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

Hermione Granger

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

Go down

Hermione Granger - Page 3 Empty Posts 2301 to 2350

Post  Mona Sat May 07, 2011 10:56 am

mona amon - Nov 24, 2007 7:37 am (#2301 of 2486)
In other words, her perhaps misguided efforts gave them a choice that they did not previously have. She did not take away a choice, because they never had one to begin with. (Barbara J)

I think I know what you mean, and its really rather interesting- Hermione wants to force the house-elfs to have a choice! There are two aspects to this-

1)She's trying to sweep away a 'rotten and unjust' system (good)and

2)She's overriding the feelings of the victims of the system (bad).

This "I know what's good for you better than you do" attitude is not necessarily a bad thing. A certain amount of ruthlessness is needed by all advocates of reform, in order to deal with the tragedy and displacement which are often the consequences of sweeping and drastic change, even when the change is for the better. Those who allow themselves to be side tracked by the 'but they are happy being slaves' argument, even if there is some truth in it, are not going to acheive anything much by way of reform.

I agree with Wynnleaf that it's probably this same 'Hermione knows best' attitude which leads her to obliterate her parents' memories.

Good post, Vox Gerbilis!



wynnleaf - Nov 24, 2007 7:58 am (#2302 of 2486)
I believe that Hermione's I-know-best attitude is better described as naive zealousness than arrogance. Youthful idealists have a hard time comprehending that moral choices which are absolutely unambiguous in the abstract (freedom versus slavery; protecting life versus endangering or harming life) become shrouded in ambiguity when they must be exercised. Hence, Hermione can't grasp that the house elves' apparent preference for the status quo might deserve some consideration, or that her parents might prefer to retain their memory of her even at the cost their safety or peace of mind. At her stage of intellectual and moral development, if the question is black and white, then it's all black and white, with no gray around the edges. (Vox Gerbilis)

Yes, I agree entirely.

I think one of the reasons Hermione seems less mature in this regard than I would expect is because I have spent a great deal of time around many gifted young people who do have a more refined sense of the "gray areas" than Hermione does. But the reason is probably because the real life teens that I know are given plenty of ongoing opportunities in school, at home, in mentoring situations, in debate situations, etc., to work through many sides of a question, seeing problems like this from more than one perspective, and considering ethical difficulties.

As a younger student, Hermione has often reminded me of several of the more gifted 11, 12 and 13 year olds I've known. But as she gets older, she reminds me less and less of those kids and starts to seem more like a kid with loads of factual knowledge and skills, but without an accompanying growth in insight and maturity. Not that she doesn't mature. She does, but not at the level that I'd expect to see of many gifted adolescents in real life.

I often think when reading the books that Hermione is a bit hamstrung by having -- at least as far as we actually see in the books -- no older friends (typical of very bright children) and no mentors or teachers with whom she learns more than just classwork. We see Hermione go to class and get the same lessons as everyone else. She goes to the library and in a solitary manner gathers info from books. And the rest of the time she's around her age peers. When I look at gifted teens in real life, at the latest by the time they're 14 or so they've got many older friends, are taking classes beyond their age group, and are involved in relationships with adults (teachers, mentors, parents) that are really pushing their thought process beyond just gathering factual knowledge.

Hermione retains her "Hermione knows best" attitude in part because no one who is her intellectual equal or superior appears to ever be challenging her thought process.

Even when her classmates and friends see things she does that are unethical and they probably are aware of the nature of her action (like confunding McClaggen), they don't really challenge her on the action. My impression is that Harry and Ron, while occasionally calling her "scary," are so in awe of her intellectual ability that they rarely actually question her actions except over the house elf question. But there, they aren't up to putting forth an argument that Hermione will listen to, so she just goes right ahead assuming she's right. There's no equally intelligent student, or older person or teacher around challenging Hermione's assumptions, so she never really learns to question herself in that way.



