Boot said one of the portraits in Dumbledore's office had told him about Harry having used GG's sword to kill the Basilisk when he was in there the previous year. I think it may be possible that Dumbledore has talked to Marietta.

Solitaire



Ydnam96 - Sep 4, 2006 9:16 pm (#973 of 1080)
I'm re-reading GoF right now and I recall that in the first chapter where VM is talking to PP about Bertha Jorkins. Peter asked if VM was going to kill him like he (VM) did Bertha and VM answered that Bertha was in no kind of shape to be living in because of the magic he had to perform on her to get the modified memories out of her head. (Not that he would have spared her life anyway).

That leads me to believe that the real memories must have been pretty hard to reach and wouldn't have "come out" on their own.



Laura W - Sep 5, 2006 7:46 am (#974 of 1080)
Vulture wrote, "Do we really imagine that there's a single Death Eater who thinks of their cause as good ?"

Absolutely!! If you were of the (twisted) mindset that all the evils and injustices in the world are caused by allowing Muggles and half-bloods and non-wizard magical creatures to have the same rights and privileges as pure-blood (ie - "superior") wizards, then someone like Lord Voldemort and his ideology would be very appealing to you. I could quote you numerous instances of canon where Lucius Malfoy, for instance, expresses those exact opinions.

I *thought* this conversation - in which I know I have made myself VERY unpopular and disliked among Forum members (sigh) - sounded somewhat familiar, Colm! Some time ago, I got into a discussion about Bellatrix Lestrange on another thread and I wrote the following;

" Just because Bellatrix Lestrange is both unhinged and obsessed, that does not mean she is not sincere in her cause and the sacrifices she would be willing to make. At least Bella put her galleons where her mouth is: physically going out and fighting her master's (the Dark Lord) enemies (Aurors), never denying where her loyalties lay, spending time in that awful Azkaban - all this during the Vapormort period. It was a heck of a lot more honest and - I hesitate to use this word - honourable in its own twisted way than what people like Lucius Malfoy, Karkakov, etc. did. They claimed to have been put under the Imperious Curse, claimed to have changed allegiance (not true, of course), etc. just to save their own skin until Voldemort rose again. By the way, like all of you I absolutely HATE Bella!! I just understand where she is coming from."

See any similarity here? (Well, at least I'm consistent. wink)

But we may have drifted too far from Marietta and her role in the series, and I fear I am boring others, and Lexicon quite rightly has a rule against going into too many political specifics. I don't do chat but if you - or anyone - want to continue to discuss this issue and what must seem to you as my outrageous viewpoint off-air, just click my name and you have my e-mail address. Or not. Whichever.

Now, please do all continue and I'll just toddle off to another thread for a while.

Laura (Might as well be hung for a dragon as for an egg - Mrs. Figg)



Gerald Costales - Sep 5, 2006 8:24 pm (#975 of 1080)
I was having a conversation with my older son. We were trying to determine who was eviler Stalin or Hitler. My son commented, “Well, Hitler couldn’t be all that evil. Eva loved him.”

I said, “Stalin probably petted dogs, but that doesn’t make him any less evil.”

My point being is that Evil people put there pants on one leg at a time like all of us. (Though that barbed pointed tail does get in the way sometimes.)

Marietta is probably a good daughter and good friend. Why does anyone do something heinous? (If you were Dan White it was Twinkies.)

I don’t consider Marietta evil. Young and confused maybe. And because of youth, Marietta should be cut some slack. Now, I don’t forgive Marietta but I don’t think Marietta should be so brutally condemned. Marietta is only a 16 or 17 year old young women. How many young people make terrible mistakes and grow up to be decent law abiding citizen? (Or how many go from Juvenile Hall to Prison a little while later in their life?)

I worked with a young man who killed a man at ATM one night. He’d AWOLed from his group home and needed money.

No one, No ONE is perfect. ;-( GC



Vulture - Sep 5, 2006 8:57 pm (#976 of 1080)
Edited by shepherdess Sep 5, 2006 11:28 pm
(In case what I'm about to say seems irrelevant to this thread, I do feel that its issues of goodness and loyalty relate to Marietta's betrayal.)

Hi, Laura: Oh, I quite like Bellatrix ;-)

No, seriously, what I mean is that I quite agree with you. I found her very admirable at her trial, the way she and it were described. Of course, I totally condemn her evil deeds.

On the more general point, I also agree with you about all these people like Bellatrix and Lucius Malfoy believing in their whole "pure-blood" ideology. JKR's comments about Regulus (and others ? _ my memory's fuzzy) being all for Voldemort's rhetoric at first, but getting cold feet when they saw his methods of getting power, reminds me a lot about what is said of many of the more influential sectors of society in 1930s Germany who mistakenly thought they could use Hitler as a Rottweiler whom they would control ...

But I still stick to my opinion that Death Eaters don't think of themselves or their cause as good. Let me test you on something (if that's OK with you): you say "By the way, like all of you I absolutely HATE Bella!!" Why do you feel this way ? Isn't she just doing what she believes in ? She's no worse than you, is she ? She just believes in different things, no ?

What's your immediate reaction to those questions ? My feeling is that, like me, you'd reject the assumption behind them. In my view, right and good are things which everyone knows in their hearts and ought to practise. Now, of course, someone can be given an appalling upbringing and taught that cruelty is right, etc. But even then, if they really are trying to do right, it will eventually show. (This may be Snape's story.)

My impression is that the Death Eaters are not concerned about doing right, even in a misguided way. I think what they are doing is telling themselves the words of Quirrell in Book 1, that "there is no good and evil, there is only power". They say this to themselves because, in their hearts, they know that their actions are not right.

Of course, there are principles and qualities which Death Eaters value _ but that arises simply from the fact that evil is simply perverted goodness _ it is not something with its own pure essence. The Death Eaters' pure-blood notions are, in essence, about pride: self-love. But love itself is a good thing, and a certain amount of love for oneself, is, too _ as long as it's balanced by large healthy doses of love for others. Voldemort is evil, but in Book 4, he criticises Wormtail for not having the three qualities he needs in followers: courage, loyalty, and intelligence. One of the ways a person can be led into evil is by taking one or two good qualities and valuing them in isolation from all others. Bellatrix is a good example _ at her trial she still seems human, and it's her courage we focus on. But she seems to put that quality above all others _ and that is the perversion of courage into fanaticism: by Book 5 and "Spinner's End", that is what she has come to.

Well, as Sir Thomas More said, "I trust I make myself obscure ?!!"

==========================================================

What I gather is some of you think that if the SNEAK is not permanent then Hermione’s punishment is fair. Also, I assume that some think that Hermione is clever enough to enchant the Hexed/Jinxed Parchment that only a guilty person (Marietta) would be branded SNEAK (Herimone certainly could have chosen a more severe word than SNEAK).

Now, Wormtail was spared by Harry for the betrayal of his Parents and Dumbledore would later comment that sparing Wormtail was a good choice by Harry. An act of mercy was good for Wormtail but not Marietta? (I hope most of you think that Wormtail’s betrayal is worse than Marietta’s betrayal by the way. Wormtail is a mass murder.). (Gerald Costales - Sep 4, 2006 9:26 am (#957))

Hi, Gerald: Well, no _ I think the punishment is fair regardless of any conditions. I would only say that I didn't expect it to last forever. In post #929 on this thread, I explain my opinion briefly, and in it, I give other post numbers which explain more fully. Also, may I recommend Chemyst's post #832 on this thread, with which I agree.

==================================================

I don’t consider Marietta evil. Young and confused maybe. And because of youth, Marietta should be cut some slack. Now, I don’t forgive Marietta but I don’t think Marietta should be so brutally condemned. (Gerald Costales - Sep 4, 2006 9:26 am (#957))

I don't consider her evil either, and I do forgive her. But forgiving someone does not mean not punishing them. Besides, apart from moral considerations, Marietta was a traitor in what was coming close to a war. Hermione had to protect the group and part of that (as in any war) was putting fear into traitors. In fact, it was her duty to put their interests above the traitor's. She got the balance about right _ the punishment was a shock, but it didn't kill or maim Marietta. You mentioned a young killer who "needed money" _ what about the poor bloke at the ATM who would have liked to go on living ? "Cutting slack" is not kindness _ my posts (see numbers above) explain why punishment has saved Marietta.

Edit: One line deleted as Philosophy of this forum prohibits quoting scripture. shepherdess



Gerald Costales - Sep 6, 2006 4:51 am (#977 of 1080)
"She got the balance about right _ the punishment was a shock, but it didn't kill or maim Marietta. You mentioned a young killer who "needed money" _ what about the poor bloke at the ATM who would have liked to go on living ?" Vulture

I believe some crimes (cold blooded murder, mass murder, genocide, etc.) are unforgivable and should be punished with the Death Penalty or Life in Prison. (People like Hitler, Stalin, etc. warrant punishment like the Death Penalty.) I don't think Marietta is on the level of a mass murder (like Wormtail).

What is that saying - "Forgive the sinner but not the sin." I still think there isn't enough written in the Books to know the real intentions of Marietta and without enough information, how can any really valid judgment be made?

And as someone has already pointed out - Does everyone really think that there is a WAR? If Marietta is a typical teenager, she is more caught up in herself and friends than in the current World news. (Heck I can't keep up with all the current World news.) Marietta may think of the Death Eaters as a group one hears about every once in while but Marietta has not a clue of the total impact the Death Eater would have if the Death Eaters and Voldermort came into power. (How many Germen knew the Nazis would try to eradicate all the Jews, some Catholics, some Protestants, Gypsies, other minorities, Homosexuals, etc.?)

The Death Eaters and Voldermort in Marietta's understanding are a News item not a Reality. ;-) GC

PS Some things don't hit home until they're on your doorstep (like Hurricanes). ;-) GC

PPS Being branded (SNEAK) for life (as it seems now) is just cruel and unusual. ;-) GC



Madame Pomfrey - Sep 6, 2006 6:09 am (#978 of 1080)
What I don't understand about Marietta is why she waited until there was proof that Harry and Dumbledore were telling the truth before snitching.The DE escaped Azkaban because the dementors were not under ministry control, Harry's Quibbler article came out in which he told all.All this happened before she snitched.Why did she snitch when events started to validate Harry's story?



Mrs Brisbee - Sep 6, 2006 6:40 am (#979 of 1080)
What I don't understand about Marietta is why she waited until there was proof that Harry and Dumbledore were telling the truth before snitching.The DE escaped Azkaban because the dementors were not under ministry control, Harry's Quibbler article came out in which he told all.All this happened before she snitched.Why did she snitch when events started to validate Harry's story?

The Prophet reported that the escaped Death Eaters were rallying around Sirius Black, who had managed to escape Azkzban when the Dementors were still doing their job. I'm not sure that that event would make it obvious to anyone that Harry was telling the truth, although it did make many people willing to consider that option. I don't know that there was ever any actual proof that Harry was telling the truth.



Vulture - Sep 6, 2006 12:56 pm (#980 of 1080)
And as someone has already pointed out - Does everyone really think that there is a WAR? If Marietta is a typical teenager, she is more caught up in herself and friends than in the current World news. (Heck I can't keep up with all the current World news.) Marietta may think of the Death Eaters as a group one hears about every once in while but Marietta has not a clue of the total impact the Death Eater would have if the Death Eaters and Voldermort came into power. (Gerald Costales - Sep 6, 2006 5:51 am (#977))

Well _ yes and no. Yes, Marietta _ like most kids at Hogwarts _ wouldn't know the full horror of what Voldemort's war would be like. But no _ she can't plead innocence, or ignorance. The point about the D.A. was that those who joined it were those who believed Harry's account of Voldemort's return, and this was discussed at the beginning. Also, what Umbridge was doing to Hogwarts was no secret, and Hermione had specifically named Umbridge as someone not to tell. So when Marietta chose to go, not to Flitwick (her House Head), not to Dumbledore (Headmaster), and not to McGonagall or Snape, who had been there longer than Umbridge, but to Umbridge herself, it was a very conscious decision.

What I think a lot of people don't realise is _ once a traitor, always a traitor: unless drastic action is taken. I think that Hermione's drastic action may have stopped Marietta from growing up to be a Wormtail. Bear in mind that Voldemort will be trying to exploit any potential traitors very very soon. I agree with you about "hate the sin but not the sinner" _ but that does not mean that the sinner should not be punished. On the contrary, the sinner should welcome punishment as part of their remorse. We don't even know that Marietta feels any remorse.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Mona on Thu May 19, 2011 12:30 am; edited 2 times in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 59
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Posts 981 to 1010

Post  Mona Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:52 am

Gerald Costales - Sep 6, 2006 6:32 pm (#981 of 1080)
. . ."hate the sin but not the sinner" _ but that does not mean that the sinner should not be punished. On the contrary, the sinner should welcome punishment as part of their remorse. We don't even know that Marietta feels any remorse. Vulture

What if Marietta doesn't remember her sin/treason any more? (It appears that Memory Charms last a while.) Yes, I think that Marietta needs to repent/show remorse for her crime. But, how long and what must Marietta do to get some relief from her disfigured face? Has Hermione or someone else approached Marietta; so that Marietta could make amends and be free from her Purple Pimples? ;-) GC

PS At else the Forum wasn't down all night. What would we do watch TV?

PPS Does anyone think Marietta will be Book 7 any way?

PPPS And are you certain that if Marietta had told another adult about the DA; that those Purple Pimples wouldn't still had appeared? ;-) GC



Steve Newton - Sep 7, 2006 5:44 am (#982 of 1080)
I think that we have had our last spot of Ms Edgecombe.



Choices - Sep 7, 2006 9:24 am (#983 of 1080)
Gosh, I hope so!! The way this thread was going I was afraid we were doomed to discuss Marietta's purple, sneaky pimples forever. Her pimples were becoming a bigger issue that Voldemort or Snape's loyalty. I hope we can squeeze past those pimples and move on to bigger, more interesting issues.



Steve Newton - Sep 7, 2006 10:06 am (#984 of 1080)
Ah, the joy of a good pun!



Gerald Costales - Sep 7, 2006 10:06 am (#985 of 1080)
Does anyone think Marietta will be in Book 7 any way?

In Book 6, there was only a small mention of Marietta and Cho on the Hogwarts Express going to Hogwarts.

Both Marietta and Cho finished their 7th year in Book 6. Could Marietta be getting a job that will help or hinder Harry? Madame Edgecombe was helping Umbridge to monitor the fireplaces in Book 6. I could picture Marietta doing some minor Ministry position.

What jobs are there for graduating students besides the Ministry?

.Sports. . . . . . . . . . . . Wood is a professional Quidditch player.

.Education . . . . . . . . . It seems that all the current Hogwarts teachers are ex-Hogwarts students and there is an open DADA teaching spot.

.Banking . . . . . . . . . . Bill works for Gringotts.

.Science . . . . . . . . . . Charley works with Dragons.

.Medicine . . . . . . . . . St. Mungo’s has healers and probably other hospital related positions.

.Transportation . . . . . Hogwart’s Express (trolley lady), Knight Bus (isn’t there an open attendant position with Stan at Azkaban), etc.

.Publishing . . . . . . . . .the Daily Prophet, Quibbler, Books, etc. and other publications.

.Entertainment . . . . . . The Weird Sisters, etc.

.Shop owner . . . . . . .There are some empty store fronts in Hogsmead (Ollivander’s for one) and Fred & George could have Marietta demonstrate some facial cream.* ;-) GC

.* PS At least I didn't write Spot Removal Cream. ;-) GC



Chemyst - Sep 7, 2006 5:06 pm (#986 of 1080)
Does anyone think Marietta will be in Book 7 any way?

Probably not. However, she might be well-positioned to play a small role.
We had a couple mentions in OP where Susan Bones knew a bit of Ministry stuff through her aunt. The murder of Amelia Bones eliminated that connection for supplying information. If Harry ever has a need for inside information from the Ministry that Arthur Weasley or Tonks could not provide, there is an outside chance Marietta may have overheard something through her mother and decides to tell Harry about it to make up for her betrayal of the DA. I'm not holding my breath.



Choices - Sep 7, 2006 5:13 pm (#987 of 1080)
If Marietta is finished at Hogwarts, then I think she is probably finished for the series. It isn't likely that she lives anywhere near Harry and he isn't likely to just happen to be in her neighborhood. I think she is a no-show in book 7.



Gerald Costales - Sep 10, 2006 7:54 am (#988 of 1080)
I don’t think that JKR had Marietta and Cho in Book 6 simply to tie up a loose end from Book 5. A _DON’T MESS_ with the DA or a definitely _DON’T MESS_ with Hermione message was clearly demonstrated at end of Book 5. (Madame Pomfrey couldn’t undo the Purple Pimples and Marietta left Hogwarts with the Purple Pimples scarring her forehead.) And remember the DA doesn’t exist in Book 6. So, the power of the DA didn’t need to be restated for Book 6.

Doesn’t Hermione comment that there is some undoable Magic (the Hex/Jinxed Parchment most likely one of these undoable forms of Magic)? (Can’t find Herimone’s quote, but I’m certain Herimone’s comment exists.) The “UNBREAKABLE Vow” has just been performed at the beginning of the HBP and there are four “UNFORGIVABLE Curses”. Marietta’s Purple Pimples just adds to the existence of forms of undoable Magic.

Whether Marietta will be in Book 7 is very questionable. But, people like Umbridge are still working at the Ministry and there are limits to what Arthur can do to maintain the interests of the Order of the Phoenix (I don’t see the Order disbanding with Dumbledore’s death). Madame Edgecombe or Umbridge could easily help Marietta obtain a position at the Ministry. (I could imagine Marietta doing some minor job at the Ministry and overhearing some tidbits of information. Information that Harry may need to know.)

Why not have Marietta help Harry in Book 7? I expect Peter P to redeem himself and show Peter P as a true Gryffindor. Peter P’s still owes a “Life Debt” to Harry. Marietta should have a chance to redeem herself for her betrayal of the DA. (May be Marietta will knock out Pansy!!!!!!) ;-) GC



Choices - Sep 10, 2006 8:48 am (#989 of 1080)
Gerald - ".... and there are four “UNFORGIVABLE Curses”."

Em, could you tell us what #4 is? AK, Imperio, Crucio and ???



Ponine - Sep 10, 2006 9:26 am (#990 of 1080)
hem hem, Choices... Purple postule jinx?

Gerald -- I must violently disagree with you in that Wormtail can redeem himself. Sacrifice himself for the good side, perhaps, yes, but never redeem himself.



Waving to everyone she knows and misses*



Solitaire - Sep 10, 2006 9:53 am (#991 of 1080)
You never know, Choices. Umbridge could offer Marietta a job on her staff!

Solitaire



Gerald Costales - Sep 10, 2006 12:55 pm (#992 of 1080)
(re: post# 989) Choices, thanks for correcting my slip. ;-) GC

But, here's another thing I found in the Lexicon concerning undoable Magic -

Unbreakable Charm

incantation not given

Makes an object unbreakable.

Hermione cast an Unbreakable Charm on the jar in which she imprisoned Rita Skeeter in beetle form (GF37).

"Gerald -- I must violently disagree with you in that Wormtail can redeem himself. Sacrifice himself for the good side, perhaps, yes, but never redeem himself." Ponine

Ponine, I didn't think that the act of forgiveness was conditional. What's that saying - Hate the sin but forgive the sinner. ;-) GC



Chemyst - Sep 10, 2006 2:23 pm (#993 of 1080)
"Gerald -- I must violently disagree with you in that Wormtail can redeem himself. Sacrifice himself for the good side, perhaps, yes, but never redeem himself." Ponine

Ponine, I didn't think that the act of forgiveness was conditional. What's that saying - Hate the sin but forgive the sinner. ;-) GC

I guess I disagree with both of you, but for different reasons!

Gerald, I don't see redemption and forgiveness as having to be co-dependent. Sometimes they are, but they don't have to be. Redemption turns something from a low state or indebtedness to a higher state or payment in full. And yes, while a debt can be forgiven by a "free" cancellation, often it has to be paid with a sacrifice.

The doctrines and codes of the wizarding world (as far as they have been laid out in the books) have Peter owing a life debt. For Peter, his only chance at redemption is to pay the life debt through his personal sacrifice. Unlike a muggle religion that offers a messiah, Peter does not have a savior to trust in so he'll have to do the dying himself if he is to be redeemed. Dead, but debt-free.