Barbara J - Nov 24, 2007 9:20 am (#2303 of 2486)
Now we are back in agreement, wynnleaf. I think both Ron and Hermione miss out in that regard, but at least Ron has older brothers and wizard parents keeping an eye on him. Harry also misses out until Book 6, when DD finally stops keeping his distance and starts to mentor him. But Hermione does not have any of those types of mentoring relationships, at least not as far as we see. Perhaps in another time she would have, but by virtue of the plot (LV's return and her role as one of Harry's best friends) her development is arrested, in some ways. I imagine she will have some of those relationships and experiences post-DH, but of course, that's just my imagination, running away with me.



PeskyPixie - Nov 24, 2007 12:06 pm (#2304 of 2486)
Nice post, Vox Gerbilis. I'd posted similar thoughts in an earlier post and agree with your points completely.



rambkowalczyk - Nov 24, 2007 7:54 pm (#2305 of 2486)
Except that it wasn't the only way, as we know since the Dursleys are put in hiding with wizards, and lots of wizards went into pretty effective hiding. Hermione does not appear to have attempted to find such hiding opportunities for her parents -- that is, hiding with wizards. wynnleaf

You are comparing hiding the Grangers and the hiding of the Dursleys. One important difference other than what Soul Search mentioned was that if the Dursleys were captured, they couldn't have revealed the whereabouts or what Harry was going to do whereas it's possible that the Grangers might have known about the Horcruxes.



Loopy Lupin - Nov 24, 2007 11:06 pm (#2306 of 2486)
Hiding her parents with wizards would've possibly alerted more people to the fact that Hermione was with Harry. Yes, this was not much of a secret among members of the Order. But if wizards were guarding her parents, it would've been obvious to some that Hermione was not with them and not back at Hogwarts either. This could've led to sticky questions about her whereabouts and who she was with. It was important for Hermione to give the impression that she'd gone into hiding even so far as people sympathetic to Harry were concerned.

That being said, the whole "Australia" thing sort of bothered me. I have a general opinion that it's not particularly fruitful to examine the issue of hiding Hermione's parents as a means of gleaning some deeper understanding of her character. It was a plot device. JKR needed Hermione's parents out of the way and so they went off to Australia with modified memories. My issue is why would sending them off to Australia not knowing who they were or remembering their daughter be such great protection? Why would one think that LV couldn't find them in Australia if he wanted to? They were basically walking around blissfully ignorant of the goings on in the Wizarding World but otherwise completely unprotected. In fact, the situation could've actually served to harm them. Not that they could've done much anyway, but they certainly wouldn't have been able to recognize any signs of danger since, as far as they now knew, there's no such thing as wizards.



Michael Franz - Nov 25, 2007 1:46 pm (#2307 of 2486)
It was a plot device. JKR needed Hermione's parents out of the way and so they went off to Australia with modified memories.

Yes, but that proves that JKR wasn't really serious about any of her themes of Muggle equality. Muggles deserve the same rights as wizards — unless they're Hermione's parents, and she really is doing this for the greater good. Honest!



Chemyst - Nov 25, 2007 2:01 pm (#2308 of 2486)
JKR needed Hermione's parents out of the way and so they went off to Australia with modified memories. – Loopy

Were the two muggles who moved to Australia really Hermione's parents? A DNA test may have proved they were biologically related, but these two people were not 'parents' in any other sense of the word.



Meoshimo - Nov 25, 2007 5:39 pm (#2309 of 2486)
I don't think we have enough information to evaluate the quality of Hermione's upbringing.



Choices - Nov 25, 2007 6:55 pm (#2310 of 2486)
I agree, Meoshimo. They are busy professionals, but Hermione cares about her parents and seems to have had a good relationship with them. She goes on trips with them and thinks about what they would enjoy for Christmas. Since the story isn't centered around Hermione and her parents, we have very little information to go on, certainly not enough to make a definitive judgment about their relationship.



PeskyPixie - Nov 25, 2007 7:45 pm (#2311 of 2486)
Hermione's parents help Hermione to send sugar-free snacks to Harry at Privet Drive, during the summer of Dudley's diet. Surely they're not too alienated from their daughter?