This is Marietta's thread, and wizard rules still apply. She needs to do something herself to be delivered from the curse.



S.E. Jones - Sep 10, 2006 3:16 pm (#994 of 1080)
We don't know what religions do or do not exist in the wizarding world, so let's not bring religion into the discussion. Thanks.



Honour - Sep 10, 2006 8:45 pm (#995 of 1080)
Chemyst, I agree with you completely, Marietta will, if she really wants to be free of her pimples and even more importantly, win back the trust of her (former) school mates, have to show her loyalty through a pure act. If that act is to assist Harry somehow in book 7 then a wrong shall be put right and I think indeed her pimples will disappear. Nice one. Then hopefully this whole Marietta saga will be put to bed, a lesson learnt ...Smile



rambkowalczyk - Sep 11, 2006 4:53 am (#996 of 1080)
I tend to fall into the group that thinks that Marietta's punishment might be to harsh.

Some of my points are on the Hermione thread #2067. As far as the memory modifications... I think all that was erased were the memories of the DA meetings after the initial Hogshead meeting. Marietta still remembered the Hogshead meeting, Hermione's caveat not to tell Umbridge, signing the contract. The only other thing she remembers is that there was going to be a meeting on the night that the raid happened. Marietta knows why she got the pimples.

Harshness seems to be a fact of life in the wizarding world and life is unfair. Suppose Remus as a young boy disobeyed his parents and didn't come home before sundown. If this was the night of a full moon, and was the night he got attacked, is it fair to say he deserved this attack because he didn't listen to his parents.

Canon wise I acknowledge a difference. Subtle evidence indicates that Marietta did not have noble motives when she told Umbridge. Lupin was probably stalked by Fenrir before being kidnapped and bitten. That is, he would have been bitten even if he obeyed his parents.

But on the moral side these curses punish both guilty and innocent. For instance although Marietta may not have had noble motives, if she did,the pimples would be the same and just as long lasting.



Solitaire - Sep 13, 2006 3:29 pm (#997 of 1080)
I don't see how Marietta's motives could have been noble. She knew the kids were not doing anything dangerous, and she knew they were not planning to overthrow the ministry.

Solitaire



S.E. Jones - Sep 13, 2006 7:54 pm (#998 of 1080)
Then again, how could she really have known that telling on a bunch of fellow kids would lead to Dumbledore being "forced" out of Hogwarts, Umbridge taking over as the new Head, and chaos insuing. If a kid tells on their sibling, they don't expect their mom to yell 'off with his head'. They expect the sibling to be punished like a kid would be, grounded maybe or a toy taken away.... She couldn't have known about the hours of pain Harry endured (and the scar he got because of it) sitting detentions with Umbridge or just how much the Ministry was lying about in relation to not only the current status of Voldemort and his followers but also how much they were turning against Dumbledore.

Not saying I completely agree with Marietta's choice, I just thought that might be something people might want to consider.



Gerald Costales - Sep 13, 2006 7:56 pm (#999 of 1080)
“I tend to fall into the group that thinks that Marietta's punishment might be too harsh.”

“But on the moral side these curses punish both guilty and innocent. For instance although Marietta may not have had noble motives, if she did, the pimples would be the same and just as long lasting.” rambkowalczyk

I agree with most of ramb’s post #996. And I believe that one of my previous post also applies to the idea that “these curses punish both the guilty and innocent.”

“If the Parchment acted similar to a bobby-trap or let’s say a landmine - Don’t landmines explode if an innocent child happened to step on it? (Now, I too believe that Marietta is a traitor, but I can not with a certainty and unconditionally state that she is guilty of treason/lying.)” Gerald Costales (post #952)

To be fair here is a very short but excellent rebuttal to my post #952.

“Don’t landmines explode if an innocent child happened to step on it?”

”Only the ones that haven't been jinxed to identify the guilty.” Chemyst (post #954)

But in a previous post, I had suggested that the Jinxed/Hexed Parchment could do just that “identify the guilty” and in the ebb and flow of posting I had forgotten my own suggestions.

“We know that Magic can determine age – Dumbledore placed an Age Line around the Goblet of Fire. And Magic can also some how determine intent – remember that the Mirror of Erised would only reveal the Stone to someone who desired the Stone but wouldn’t use the Stone. So, the Jinxed/Hexed Parchment had some precautions. Dean could invite Seamus and didn’t get Purple Pimples because the Jinxed/Hexed Parchment could determine the intent of Dean’s invitation and possibly the age of who Dean invited.” Gerald Costales (post# 935)

If Hermione designed the Jinx/Hex Parchment only to identify the guilty than Marietta is truly guilty. But, I also believe that if there is no possible remedy too remove the Purple Pimples than the punishment is definitely too harsh. You wouldn’t keep a Bear in a Bear trap forever. And you can’t keep Marietta disfigured with “SNEAK” forever either. ;-) GC

The quality of mercy is not strained.

It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven

Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:

It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.



rambkowalczyk - Sep 14, 2006 6:00 am (#1000 of 1080)
Gerald, keep in mind that the Goblet of Fire was also a contract that Harry couldn't get out of even though he was not the one who submitted his name. If brilliant wizards couldn't design a tamper proof goblet, I think we can cut Hermione a little slack for not fine tuning her contract.



valuereflection - Sep 22, 2006 6:10 pm (#1001 of 1080)
"Does everyone really think that there is a WAR? If Marietta is a typical teenager, she is more caught up in herself and friends than in the current World news. (Heck I can't keep up with all the current World news.) Marietta may think of the Death Eaters as a group one hears about every once in while but Marietta has not a clue of the total impact the Death Eater would have if the Death Eaters and Voldermort came into power. (How many Germen knew the Nazis would try to eradicate all the Jews, some Catholics, some Protestants, Gypsies, other minorities, Homosexuals, etc.?) The Death Eaters and Voldermort in Marietta's understanding are a News item not a Reality." (from Post #977)

This thread is so fascinating that I don't know where to begin to contribute. Gerald Costales' comment above reminded me of a quote /joke from Fidelio on another thread, which described what life was like for students at the time when the D.A. was formed:

" A lot of people are as mature as they are expected [or compelled] to be--both in the real world and in JKR's. My father was a college professor...he said that many of the new students coming in <after World War II> who were veterans, were a lot more mature and level-headed than the average student their age--they'd been living and coping with circumstances that forced them into it, so that at 20 or 21 they had the attitude of someone much older.

"It's hard to grasp how dangerous a situation really is, unless you have either personal experience of it, or truly serious training designed to prepare you for it. This is one of the reasons firemen are trained in part by putting out actual fires--it's the only way to get through to them just how risky it is. Cho and Marietta haven't been in the fire, and so they are still dealing with the world they knew, not the world that is arriving. There have been plenty of people who did the same, old and young, throughout human history...

"Marietta may have bought into the Harry-Potter-is-a-dangerous-nutjob propaganda. If Cho was obsessing over him [she sounds like that sort of girl], she might have convinced herself she "needed" to "rescue" her friend from his dangerous influence... As for "doing something because her mother wanted her to", I ask the parents on this Forum, would you want your 15 or 16 year old to give some consideration to your wishes and opinions, seeing as how they are probably still dependent on you for support and all? We're used to the fact that Harry is essentially operating independently of parental authority because he has to, and it's easy to forget that most of the other students at Hogwarts do in fact have involved parents or guardians. I won't claim that parents are always right, but I do think a minor child should pay some attention to what their parents say! True, at the age of 15 or 16, a young person should be learning to make decisions and take responsibility for their choices, but if you stop and look at how often Harry wishes he has actual parents to talk things over with, and get advice and guidance from, I don't think JKR intends to dismiss the role of parents altogether.

"... Marietta probably felt she was in a dreadful dilemma, worried about getting her mother into trouble, full of misdirected anxiety about Cho, and made a choice -- the wrong one, we agree. It wouldn't even surprise me to find out that when she tried to explain this to Cho, she didn't get much gratitude -- imagine having your friend tell you that she felt she needed to rescue you from an unsuitable potential boyfriend, when you didn't see any problems with him, other than his attachment to Hermione Granger! As a sidelight, I can see how aggravating Hermione must be to Cho and a good many other girls at Hogwarts -- she doesn't worry about dolling herself up to get male attention; she gets better grades than most, if not all, of them; she gets the attention of two of the most attractive male properties to hit Hogwarts -- Viktor Krum, international Quidditch star, and Harry Potter, star athlete and miracle boy; and when she does take the trouble to 'do herself up' she's quite pretty. No wonder Cho gnashes her teeth and snarls whenever Harry mentions her name! If only their little world had no worse problems that Hermione Granger's inexplicable attraction for desirable young men, Cho and Marietta would be fine. Poor girls -- it's the revolution and their hair is in curlers. "

(from Posts # 126 and # 129 on the thread "Cho Chang (posts from Nov 12, 2003 to Mar 24, 2004)"

Thanks Fidelio. Two years later, this still makes me smile.

I hope it lightened the mood and that I've offended no one.

P.S. Can anyone tell me how to indent Fidelio's quote, in order to make it easier to read?



Gerald Costales - Sep 22, 2006 8:44 pm (#1002 of 1080)
It is amazing the emotional investment that we have in these characters. The Betrayal of the DA by Marietta is High Treason for some. Both Hermione and her Hexed/Jinxed Parchment are just and clever. With either, Hermione and/or the Parchment, dispensing justice by trapping Marietta Purple Pimpled Faced and labeled “SNEAK”. Hermione is the Great Protector of the DA and can do no wrong. (And Harry is blessed to have Hermione as his clever friend and wise advisor.)

JKR has created such vivid characters and we suspend Reality. We believe in the World, Creatures, and People of the Potterverse. We cheer with each triumph of Harry. We weep and mourn the loses of Cedric and now Dumbledore. We haggle the right and wrongs of the whole DA, Marietta, and Umbridge affair.

The Marietta Thread is so emotional because Betrayal is emotional (Et tu Marietta!). But, to paraphrase Nixon – “You won’t have Marietta Edgecombe to kick around anymore.” ;-) GC

PS Unless JKR sees fit to return Marietta in Book 7.