I probably sound like a broken record by now, but it is my belief that JKR just got Mr. and Mrs. Granger out of the way of the plot of DH in a couple of sentences.



wynnleaf - Nov 26, 2007 1:07 pm (#2312 of 2486)
I probably sound like a broken record by now, but it is my belief that JKR just got Mr. and Mrs. Granger out of the way of the plot of DH in a couple of sentences. (PeskyPixie)

Yes, I agree that JKR did in in a couple of quick sentences. The real reason to question the action, in my opinion, is if these few sentences were not just some totally random idea JKR had, but instead she chose this decision for Hermione because it not only gets the parents out of the way, but also fits in with Hermione's character. Sure, with all the best intentions, but still making the decision on her own, without consideration of the ethical questions involved or her parents rights to make their own decision.

If it's just JKR doing something in a few lines to get them out of the way, and she didn't even consider Hermione's character in doing it, then it's not really a very good writing decision. On the other hand, if she intended this to reflect Hermione's character just as much as other actions Hermione makes, then we can evaluate it to our heart's content, knowing that it does say something about Hermione, because JKR meant Hermione to be "in character" in this action, not just fulfilling a random plot requirement.



PeskyPixie - Nov 26, 2007 6:46 pm (#2313 of 2486)
I know what you mean, Wynnleaf. I suppose my opinion of DH needing a LOT of editing reflects my attitude of just brushing off many things as inconsistencies on JKR's part.

However, Hermione is young, highly intelligent and idealistic. This is not a combination which necessarily adds up to a flexible individual. Her method of 'protecting' her parents is consistent with her character. I just feel she should be cut some slack due to her lack of experience in life and her noble intentions. Strategically, it's quite a logical decision as well, though the Grangers's opinions of having their memories of their only child altered probably aren't taken into consideration. Oh well, 'all's well that ends well', I suppose.



Barbara J - Nov 26, 2007 6:59 pm (#2314 of 2486)
I do think it's a conscious choice that was intended to be consistent with Hermione's character -- the good points and the less good (or less mature) points. I don't think Hermione completely disregarded her parents' rights or feelings -- but I don't want to start repeating myself, so I'll leave it at that. Perhaps it's a little of both -- perhaps JKR did not have (or take) the time to think about how some of these little details would take on additional significance, so she did something that seemed consistent and 'workable' and then did not agonize over whether it would make Hermione seem completely unethical to some readers. (I do not think she intends for Hermione to be seen as unethical...just my $.02.)



wynnleaf - Nov 26, 2007 7:46 pm (#2315 of 2486)
I suppose my opinion of DH needing a LOT of editing reflects my attitude of just brushing off many things as inconsistencies on JKR's part. (PeskyPixie)

I certainly sympathize with that viewpoint! There are so many places in DH where rather odd things are said or done and I'm not sure whether we should analyze it or just take it as one of those things that needed more editing - something DH needed in spades.



Choices - Nov 27, 2007 11:49 am (#2316 of 2486)
It is possible that Hermione and her parents had discussed the dangers in the Wizarding World before Hermione left for Hogwarts. Her parents could have expressed their fears and talked at length about the future. Perhaps Hermione felt she understood them well enough to know what they would have wanted in certain situations. Much like Muggles make Living Wills expressing their wishes if something terrible happens to them, the Grangers could have told Hermione their desires should the unthinkable happen. Hermione is very mature and responsible and she is their only child. It was a difficult decision, but Hermione loves her parents and felt she was doing what was best - not what was easy, but what was right for them.



wynnleaf - Nov 27, 2007 2:54 pm (#2317 of 2486)
If Hermione had ever considered, before the end of HBP, obliviating her parents, you'd think she'd have done a lot of research on the subject. Instead, we learn later that her experience in the matter was almost nil.

Of course, the fact that JKR has Hermione both modify her parents memory and later say she had no experience with it, makes me wonder how much attention JKR gave to this whole matter. Funny, because it's a descrepancy that lot of readers noticed right away, after just one reading. Still, I don't think JKR just randomly settled on having Hermione do this. Even though there are numerous editing problems in DH, I felt that the characters were all "in character."

In other words, I feel that even though JKR may make some "factual" errors - glitches, you know - she doesn't have her characters act "out of character." So I think she at least considered what Hermione was doing to that extent, even if she later maybe forgot about it.



Choices - Nov 27, 2007 6:58 pm (#2318 of 2486)
Wynnleaf - "If Hermione had ever considered, before the end of HBP, obliviating her parents, you'd think she'd have done a lot of research on the subject. Instead, we learn later that her experience in the matter was almost nil."

I just don't think prior to the end of HBP that Hermione had any reason to think about having to "obliviate" her parents memories. Voldemort was a growing threat, but it had not reached a critical state yet. I think she had only a little time to think about what she, Ron and Harry were about to do at the beginning of DH and whatever she had to do, had to be done quickly. Desperate times called for desperate measures. I think throughout the series the trio have had to do magical things they had never done before and somehow they have managed to pull it off.....usually quite well.



wynnleaf - Nov 27, 2007 7:32 pm (#2319 of 2486)
Choices, in this case I agree. I had brought that up in light of comments that perhaps Hermione had planned with her parents what she might do in extreme circumstances. My point is that I don't think Hermione had considered this alternative previously.



Solitaire - Nov 28, 2007 12:49 am (#2320 of 2486)
we learn later that her experience in the matter was almost nil.

While she has had few if any opportunities of actually modifying memories, I can't believe she didn't read everything ever written on the procedure ... unless we are talking about a different Hermione than the one I know and love.

Solitaire



wynnleaf - Nov 28, 2007 5:37 am (#2321 of 2486)
If she was able to read a lot about it, then she'd have had to study up on it while still at Hogwarts - before going home. Yes, I agree that she had almost certainly read up on the subject. But apparently she hadn't practiced the process. How could she? Who would she practice on?



Holly T. - Nov 28, 2007 10:13 am (#2322 of 2486)
Ron--to get rid of his memories of Lavender. Or of the birds she attacked him with.



Meoshimo - Nov 29, 2007 11:14 pm (#2323 of 2486)
She might let that one stick- as a warning.



wynnleaf - Feb 3, 2008 6:17 pm (#2324 of 2486)
On the topic of patronuses, many of us have often wondered why Hermione's patronus is an otter. After all, most character's patronus seems to have some kind of direct link to what they might consider a "patron." Harry's patronus represents his dad, Snape's represents Lily, Dumbledore's represents Fawkes (who comes to his aid several times), Tonk's patronus represents Lupin. Even Ron's Jack Russell terrier makes sense, as they are supposed to be very protective of their owners and especially children. What in world would an otter represent?

I can't recall where I saw this recently, but another reader somewhere made the connection to Ron. Ron lives in Ottery St. Catchpole, hence the otter represents Ron, even before Hermione is ready to acknowledge how much she likes him.



Chemyst - Feb 3, 2008 8:43 pm (#2325 of 2486)
Hm, interesting. I guess that fits as well as anything short of the explanation the JKR identifies with Hermione and would choose an otter for herself.

Otters have a reputation for being playful– not high on Hermione's list of identifying character traits. It is a stretch to say that a playful patronus compensates for a weakness too. The etymology pushes the derivation of otter back to an old English root of the word 'water' and that doesn't fit with a Gryfindor's element. Norse mythology had some character that was a human/otter shape-changer, but I don't see any relation there either.

Then there is the idea that they are amphibious creatures. This is also a stretch, but I guess you could argue that she is at home in both the muggle and wizarding world just as the otter is at home on land and in water.

I guess with Hermione being Ron's catch, the Ottery St. Catchpole explanation is as good as any. 'Any family friendly idea about the pole?

==========================

Just copied from Wikipedia: Catchpole is a rare surname derived from a law enforcement implement found in medieval England. The 'catchpole' usually consisted of an eight foot wooden pole with some sort of noose or barbed fork on one end. Law enforcement officers (usually the Sheriff) would place the noose around the neck of the criminal and use it to lead them around and so forth. Catchpoles are still used today, mostly by animal control officials to ensnare uncontrolled wild animals.
Wow. Is that the kind of wife she became? Ron is not so much hen-pecked as catchpoled?