PPS Someone has to clean up after the Owls or Nagini may need a Snack (or was that SNEAK).

PPPS Is being caught Purple Pimpled Faced the same as being caught Red Handed? ;-) GC



Steve Newton - Sep 23, 2006 1:58 am (#1003 of 1080)
Gerald, you were only 2 away from the record for PS's.



Weeny Owl - Sep 25, 2006 10:55 pm (#1004 of 1080)
With all this discussion about loyalty and such, I can certainly see what Laura is saying... either you're loyal to a person, a cause, a country, etc., or you're not. When discussing loyalty, it isn't to whom or what you are loyal but the significance of the loyalty itself.

I don't see it that way, though... I don't mean the loyalty part, but what JKR was showing with all of that. It goes back to Dumbledore talking about choosing between what is right and what is easy.

In the end, it didn't matter whether or not the participants were loyal as much as it mattered if they were willing to face difficulties to do what was right, and at that particular time, protecting themselves was right. It didn't matter if Voldemort was back or not... obviously someone set off the Dark Mark at the Quidditch World Cup, and with Fudge ignoring what happened with the outcome of the Triwizard Tournament, he was endangering all of the students at Hogwarts.

What was right was to help each other in finding means of self-defense. Even if the group was breaking a school rule, although when it was formed there wasn't such a rule, it was still just a school rule. It was made into a humongous situation by Fudge and Umbridge and their policies in quashing any civil liberties the students should have had.

I can understand the discussions about loyalty, but to me Marietta chose what was easy and not what was right. Perhaps it wasn't specifically easy for her to go to Umbridge, but by her going at all, she didn't chose what was right, and that was keeping her word.

Whether or not there was a jinx attached to the list doesn't matter. What does matter is that by signing at all, each person was agreeing to keep the group quiet. Sticking to what was agreed is the right thing.

So to me it's right or easy, and not loyal or disloyal.



S.E. Jones - Sep 26, 2006 1:29 am (#1005 of 1080)
Weeny Owl --I can understand the discussions about loyalty, but to me Marietta chose what was easy and not what was right. Perhaps it wasn't specifically easy for her to go to Umbridge, but by her going at all, she didn't chose what was right, and that was keeping her word. Whether or not there was a jinx attached to the list doesn't matter. What does matter is that by signing at all, each person was agreeing to keep the group quiet. Sticking to what was agreed is the right thing.--

So, if you agreed to keep a secret with a friend and then that friend told you they were taking drugs and you knew it was hurting them, would the right thing be to keep the secret you agreed to? Or would it be to get your friend some help before they killed themselves?

Maybe she had agreed to do what her mother had told her to do before she even left for school, which included siding with Ministry officials at the school, maybe she had agreed to do what she thought best for her friend who she had known long before the DA was formed and her signature scrawled on an enchanted parchment.

When it comes to right and wrong and loyalty, there are a lot of things to consider. Which is more important, betraying your friend or your friend's health, for instance. I'd say the latter is showing more loyalty than the former, in that particular example. Situations can really change the way we see right and wrong, loyal and disloyal. It's like what Fidelio was saying (thanks for posting that valuereflection!), relative situations can have major impacts. People's experiences are different and they color the way we see the world differently. If, as she suggested, Marrietta was viewing this from the point of view of her friend and a boy who's a bad influence on her friend, then she chose to be loyal to her friend. She chose to do the right thing by Cho, as she saw it. That was Marrietta's sphere of experience. She's not used to dealing with Voldemort, and life and death situations, she's used to dealing with the typical teenage choices of who she should date, whether or not she should argue with her parents over a curfew, etc. That might seem odd to us as we're dealing with the wizarding world through Harry's eyes whose been dealing with adult situations since he was a year old.

Whether she did what was right or what was easy needs to be examined within the context of her field of experiences. The easy thing might have been to sit back and not say anything and let a boy she thought a bad influence keep influencing her friend. The right thing to do might have been turning the guy in, and her friend if she thought she were really doing something wrong. I'd say she picked was she thought was right (and that's the big thing there, she thought it was right). Her past experiences would've given her a different view of the situation than we have. We've watched Harry who, as I've said, has been ankle deep in everything from political maneuvering to all out good versus evil warfare from the time he entered Hogwarts, even before. We've lived through all that with him. That colors our perceptions of the event. Again, what the right thing for any of us, who know what's going on in the wizarding world at large and who know what Harry's been through, to have done would be very different from other characters in the story.



Laura W - Sep 26, 2006 2:17 am (#1006 of 1080)
Weeny Owl began #1004 with:

"With all this discussion about loyalty and such, I can certainly see what Laura is saying... either you're loyal to a person, a cause, a country, etc., or you're not. When discussing loyalty, it isn't to whom or what you are loyal but the significance of the loyalty itself. I don't see it that way, though... I don't mean the loyalty part, but what JKR was showing with all of that. It goes back to Dumbledore talking about choosing between what is right and what is easy."


Talk about damning with faint praise (your whole message, that is)! (huge smile)

Seriously though, Weeny, just want to thank you for taking the trouble to actually read my posts from #818 to #939. Feels like I wrote them last century. I genuinely appreciate your effort to understand my point, regardless of whether you agree or not.

(laura w silently slips back out of the room)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weeny Owl - Sep 26, 2006 11:19 pm (#1007 of 1080)[/b]
So, if you agreed to keep a secret with a friend and then that friend told you they were taking drugs and you knew it was hurting them, would the right thing be to keep the secret you agreed to? Or would it be to get your friend some help before they killed themselves?

The point I was making was that to me Marietta's dilemma wasn't loyalty or disloyalty but doing what was easy instead of what was right. The example you gave is totally different from Marietta's situation. In her situation she signed an agreement knowing that she wasn't to go to Umbridge specifically. In your example, the situation is different, and in one specific way it's the actual signing of a document.

What would be right if a friend is taking drugs? In my opinion, getting the friend some help. It wouldn't be easy, because the friendship could be lost, but if the friend is saved, then the right choice has been made.

I honestly do believe JKR having Dumbledore mention this after Voldemort returned is a very important thing, and if she brings it up in the last book, I wouldn't be surprised.

Even so, regardless of an unknown jinx or not, Marietta signed the document, and not telling Umbridge was the right thing. No one forced Marietta to attend the meetings, and if she felt uncomfortable she should have quit. Even without signing the document, if she agreed not to talk about the group and went ahead and blabbed it to Umbridge, that still wasn't the right thing to do. The group wasn't subversive or plotting to overthrow the government, no dark spells were being learned, and those who participated were learning how to defend themselves. Now if it HAD been dark spells or a subversive plot, then she most definitely should have gone to an authority figure because it would no longer be a defense club. Since it was a defense club and nothing more, and since that was what she agreed not to mention, keeping her word was the right thing.

It's our choices that show what we truly are... Albus Dumbledore.

I genuinely appreciate your effort to understand my point, regardless of whether you agree or not.

I don't really disagree with your point, Laura, but with the lesson Marietta's situation is teaching, whether or not JKR even intends to teach a lesson.

I do understand what you're saying... it's the loyalty being given that matters. Looking at it objectively, if you were to ask people about signing something or getting a tattoo to prove you're part of a specific group and have the same goals and objectives, and then switch sides, most likely the majority would say that it's wrong to betray your group. If you told them afterward that you were discussing Allies versus the Axis, their opinions might be different. As it stands, whoever switches sides has betrayed their original side. Of course, I'm all for betraying the Death Eaters, but I really do understand what you mean.



S.E. Jones - Sep 26, 2006 11:42 pm (#1008 of 1080)
We see it as a defense club and nothing more, but my point was that she may not have seen it that way. And the situation really isn't that different. She sided with her friend in signing the parchment (didn't Harry even make a comment about it seeming like Cho dragged her to that first meeting?), just as the example above the kid sided with the friend in keeping a secret. She decided that, even if Cho hated her for it later, she should tell an authority figure that they were doing something against the current school rules, that could get Cho and herself into a lot of trouble, and that could get her mom into trouble; it would've been easier for her to just keep her mouth shut and risk that, but instead she risked her friendship with Cho to tell. I'd say she was doing what she thought was right over what was easy. Now, that's the way I think she saw it. I think we see it as being the "easy" route because we know, in the larger sceme of things, it was just a defense club and Umbridge was just a flash in the pan sorta problem versus the danger that Voldemort presents, but we see this because Harry does and he's our eyes into the story. But, that doesn't mean every character in the books will see it that way.



Vulture - Sep 27, 2006 3:18 am (#1009 of 1080)
I've said a lot of things in a lot of posts (and probably will again !!) about Marietta's "Sneak" Jinx, but just briefly:

Much of the discussion (including my own posts) has tended to operate in a framework of "Hermione versus Marietta" _ that is, either Hermione was right or Marietta was. Or maybe one was 80% and the other 20%. (I've always taken Hermione's side.)

But reading the last few posts, many of them speculating about Marietta having decent motives, etc., it does occur to me that the "Hermione versus Marietta" framework is itself a point of view.

In other words, can it not be possible to make a case that Hermione made the best choice she could, but that Marietta also made the best choice she could ? Or conversely, that they were both wrong ?

Now, my own personal view is that Hermione was right and Marietta was wrong. But not only is my view a personal choice, the "Hermione versus Marietta" discussion, on which I chose a side, is itself a choice, too _ one which most or all of us have been making.

(I'm feeling a bit postmodern this morning _ I'll be back to normal soon, I hope !!)



Steve Newton - Sep 27, 2006 4:53 am (#1010 of 1080)
I don't see what difference it would make if "Marietta also made the best choice she could." Traitors always have good reasons. They are still traitors.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Mona on Thu May 19, 2011 12:31 am; edited 3 times in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 59
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Posts 1011 to 1050

Post  Mona Mon Apr 04, 2011 1:27 am

Vulture - Sep 27, 2006 5:10 am (#1011 of 1080)
I don't see what difference it would make if "Marietta also made the best choice she could." Traitors always have good reasons. They are still traitors. (Steve Newton - Sep 27, 2006 5:53 am (#1010))

I totally agree. But that's my personal opinion. My point in the last post was that, up to now, people have either been anti-Hermione and pro-Marietta on this question, or pro-Hermione and anti-Marietta, and that that's a framework.