Elanor - Feb 3, 2008 10:52 pm (#2326 of 2486)
Chemyst: The etymology pushes the derivation of otter back to an old English root of the word 'water' and that doesn't fit with a Gryfindor's element.

Actually, when it comes to Hermione, it does if you look at the alchemical symbolism of the series. Hermione is bound to mercury (for many reasons, her name comes from Hermes, her initials are HG, which is the chemical symbol for mercury, etc). In alchemy, Mercury is bound to water and to the Moon and the otter is bound to water and the Moon. So, IMO, her Patronus underlines her mercury connection (mercury as the alchemical principle, not the substance of the same name). The link with Ron through ottery St Catchpole is very important too IMO.

About Ottery St Catchpole, I have read (on wiki too) that it comes from "catch poultry" (poule=hen in French) and we're talked about chicken each time Harry goes to the Burrows, Molly is also very "mother hen" for her family.

Edit: BTW, the mercury symbolism is also the reason why Luna's patronus is a hare. The personification of the mercury principle is Luna, the moon, and the hare is another animal traditionaly bound to the moon.



Solitaire - Feb 4, 2008 8:08 pm (#2327 of 2486)
Perhaps the otter represents a more joyful side of Hermione that may eventually surface once the war is over, she has graduated, and she feels safe and accepted in the Wizarding world.

Solitaire



haymoni - Feb 9, 2008 2:20 pm (#2328 of 2486)
I thought her Patronus was an otter because Jo likes otters and she says that she was a lot like Hermione when she was younger.

I like the connections with Ron though.

Did we every find out what the 3rd thing was that she smelled during the Love Potion lesson?



PeskyPixie - Feb 9, 2008 2:24 pm (#2329 of 2486)
I believe JKR said that Hermione smells Ron's hair as we all apparently have a distinct personal odor to our hair.



Orion - Feb 10, 2008 3:35 am (#2330 of 2486)




PeskyPixie - Feb 10, 2008 9:54 am (#2331 of 2486)
LOL! I went around sniffing my family's hair after reading JKR's comment. I just smelled shampoo scents before I was swatted away. But, JKR says that Hermy experiences the intoxicating odour of Ronald Bilius Weasley's fragrant hair, so we'll have to take her word on it.



shepherdess - Feb 10, 2008 7:04 pm (#2332 of 2486)
Maybe what she smelled was the fragrance of the shampoo he uses. When I was younger, I dated two different guys (no, not at the same time), who both told me repeatedly that my hair smelled really good. I think they both associated that fragrance with me. When I switched shampoos I stopped getting those kinds of compliments.



mona amon - Feb 10, 2008 7:27 pm (#2333 of 2486)
LOL, this discussion reminds me of a poem by Baudelaire-

Her thick curled hair, like bags of musk

or living censers, left the dusk

with strange wild odors all astir,

I guess Hermione was more like Baudelaire...



Chemyst - Feb 11, 2008 7:05 am (#2334 of 2486)
Finish it mona! I needed to know what rhymed with 'astir.'

and, from her lace and velvet busk,
candid and girlish, over her,
hovered a heavy scent of fur.

. . . heavy scent of fur. That would be an otter!



mona amon - Feb 11, 2008 9:15 am (#2335 of 2486)
I stopped as soon as I finished quoting the part about the hair, but I didn't realise I'd left the rhyme hanging in mid-air!



journeymom - Feb 11, 2008 1:01 pm (#2336 of 2486)
Oh my word. She's a poet, and surely knows it!

Ron being a quidditch player, his sweat probably smelled strongly masculine. Which might be enticing to a hormonal young lady. As Parvati (or Lavender?) said, Hermione does like her quidditch players. Especially the good ones.



PeskyPixie - Feb 11, 2008 1:19 pm (#2337 of 2486)
Sweat? Enticing?