I myself happen to be pro-Hermione and anti-Marietta, but I'm just wondering if it's possible to make a pro-Hermione and pro-Marietta case, or an anti-Hermione and anti-Marietta case. Haven't seen that so far.



Weeny Owl - Sep 27, 2006 12:18 pm (#1012 of 1080)
We see it as a defense club and nothing more, but my point was that she may not have seen it that way. And the situation really isn't that different. She sided with her friend in signing the parchment (didn't Harry even make a comment about it seeming like Cho dragged her to that first meeting?), just as the example above the kid sided with the friend in keeping a secret. She decided that, even if Cho hated her for it later, she should tell an authority figure that they were doing something against the current school rules, that could get Cho and herself into a lot of trouble, and that could get her mom into trouble; it would've been easier for her to just keep her mouth shut and risk that, but instead she risked her friendship with Cho to tell. I'd say she was doing what she thought was right over what was easy. Now, that's the way I think she saw it. I think we see it as being the "easy" route because we know, in the larger sceme of things, it was just a defense club and Umbridge was just a flash in the pan sorta problem versus the danger that Voldemort presents, but we see this because Harry does and he's our eyes into the story. But, that doesn't mean every character in the books will see it that way.

I could see it that way if she hadn't waited six months to do something about it. If she had gone to one or two meetings and then felt that she needed to talk to an authority figure, sure, but that long period of time gave her plenty of opportunity to see that it was just what it claimed to be... a defense club and nothing more.

Also, if she had felt the group was questionable and had gone to Flitwick about it, I could see that, but she specifically agreed and then signed a document stating she wouldn't tell anyone, especially Umbridge. I could sympathise with her had she gone to Flitwick but not with her going to Umbridge, and it isn't even how much I dislike Umbridge but more that a specific person NOT to go to was mentioned and that was the very one she did go to.

Even if we see the group through Harry's eyes, there is enough information to show that the other students, at least the majority, also saw it as nothing more than a defense club. Obviously there were no dark spells being learned or plots to overthrow the government, and since Marietta was there, she knew that. She may have been pressured by her mother or someone or something else, but she still knew what the club was after all that time participating.



Thom Matheson - Sep 27, 2006 7:11 pm (#1013 of 1080)
In it's simplest form, a binding magical contract. After all, what is a contract? An agreement binding to all parties that sign the contract. An agreement that has an offer,( to learn defensive magic as taught by Harry), consideration, (money or in this case education in a secret society, so to speak), and finally acceptance, that being signatures by all parties to the agreement.

All of these are present. We agree to form a secret group to learn defensive spells, do it under the nose of the Ministry, and not disclose it to anyone. Marietta broke the contract and suffered the penality. What would have happened if Harry had said, Nope, not me, no thanks to the Goblet, I choose not to be a champion. You cannot break a magical contract for any reason. Hats off to Hermione. Even the knitted kind.



Gerald Costales - Sep 28, 2006 7:38 am (#1014 of 1080)
But at what point should the Purple Pimples be removed or allowed to fade? In Book 6 there is no evidence that the Pimples are fading or permanent. If the Pimples are permanent then I think the penalty is too extreme. Should Marietta be scarred for live?

How many people do terrible things then turn their lives around. And if Marietta accepts responsibility and shows remorse, should some removal or lessening of the penalty be allowed? Harry spared Wormtail. And Wormtail is a mass murder !!!!!

My feeling is Hermione may have set a trap that cannot ever be opened or repaired. Marietta is scarred for live no matter if she recants or not. ;-) GC

PS But then again that may be the hard lesson JKR is sending Hard Crimes = Harsh Penalties. ;-) GC



Choices - Sep 28, 2006 10:10 am (#1015 of 1080)
When the kids were petrified in COS, it took months for some of them to recover and when Hermione polyjuiced into a cat, she spent weeks in the hospital wing. I think in time Marietta will be back to her normal, traitorous self.



Vulture - Sep 29, 2006 4:56 am (#1016 of 1080)
It seems that no-one is interested in what I said in #1009 about the framework of this discussion, much less in exploring alternatives. Oh well. (Of course, I myself have a firm personal view within the current framework, so I guess I can't talk.)

======================================================================

Hats off to Hermione. Even the knitted kind. (Thom Matheson - Sep 27, 2006 8:11 pm (#1013))

Yup; mine too (not that vultures normally wear hats, but anyway).

======================================================================

How many people do terrible things then turn their lives around. And if Marietta accepts responsibility and shows remorse, should some removal or lessening of the penalty be allowed? Harry spared Wormtail. And Wormtail is a mass murder !!!!! Gerald Costales - Sep 28, 2006 8:38 am (#1014))

Well, Harry spared Wormtail from death _ not from punishment: Wormtail's case can't usefully be compared to Marietta's, because both the crime and punishment were more serious in Wormtail's case.

Harry intended Wormtail to be handed over to be punished in Azkaban. It was not Harry's fault that Wormtail escaped _ although when he recalled Trelawney's (second) prophecy, he reacted as if it was.

So in each case the traitor was to be given a punishment that was to be harsh _ but just. The real difference between Wormtail and Marietta is that there is far more hope for Marietta to change, and that we haven't (yet) heard of her doing other wrongs than her treachery in Book 5.

When the kids were petrified in COS, it took months for some of them to recover and when Hermione polyjuiced into a cat, she spent weeks in the hospital wing. I think in time Marietta will be back to her normal, traitorous self. (Choices - Sep 28, 2006 11:10 am (#1015))

I think you're probably right about it not being permanent _ although I'm not fussed if it is. However, I hope you're wrong about her going "back to her normal, traitorous self". In fact, anyone who wants Marietta to truly change should realise that the "Sneak" punishment, and its failure to fade, provides the strong unpleasant medicine to help her do so.

This must seem to many to be "a hard saying". But stop and think _ in "The Godfather" (the book), we are told at the end that the traitors could have been forgiven, but that "people never forgive themselves ... they would have been a danger to us, all their lives". Now, I'm not suggesting that we _ or Harry and his friends _ should adopt the moral code of "The Godfather". What I'm trying to get across is _ "once a traitor, always a traitor" is a very hard condition to break out of. It takes a fundamental change of personality.

Now, my feeling is that Marietta's "Sneak" Jinx just about gets the balance right. It is deeply unpleasant and humiliating, but not unjust or inhuman. Essentially, it makes it impossible for Marietta to live behind a superficial mask. Ask yourself _ if Marietta has to choose between losing the Sneak Jinx and developing into a decent, loyal, human being, which should she choose ?

I've said it often _ the moral code of JKR's world is much tougher, and less hypocritical and superficial than ours. That's probably why millions love her books.



Gerald Costales - Sep 29, 2006 9:54 am (#1017 of 1080)
(re:post #1009)

"Much of the discussion (including my own posts) has tended to operate in a framework of "Hermione versus Marietta" _ that is, either Hermione was right or Marietta was. Or maybe one was 80% and the other 20%. (I've always taken Hermione's side.)

But reading the last few posts, many of them speculating about Marietta having decent motives, etc., it does occur to me that the "Hermione versus Marietta" framework is itself a point of view.

In other words, can it not be possible to make a case that Hermione made the best choice she could, but that Marietta also made the best choice she could ? Or conversely, that they were both wrong ?" Vulture

I agree that Hermione made the best choice. Which was to protect the DA. And given the atmosphere that Umbridge had established, to Hex/Jinx the Parchment was the best and proper choice. But, I wonder if Herimone was as aware of the working of the Jinxed/Hexed Parchment when Hermione used Hex/Jinx on the Parchment.

My point of view at this time, because it as evolved. Is Hermione protecting the DA was good. And Marietta talking to Umbridge was wrong. Personally, I don't think there is enough Canon to establish whether Marietta's choice was the best choice. As someone has pointed out the Books are written from Harry's point of view. We have little or no hint of the feelings or motives of the other characters.

If I were to label my point of view it would be "Crime vs. Punishment." I don't fully support everything Herimone did. I believe the Punishment at this time is too extreme, harsh, and cruel. I doubt Marietta will do what she did again. And some will say it was because of the punishment. Being branded with Purple Pimples that say "SNEAK" should make anyone think twice of repeat betrayal.

There are Courts of Appeal. And there is now way it seems for Marietta to appeal, repent, reform, recant, or change. And at 16 years of age there is a lot of grow and change left for Marietta, But Hermione acted single-handedly. Hermione actions made her Judge, Jury, and Punisher. (May be the Hexed/Jinxed Parchment did it. But since Hermione put the Hex/Jinx on the Parchment, it is ultimately Hermione's responsibility.) There should be limits to any authority. And Hermione should not have the right with such absolute power and authority!!!!!

There are some things we will never know. I doubt JKR will have a conversation with Herimone or Harry to let Marietta definitely address Marietta's side of the Betrayal. This is after all Harry's story. And the Punishment of Marietta is a bone to pick on for us Pottermaniacs until Book 7 is released. ;-) GC



Choices - Sep 29, 2006 9:59 am (#1018 of 1080)
The girl that Moaning Myrtle harrassed went to the MOM to get Myrtle to stop, so if Marietta wants to, she could do the same and force Hermione to lift the jinx. Just a thought.



TwinklingBlueEyes - Sep 29, 2006 6:23 pm (#1019 of 1080)
Unless of course, the MOM doesn't take Marietta's side. ;-)



Gerald Costales - Sep 29, 2006 6:30 pm (#1020 of 1080)
Marietta's mom works at the MoM. So if complaining to the MoM were an option, then I believe that Marietta's mom would have done something by now. After Fudge noticed the Purple Pimples on Marietta's forehead, Fudge questioned Umbridge as to why can't a countercurse be performed to enable Marietta to testify about the DA. And even Madam Pomfrey can’t seem to do anything to remove the Pimples. (You can only assume that Madam Pomfrey attended to Marietta at Hogwarts after being Hexed/Jinxed.) It appears that only Hermione has the power to remove the Purple Pimples.