I think I'll stick to Hermione taking a fancy to Ron's shampoo . Someone used to associate me with apple blossoms until they one day disappointedly claimed that I smelled of watermelon . I later realized that the scent of Pantene shampoo had changed from apple to watermelon! It's back to apple again.



Solitaire - Feb 11, 2008 3:36 pm (#2338 of 2486)
. . . heavy scent of fur. That would be an otter!

LOL Chemyst! That reminded me of the time Hermione turned herself into a cat (Remember the Polyjuice?) and was covered in fur for several months!

Solitaire



haymoni - Feb 14, 2008 7:08 pm (#2339 of 2486)
Where did Jo say that about Ron's hair?

How did I miss that????

Edit: I'll try to get back on track.

Um...why doesn't Hermione have the same attachment to Hogwarts that Harry does?

I almost see her fitting Harry's description of the lost boys - himself, Snape & Tom Riddle.

The only connection to the Muggle World she seems to have is her parents.

Why couldn't she see that Voldy would have been at "home" at Hogwarts just like Harry?

(I mean other than the fact that all the other Horcruxes had to be found so that they could end up at Hogwarts for the final battle!)



Barbara J - Feb 14, 2008 8:38 pm (#2340 of 2486)
why doesn't Hermione have the same attachment to Hogwarts that Harry does?

Hermione is not lost. In the muggle world, she is loved and valued. Hogwarts is a place where she can be more fully herself, but it is not a refuge in the same way it is for the "lost boys."



Chemyst - Feb 15, 2008 5:39 am (#2341 of 2486)
...why doesn't Hermione have the same attachment to Hogwarts that Harry does?

Ohh, a good debate question! Thanks, haymoni.
While I don't disagree with Barbara, I think an even stronger reason is the "early formative years." So much of a child's personality is formed by six or seven years of age– and you can tell that by anecdotal observation. I don't know how they make up the "statistics" on that type of thing, probably using some checklist developed by some health organization, but I have read that 90% of a child's personality is formed by the end of his fifth year. I've seen some wild changes in teens, so I don't buy into that completely, and I've seen a few adults make some major modifications which would push that 10% margin, but overall, and in the case of this story we have at least 11 years of personality formation, (and Hermione with a September birthday closer to 12,) before the characters could develop any strong feeling about Hogwarts. Then they would attach according to their need. (Which dovetails with Barbara's answer.)

AND EVEN MORESO, she is a girl! I do think "girl power" plays a factor here. Even though women are often ridiculed as being overly emotional, most do have a "nesting instinct" that helps them cope in such situations. Girls search for security and find ways to make it while boys are off looking for adventure and things to conquer. Hogwarts became the default-security for the boys.

And there is also the a mental health question — forming attachments to people? places? things? Is one healthier than another?



Solitaire - Aug 2, 2008 8:14 pm (#2342 of 2486)
On one of the threads, someone mentioned Hermione's taking all of the books with info on Horcruxes from Dumbledore's office. How did she think of this idea? Do you suppose Dumbledore talked to her at some point during the year and suggested she might find them useful someday? How often are the windows to that office left open? Did Dumbledore's portrait tell McGonagll (She would have been acting head at that point, right?) to leave a window open? How did Hermione know the books were there? Does Mrs. Pince tell her they've been removed by Dumbledore? I can't remember ...

Solitaire



Choices - Aug 3, 2008 10:01 am (#2343 of 2486)
"...why doesn't Hermione have the same attachment to Hogwarts that Harry does?"

I think there is a very simple explanation as to why Harry is more attached to Hogwarts than is Hermione. Hermione grew up with loving parents in a secure home where she was doted on and pampered. When she leaves Hogwarts, she has parents and a real home to go to. Harry grew up in a home where he was barely tolerated and extrememly resented and disliked. He heard people say he should have been sent to an orphanage. When he went to Hogwarts he was admired, accepted for what he was - he was wanted there, he fit in and he had friends. Naturally he looked on Hogwarts as his home because it was there that he had most everything he never had at the Dursleys. He was a round peg fitting perfectly into a hole - for the first time in his life he felt at home.