Just as a sidebar - Doesn't it really bother you that Umbridge still works at the MoM!!!!! Or is there something more to Umbridge still being at the MoM? Who could be responsible for keeping Umbridge at the MoM? (Or has that been discussed on another thread already.) ;-) GC



S.E. Jones - Sep 29, 2006 8:11 pm (#1021 of 1080)
Gerald Costales --Just as a sidebar - Doesn't it really bother you that Umbridge still works at the MoM!!!!! Or is there something more to Umbridge still being at the MoM? Who could be responsible for keeping Umbridge at the MoM? (Or has that been discussed on another thread already.)--

Gerald, we have a Dolores Umbridge thread in the inactive 'Hogwarts Staff' folder. If you'd like to start up a discussion there, go right ahead and a Host will move the thread out of the folder once the discussion is under way.



Solitaire - Sep 29, 2006 10:37 pm (#1022 of 1080)
if you agreed to keep a secret with a friend and then that friend told you they were taking drugs and you knew it was hurting them, would the right thing be to keep the secret you agreed to?

After six months of attending meetings, Marietta knew the group wasn't doing anything to hurt anyone. She also knew there was no hidden agenda. I personally do not think the two situations can be compared.

Maybe she had agreed to do what her mother had told her to do before she even left for school, which included siding with Ministry officials at the school, maybe she had agreed to do what she thought best for her friend who she had known long before the DA was formed and her signature scrawled on an enchanted parchment.

If she had made all of those decisions prior to attending the Hog's Head meeting, then she shouldn't have signed the parchment and agreed to keep the secret. If she knew she was breaking some promise to her mother by signing it, but she signed it anyway to keep Cho happy, then she seems to be someone who just takes the easy way out at the moment, as Weeny seems to be saying.

She chose to do the right thing by Cho, as she saw it. Maybe. Or maybe she was just jealous of Cho's growing infatuation with Harry.

The fact that Dumbledore appears not to have intervened is still an interesting circumstance to me. It would seem he supports letting her take her lumps.

Solitaire



Vulture - Sep 30, 2006 3:40 am (#1023 of 1080)
Hi, Gerald: I've answered your question on the Umbridge thread _ and while writing, thought of a possible new thread !!

(Apologies to all for irrelevance to Marietta.)

===========================================================

"if you agreed to keep a secret with a friend and then that friend told you they were taking drugs and you knew it was hurting them, would the right thing be to keep the secret you agreed to?"

After six months of attending meetings, Marietta knew the group wasn't doing anything to hurt anyone. She also knew there was no hidden agenda. I personally do not think the two situations can be compared. (Solitaire - Sep 29, 2006 11:37 pm (#1022))

I agree _ my impression is that Hogwarts, as a school, belongs firmly to the days where drugs just weren't an issue, so Marietta has to be judged in that context, not our own. In our own day and world (to my personal fury), drugs have subverted just about every rule and institution there is. (Well, that's my opinion.)



Choices - Sep 30, 2006 9:43 am (#1024 of 1080)
Gerald Costales --Just as a sidebar - Doesn't it really bother you that Umbridge still works at the MoM!!!!!

Yes, that and the fact that O.J. Simpson is playing golf in the Florida sunshine. There's a lot in this world (and the magical world) that isn't fair.



timrew - Sep 30, 2006 3:20 pm (#1025 of 1080)
I may be old, I may be foolish; but I truly believe Marietta Edgecombe got her just desserts from Hermione.

In fact, I think she got off lightly.

She was accepted into the meetings of the DA. She knew the consequences of her betrayal. She betrayed. And she was punished for it.

I quite honesty hope, she wears those scars for the rest of her life, for, basically, snitching on her group.



Choices - Sep 30, 2006 4:18 pm (#1026 of 1080)
Applauds Timrew, who has the intestinal fortitude to lay it on the line and say it like he feels it. Go, Timrew!! I'm with you.

(Should we do a bubble-head charm now in preparation for the stink pellets and dungbombs that are sure to follow?) LOL



haymoni - Sep 30, 2006 4:34 pm (#1027 of 1080)
I can't believe we've spent this much time on the girl.

We're really hurtin', aren't we???



Weeny Owl - Sep 30, 2006 7:27 pm (#1028 of 1080)
She knew the consequences of her betrayal.

Except that she didn't know there would be any consequences. She was never told. No one was ever told.

That isn't to say that I am a Marietta fan, because I truly believe she should never have gone to that horrid thing Umbridge.



Solitaire - Sep 30, 2006 8:03 pm (#1029 of 1080)
LOL Haymoni! Jo needs to give us some new material. Just a few "teasers" would help!



Choices - Oct 1, 2006 9:51 am (#1030 of 1080)
Doesn't everyone know, somehow, that when you do wrong there are consequences? Do we not learn at a very young age that when we do wrong we suffer the consequences - touch a hot stove, get burned. Stick a metal object in a plug-in, get shocked. Disobey parents, get spanked. Surely Marietta had to have known that there might be consequences to her actions.



Meoshimo - Oct 1, 2006 10:41 am (#1031 of 1080)
"...my impression is that Hogwarts, as a school, belongs firmly to the days where drugs just weren't an issue, so Marietta has to be judged in that context, not our own. In our own day and world (to my personal fury), drugs have subverted just about every rule and institution there is. (Well, that's my opinion.)" -Vulture, Sep 30, 2006 4:40 am (#1023 of 1030)

Well, though most people don't hear about it much, drugs have always been a problem in many aspects of society, going many thousands of years back, so I think that you can't relate the 'friend on drugs' thing to Marietta's situation, since she knew there was nothing bad happening that's related to the DA.

Choices- There are consequences (both good and bad) for every action. Perhaps Marietta thought that the good that would happen because of her telling on the DA would outweigh the bad.



Weeny Owl - Oct 1, 2006 10:45 am (#1032 of 1080)
In that context, Choices, she would have known, but I meant that no one was told specifically that there would be consequences.

Generally when someone tattles it isn't a huge deal depending on the circumstances, and chances are no one would ever have thought they'd end up with something written across their faces.

I don't think what happened to Marietta was that horrid considering the circumstances with Umbridge taking over the school, but she probably thought that some people would be mad at her but never thought there would be a physical consequence.



Gerald Costales - Oct 1, 2006 1:55 pm (#1033 of 1080)
(re: post #1025)

“She was accepted into the meetings of the DA. She knew the consequences of her betrayal. She betrayed. And she was punished for it.

I quite honesty hope, she wears those scars for the rest of her life, for, basically, snitching on her group.” timrew

timrew - I personally don’t think that Marietta should be scarred for life.

(re: post #1030)

“Doesn't everyone know, somehow, that when you do wrong there are consequences? Do we not learn at a very young age that when we do wrong we suffer the consequences - touch a hot stove, get burned. Stick a metal object in a plug-in, get shocked. Disobey parents, get spanked. Surely Marietta had to have known that there might be consequences to her actions.” Choices

Choices - “touch a hot stove, get burned.” I think for Marietta it's more like -

touch a hot stove and keep your forehead on the stove for the rest of your life, basically for being young and foolish

(re: post #1004)

“With all this discussion about loyalty and such, I can certainly see what Laura is saying... either you're loyal to a person, a cause, a country, etc., or you're not. When discussing loyalty, it isn't to whom or what you are loyal but the significance of the loyalty itself.” Weeny Owl

In 1904, Churchill's dissatisfaction with the Conservatives and the appeal of the Liberals had grown so strong that, on returning from the Whitsun recess, he crossed the floor to sit as a member of the Liberal Party. As a Liberal, he continued to campaign for free trade. He won the seat of Manchester North West (carefully selected for him) in the 1906 general election. (Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] )

People do have changes in loyalty.

Now, I know Marietta isn’t a Winston Churchill who “crossed the floor” from one political party to another. But, neither is Marietta a Peter Pettigrew!!!!! ;-) GC

PS The Books are from Harry’s P.O.V. (point of view). I don’t really know Marietta’s motives, her P.O.V. ;-) GC



Vulture - Oct 2, 2006 3:00 pm (#1034 of 1080)
Edited Oct 2, 2006 4:43 pm
But, neither is Marietta a Peter Pettigrew!!!!! ;-) GC (Gerald Costales - Oct 1, 2006 2:55 pm (#1033))

She isn't, and now she won't become one _ thanks to Hermione !!



Madame Pomfrey - Oct 2, 2006 3:28 pm (#1035 of 1080)
Hear,hear!!



Weeny Owl - Oct 2, 2006 8:40 pm (#1036 of 1080)
Yes, people do have changes in loyalty, but Churchill didn't exactly sign a document, at least not that we know of, stating that he would always be loyal to one particular party. Plus that, his decision to switch was made over a two-year period at least.

Again, to me it isn't Marietta's loyalty but the fact that she was told that by signing a document she was agreeing not to tell anyone, especially Umbridge. It could have been anything that didn't involve Harry and Company... she could have agreed to something just within Ravenclaw, but by going back on her word, she showed her true colors.



The One - Oct 3, 2006 1:40 pm (#1037 of 1080)
It could have been anything that didn't involve Harry and Company... she could have agreed to something just within Ravenclaw, but by going back on her word, she showed her true colors.

I think this argument has been used before, but still, you feeel that it will be wrong for a DE to defect from Voldemort, as that would be going back on their word?



timrew - Oct 3, 2006 2:26 pm (#1038 of 1080)
"I quite honesty hope, she wears those scars for the rest of her life, for, basically, snitching on her group."

I've said those words, and I re-iterate them...........no matter what.........



Madame Pomfrey - Oct 3, 2006 3:50 pm (#1039 of 1080)
Tim,it wouldn't hurt my feelings if she had to live with them.



Meoshimo - Oct 3, 2006 5:09 pm (#1040 of 1080)
I would be deeply disappointed in Hermione if they lasted the rest of her life.



Weeny Owl - Oct 3, 2006 11:08 pm (#1041 of 1080)
think this argument has been used before, but still, you feeel that it will be wrong for a DE to defect from Voldemort, as that would be going back on their word?

The situations are entirely different in that Marietta wasn't marked simply for becoming a member of the DA, as well as her leaving the group wouldn't mean that she was killed the way Regulus Black was, and it was simply a school club which wasn't harming anyone.

All Marietta had to do was nothing. Not one single thing. She just had to keep silent about a defense club. Nothing more.

Comparing the Death Eaters and the DA just doesn't work since their standard operating procedures are so different.



nthdavid - Oct 4, 2006 12:35 am (#1042 of 1080)
In the first book, Hermoine says that line about finding another way of getting killed or worse, expelled. She was not joking.

When she faced the boggart in POA she saw herself failing all of her classes (and presumably being kicked out of school).

She knew that if someone betrayed the group she would probably be kicked out of school... So, I would be very much surprised if the hex wasn't meant to be permanent.



Regan of Gong - Oct 4, 2006 4:25 am (#1043 of 1080)
Good point. Everyone else saw something which could hurt them, or others.



The One - Oct 4, 2006 10:28 am (#1044 of 1080)
Comparing the Death Eaters and the DA just doesn't work since their standard operating procedures are so different.

I do not think you get my point. My point is the in my opinion rather simplistic world view displayed here.

You wrote earlier:

Again, to me it isn't Marietta's loyalty but the fact that she was told that by signing a document she was agreeing not to tell anyone, especially Umbridge. It could have been anything that didn't involve Harry and Company... she could have agreed to something just within Ravenclaw, but by going back on her word, she showed her true colors.

A very simple world view: loyalty is good, betrayal is bad, end of discussion.

My, and others, point is: Loyalt to a good cause is good, loyalty to an evil or bad cause isn't neccesarily so.

And, betraying a good cause is bad, betraying a bad cause is not necessarily so.

It is not as easy as to say: "She broke her word, she is bad." We also need to consider if the cause she betrayed was good or wrong, and, most crucial: How simple was it for a 16 year old girl to tell if it was right or wrong?

We as readers knows what is good and evil in the story. We know the hero and his motivations. Marietta only knows that her friend is falling for a guy that most of the wizarding world considers a nutcase.

The reason the DA was banned was that the Ministry feared that Dumbledore would try to use the students as a personal army against the ministry. I do not know if this was the real reason, and we know that the DA was no threath against the Ministry, but this is what the students was told. How was Marietta to know if it was true or not?

Of course, when she decided this was not right for her, she could silently slip away. That would be the hounorable thing to do if the students was fighting a for a noble cause, but a cause for which she was not able to commit. But it would be very wrong if the group was up to something really bad.

We do not know her motivations. Did she defect because she thought that the DA was genuinley doing something wrong? Did she defect because the DA was in fact illigal, and she feared that both herself and her family would get in trouble? I never got the impression that she felt the DA was a nobel cause supressed by an evil goverenment. I think she felt it was wrong. How wrong, we do not know.

We also know that she was under a certain cross pressure, from her loyalty to her friend(s) at one side, and her loyalty to her parents and the government at another. Many 16 year olds has stepped wrongly under such pressure. They are not all evil.

To sum up:

1. It is not so simple that loyalty is always a good thing, and betrayal is always a bad thing. It depends on who you are loyal to.

2. It is not as easy for a 16 year old living within the story to tell right from wrong, as it for the reader.

(3. A third point, that I have not mentioned so far, but others have, loyalty is not always as simple as just doing what you are told or have agreed upon.)

I



Weeny Owl - Oct 4, 2006 12:52 pm (#1045 of 1080)
And again, I still don't see the whole Marietta thing as loyalty versus disloyalty but more about what choices she made. She was disloyal to herself first and foremost when she did what she said she would do, but it was still a choice she made.

She had to do nothing. Not one single thing. She didn't have to receive a Dark Mark or hunt down Amelia Bones and kill her. Marietta didn't have to Apparate anywhere and kiss the hem of Voldemort's robes. She didn't even have to polish bedpans without magic. All she had to do was nothing... simply not say anything to anyone, especially Umbridge.

She chose, for whatever reason, to go back on her word. That was her choice and hers alone. Dumbledore did talk about choosing what was right or what was easy. For whatever reason, Marietta did not choose what was right.

So to break it down once more... I see the whole thing as a wrong choice Marietta made, or more, maybe, that she didn't make the right choice but the easy one.



Vulture - Oct 4, 2006 1:01 pm (#1046 of 1080)
Hi, Weeny Owl: Yes, I agree.

==========================================================================================

Hi, The One: On the issues you raise in your post #1044 _

Please click on Chemyst's extremely good post #832 which shows how clear the discussion of the DA contract was when Marietta signed it. (I always admire people who can say exactly what I want to say with about one-tenth of the words !!)

Click on my post #941 for a discussion of the universal moral standard of right and wrong and the "one good quality" trap. See especially the paragraph beginning "No, it's significant that when Cho ...".

Click on #980 in reference to Marietta's decision to tell Umbridge, not anyone else. See the same post on how the Sneak Jinx may have saved Marietta from becoming a Wormtail.

And if all that hasn't worn you out (!!), please click on my post #929 for a discussion on the excuses for traitors.



Laura W - Oct 4, 2006 5:44 pm (#1047 of 1080)
Yeah, and if you want the other side, just click on any or all "Laura W" posts on this thread.

Laura



Gerald Costales - Oct 4, 2006 8:03 pm (#1048 of 1080)
“We do not know her motivations. Did she defect because she thought that the DA was genuinely doing something wrong? Did she defect because the DA was in fact illegal, and she feared that both herself and her family would get in trouble? I never got the impression that she felt the DA was a noble cause suppressed by an evil government. I think she felt it was wrong. How wrong, we do not know.” The One

Vulture – Haven’t read all the posts you recommended in your post #1046.

But, I agree with The One - “We do not know her motivations.”

“I would be deeply disappointed in Hermione if they lasted the rest of her life.” Meoshimo (re: post #1040)

And also agree in Meoshimo's post.

How many 16 year olds have failed but have a chance to reform or are given a “second chance”? Not ever one changes when given a “second chance”. But, those Purple Pimples branded on Marietta forehead definitely would deter most anyone from hiring or giving Marietta a “second chance”. Marietta you failed, GAME OVER. Do whine about being sorry or try making amends. Marietta you are a FAILURE. And you deserve NO LIFE. Go crawl under a rock and DIE. ;-( GC

PS Gee, it must be nice to be perfect and faultless or to have friends and family that are perfect and faultless. Maybe that’s why there are some many Prisons, to house the FAILURES. Why even feed them, just throw the key away and let them starve. GC



The One - Oct 4, 2006 9:30 pm (#1049 of 1080)
And again, I still don't see the whole Marietta thing as loyalty versus disloyalty but more about what choices she made. She was disloyal to herself first and foremost when she did what she said she would do, but it was still a choice she made.

I do not see the difference. It is not easy for a 16 year old to know what is the right choice.

It is far from obviouse that when you get to know that your friends are forming an ilegal group doing combat training and posing a possible treath to the legal government the right choice is to do nothing.

It may be the easy choice, but it may be horrible wrong. It would be horribly wrong in the Ministry's assesment of the situation was right. The reader knows that the Ministry are Morons, but it will not be evident to Marietta.

I see the whole thing as a wrong choice Marietta made, or more, maybe, that she didn't make the right choice but the easy one.

The easy thing would be to do as you say, simply drop out and do nothing.



Honour - Oct 5, 2006 3:59 am (#1050 of 1080)
Why didn't Dumbledore clear her pimples? Why didn't Poppy? Even Flitwick could have done something, but no, no one did, why was that? These great, fair minded and wise wizards didn't see fit and yet we expect more of Hermione? Now that sounds unfair!

Maybe JKR is making the point (and yes drawing it out,) that Marietta did something wrong. Maybe this is her exercising her author's license, to make sure that the point does get across to us the readers, to reiterate Weeny Owl's (Dumbledore's, JKR's) words, Marietta had to choose between making the right choice and the easy one. Marietta made the easy choice, now she has to deal with the consequences. Hopefully by book 7 JKR will have addressed this problem and then we can ALL move on. Smile


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Mona on Thu May 19, 2011 12:32 am; edited 2 times in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 59
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Marrietta Edgecombe Empty Posts 1051 to 1080

Post  Mona Sun May 08, 2011 3:58 am

Gerald Costales - Oct 5, 2006 5:09 am (#1051 of 1080)
(Re: My post #1048) I know I’m treading on thin ice with my PS in that post. I was posting in this thread before it was closed. And if you check, I was the one who requested that this thread be reopened after the HBP was released. And I don’t want to see this thread closed again. I was a bit over the top.

So, if I did offend anyone. I’ll try to be more civil and less emotional.

It is not easy for a 16 year old to know what is the right choice. The One

Again, The One – I agree with this comment.

But, I also think Marietta made a bad choice and I’ve labeled it as betrayal. And also, called Marietta a traitor.

I think that Marietta’s punishment is crossing the line into being excessive and cruel. Marietta has been humiliated and humbled. (And some will say Marietta has been saved from becoming a Peter Pettigrew.)

I’ll be posting some comments on Human Rights. (Yes, you haven’t heard the last of me.)

PS In my post #1048 one line should read – Don’t whine about being sorry or try making amends.

PPS i’m willling to admitt i’m knot purrfeck. and i apauligise. (Godd think i have Spellchek.) ;-) GC



The One - Oct 5, 2006 6:51 am (#1052 of 1080)
Marietta did perform a betrayal. No doubt about that.

I just do not want to judge her to hard. Her situation was difficult, I see her both as a betrayer and as a victim of circumstances.



Mrs Brisbee - Oct 5, 2006 7:15 am (#1053 of 1080)
I just wanted to chime in and say that I don't think Marietta represents someone making a choice between what is right and what is easy, and picking easy. The easy choice would have been to do nothing. Instead she made a choice to act, and she had to have known there would be some repercussions, even if she didn't know about the Jinx. So she made the wrong choice, but I can't see it as the easy route.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled Marietta Wars....



Vulture - Oct 5, 2006 7:29 am (#1054 of 1080)
Yeah, and if you want the other side, just click on any or all "Laura W" posts on this thread. (Laura W - Oct 4, 2006 6:44 pm (#1047))

Good return of serve, Laura !! (Tennis expression, for those who don't know.) :-)

=================================================================================

Hi, Folks: Just to say that I feel that the discussion is going over a lot of ground that has been gone over before. That's why I posted those links in #1046 _ if I start replying to what's being said now, I won't essentially be saying anything new. I do feel that those links answer most points now being made, but of course I'm quite sure that all of ye (and especially Marietta-defenders) will be able to make new points in reply to my reply. Whatever ye want to do _ it's your choice. Thanks.



Weeny Owl - Oct 5, 2006 9:55 am (#1055 of 1080)
It is not easy for a 16 year old to know what is the right choice.

It is far from obviouse that when you get to know that your friends are forming an ilegal group doing combat training and posing a possible treath to the legal government the right choice is to do nothing.

Some choices aren't easy for teens, but this one should have been. She had two choices... do nothing or do something. If she had done nothing, she wouldn't have gone to Umbridge. She could have just not said anything, yet she made a decision to do what she had promised not to do.

As for the combat training, it wasn't combat training at all but self-defense. The club was all about learning how to defend yourself - nothing more. If she had problems with it, she shouldn't have agreed to participate, or if she had problems with it later, she should have talked to Harry about it since he was elected their leader.



Steve Newton - Oct 5, 2006 10:16 am (#1056 of 1080)
As I recall it Harry was unanimously elected leader, meaning that Marietta voted for him.



The One - Oct 5, 2006 12:52 pm (#1057 of 1080)
Some choices aren't easy for teens, but this one should have been. She had two choices... do nothing or do something. If she had done nothing, she wouldn't have gone to Umbridge. She could have just not said anything, yet she made a decision to do what she had promised not to do.

If the group was indeed a threath, it would be wrong to do nothing. According to the ministry the DA was a threath. Your arguing still is based on the fact that you as a reader knows what is true or not of what Harry and Dumbledore says, Marietta does not.

I read some of the stuff Vulture was refering to. You say it was obvious from the meeting that this was not a dangerous army. Yet, it was a very hot discussion on this forum before HBP came out with a lot of people claiming that the DA eas in fact preparing for war, and that the Army would be used by Harry for some purpose. I never belived that, but others did, how could Marietta know that it would no, when many readers thought it would? The general mode in the early meetings was pro Dumbledore and anti-ministry, theu the name the DA.

Also personally I do not think there is a universal right or wrong implanted in every human. There is to much diversity in ethics between different cultures and religions to make it likely that such a thing exist. Our perception of what is right and wrong is a result of what we are thought.

Anyway, even if such a universal ethics does exist, it still would not help us when the facts are unclear. Such a universal ethics would not tell Marietta whether Harry was telling the truth or not, and if not, whether he and Dumbledore was dangerous or not.

Marietta may very well in her heart have belived that she did the right thing. And, as the right thing involved betraying her friends, it may not have been the easy thing.



Steve Newton - Oct 5, 2006 1:20 pm (#1058 of 1080)
According to the MOM the group did not exist. Hard to see how they could consider it a threat.

I do agree that the group was a sort of creation of Potter's Army. It seems to be only in a small way though. But not because of the spells that were taught but because of the group cohesion that was created. The 6 on the trip to the MOM illustrate this as well as the group on the train that takes out the Evil, ok less nice, trio. Such cohesion could have been created, and probably was, by Quidditch teams, and even Gobstone teams.



Weeny Owl - Oct 5, 2006 6:59 pm (#1059 of 1080)
If the group was indeed a threath, it would be wrong to do nothing. According to the ministry the DA was a threath. Your arguing still is based on the fact that you as a reader knows what is true or not of what Harry and Dumbledore says, Marietta does not.

No, my opinion is based on things such as what Steve just said... Marietta voted for Harry to be the leader. Marietta also knew, because she was a participant, that it was only a defense group and nothing more. We don't have to know it from Harry or Dumbledore... Marietta was there and participated.



Chemyst - Oct 5, 2006 7:31 pm (#1060 of 1080)
We do not know her motivations. Did she defect because she thought that the DA was genuinely doing something wrong? Did she defect because the DA was in fact illegal, and she feared that both herself and her family would get in trouble? I never got the impression that she felt the DA was a noble cause suppressed by an evil government. I think she felt it was wrong. How wrong, we do not know. — The One

If (and that is a hypothetical "if") I were to believe that, then Marietta has some rather disturbing psychological problems with not being able to recognize reality. Anyone who would see Umbridge as putting the students' best interest and personal safety first is out of touch with reality. Anyone who could see the DA as a threat to the Ministry is out of touch with reality. The only reasons the Ministry would have found this club to be a threat to them is because (a.) Fudge himself was paranoid about losing his power to Dumbledore, and (b.) Umbridge, a psychopath, said so.

If Marietta truly believed Umbridge was acting in the students' best interest, then you are right; Marietta did not deserve the pimples for a breech of loyalty. She deserved them for stupidity.



Madame Pomfrey - Oct 6, 2006 5:42 pm (#1061 of 1080)
Lol,Chemyst! I'm sure Marietta knew how her mother would feel about her attending and joining the D.A. to begin with,but still..she joined and she stayed in it for 6 months before ratting. She was taking her leave a little too late. All she had to do was quit going and keep her mouth shut,but she chose to betray her bestfriend as well as others.What did she hope to gain? If she truly thought the D.A.was wrong why did she stay so long?Was she hoping to gather some evidence that the DA was really antiministry or something more than a study group? Yeah,she deserves her "sneak face."



The One - Oct 6, 2006 10:44 pm (#1062 of 1080)
If Marietta truly believed Umbridge was acting in the students' best interest, then you are right; Marietta did not deserve the pimples for a breech of loyalty. She deserved them for stupidity.

A lot of people are quite stupid at age 16, some stay stupid all life. Is that a crime that should be punished?

What did she hope to gain?

That is a good question.

If she truly thought the D.A.was wrong why did she stay so long?

Because, unlike what some people seems to think, betraying the DA was never the easy option. The easy option was just to follow the same flow as her friends, and she did that for quite some time, but was for some reason never quite happy with that. At some time she mustered the courage to break with her friends and do what she really thought she should be doing. This mechanism would be the same, weather her motivation for wanting to do something else was good or evil.



Regan of Gong - Oct 7, 2006 4:59 am (#1063 of 1080)
A lot of people are quite stupid at age 16, some stay stupid all life. Is that a crime that should be punished?

For many, it leads to acts which should be punished. I think 16 is accountable. Old enough to get a job, drive a car, sign some legal documents.



Choices - Oct 7, 2006 9:12 am (#1064 of 1080)
Perhaps the pimples will be a wake-up call for Marietta and make her rethink her choices before she calls down even more severe punishment upon herself in the future.



Vulture - Oct 7, 2006 3:31 pm (#1065 of 1080)
If Marietta truly believed Umbridge was acting in the students' best interest, then you are right; Marietta did not deserve the pimples for a breach of loyalty. She deserved them for stupidity. (Chemyst - Oct 5, 2006 8:31 pm (#1060))

LOL. And very well said.

Perhaps the pimples will be a wake-up call for Marietta and make her rethink her choices before she calls down even more severe punishment upon herself in the future. (Choices - Oct 7, 2006 10:12 am (#1064))

Exactly. As I keep saying, the odds on Marietta growing up to be a Wormtail decreased sharply from the moment she first saw "SNEAK" looking back at her from the bathroom mirror.



Ponine - Oct 8, 2006 12:32 am (#1066 of 1080)
I apologize for removing a message on this board that I wrote earlier today. I really really want to join in on this thread and a few other threads, and I made an attempt, but in my rush to do so, (I saw in hindsight that) it seemed rather snippy, which was never my intention. I apologize.

In essence: It seems to me Marietta was in her full right to decide against participating in the DA. However, I believe she was very wrong to not discuss with Cho or any other members any concerns, and I believe she was blantanly petty and cruel to not only put all the people she had been working so hard with, excelling together for six months, in a horrible position. It was a brutal back-stabbing, and I think that's what gets so many of us so riled up. If she had any concerns for the welfare of the group members at all, I honestly think that she would have acted very differently, perhaps discussing it with Cho privately, bringing it up to some of the other members before or after meeting, have Cho mention it to someone -- I mean, we've all been there, teenagers have oodles of ways to communicate things to other people without directly addressing anyone, if that makes sense. I see no trace of redeeming qualities or traits in Marietta -- she is at all times sullen, grumpy and disdainful, making it difficult for me to see any other reason for her betrayal than revenge or personal gain. And for that, I have no problem with (what I believe to be not permanent) punishment by purple pimples or postules. Panks, Ponine



Solitaire - Oct 8, 2006 8:54 am (#1067 of 1080)
Madame Pomfrey: All she had to do was quit going and keep her mouth shut ...

Exactly. As one who had been attending the meetings for six months, Marietta knew that nothing sinister was being plotted by the group. She knew all Harry was doing was teaching the kids a few defensive spells and jinxes. If she'd changed her mind about the group and wanted out, fine. She could have stopped going. She does not appear to have talked her decision over with anyone before she made it. She does not seem to have been under an Imperius Curse by Umbridge or anyone else, given the fact that she stopped talking the moment the pimples appeared on her face.

I suspect Marietta was getting tired of hearing Cho talk about Harry. Perhaps she was a bit jealous of the time Cho spent with Harry, because it meant she was on her own more. Who knows? Maybe she was even concerned about getting caught at a meeting herself. Ratting out the DA would not only get Harry kicked out of Hogwarts (she probably assumed) but would keep her from getting into trouble herself. Notice that she only told Umbridge that there was to be "some kind of meeting" in the ROR. She apparently didn't say what kind of meeting, and Umbridge does not say Marietta told her she'd been a part of the meetings herself. If that is all she told Umbridge, it makes things look as though Marietta just found out about these meetings rather than actually participating in them. JM2K ...

Solitaire



Madame Pomfrey - Oct 8, 2006 2:12 pm (#1068 of 1080)
Good catch,Soli.It makes Marietta's actions look even worse..like little Miss innocent happened to stumble upon a meeting hosted by that twisted Harry Potter.

And for that, I have no problem with (what I believe to be not permanent) punishment by purple pimples or postules. Panks, Ponine

LOL.



valuereflection - Oct 13, 2006 12:43 pm (#1069 of 1080)
Edited Oct 13, 2006 2:47 pm
So many posters have wondered why Marietta’s hex still remains after a year has passed. Some wonder why haven’t Hermione or Harry forgiven her.

As I read everyone’s ideas, I started to wonder how HBP might have been written differently -- in order to add a removal of Marietta’s hex -- if that is what JKR had wanted to do. How would the storyline and characterization of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince be altered by removing Marietta’s hex? And especially, how would the book change if Hermione or Harry helped to rem