PeskyPixie - Aug 3, 2008 3:47 pm (#2344 of 2486)
"On one of the threads, someone mentioned Hermione's taking all of the books with info on Horcruxes from Dumbledore's office. How did she think of this idea?" -Solitaire

Hmph! Double humph! I didn't care for this part of the story at all as we were left with this mystery about how horcruxes must be destroyed and come DH, Hermione says, "Oh, btw I nicked a bunch of stuff from Dumbledore's library." If it had to be done this way, I would have preferred if we would have been told about it near the end of HBP, like maybe when they're chatting a few days before Dumbledore's funeral.

Anyhow, apart from that, I think that Hermione felt that as Dumbledore had himself destroyed a horcrux he might have instruction manuals and books regarding the topic (Horcrux-Cracking for Dummies ), and it wouldn't hurt to try to "Accio" horcrux books from his living quarters. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if she also tried that with Slughorn's office as she is aware that he knows something about horcruxes as well.



Chemyst - Aug 4, 2008 7:03 pm (#2345 of 2486)
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if she also tried that with Slughorn's office as she is aware that he knows something about horcruxes as well.

Slughorn probably has to keep his window shut lest the crystallized pineapple should attract too many bugs. ...or Rita. (Ooo, a new shipping thread!)



John Bumbledore - May 29, 2009 8:15 am (#2346 of 2486)
Has there been any discussion of Hermione and memory charms on this thread? I keep forgetting to note the chapters when I read 1) She tells Ron and Harry that she modified her parents memory and sent them to Australia and then 2) objects that she hasn't previously done a memory charm when they break into the MoM.

I always stop when I come to the second point with the memory that she told H&R about what she did to protect her parents, but then forget to check her exact wording. I don't know if I'm confusing two similar but different memory affecting spells or if it is a consistency error much like that between her website and DH on effect of the death of a secret keeper on the fidelius charm.



journeymom - May 29, 2009 11:26 am (#2347 of 2486)
John, I do remember there being a discussion about that discrepancy. I couldn't remember the specifics so I googled the question.

In the Ghoul in Pajamas she says she 'modified' her parents memories and will lift 'the enchantment' when she can.

Later Ron says he's never done a 'memory charm' and Hermione says neither has she, but she knows the theory. Then she specifically does an 'Obliviate' to the death eaters.

One is an enchantment, the other is a charm, specifically Obliviate.

I think it's up to the reader to decide if Hermione did two different kinds of memory spells or if JKR simply slipped up. IMO, I think Rowling slipped up. Oh well!

=========

Edited to say, another person out there in internet land pointed out that in the first instance Hermione doesn't just wipe out her parents memories, she puts new thoughts into their heads, so they now believe they're the Wilkinsons.

In the second instance Hermione simply wipes out the death eaters' memories.

So there is that specific difference. I still think JKR slipped up.



John Bumbledore - May 29, 2009 12:56 pm (#2348 of 2486)
journeymom, I would add that we saw Snape use a confundus charm on Dung to plant the memories about using decoys (Seven Potters). We know Hermione used that spell on McClagan during quidditch tryouts. For me it was the use of the words 'memory charm.' I would think either Obliviate or Confundus would qualify as 'a memory charm.'

Well, every time I read that scene, it is like a big pothole in the road. I stop, shake my head, then jump over the hole and continue.

Thank you for those details you shared.

Repairo Searcho

--John



journeymom - May 29, 2009 3:07 pm (#2349 of 2486)
Repairo Searcho Lol! If only!



Solitaire - May 29, 2009 5:25 pm (#2350 of 2486)
There do seem to be different kinds of memory charms. There is the kind Hermione performed on her parents, which makes them believe they are someone else. There is the kind Shacklebolt performed on Marietta Edgecombe, which made her forget a specific thing. There seems to be the kind Lockhart intends to perform on Ron and Harry--and I assume Hermione performed on the DEs--which pretty much wipes the memory. I wonder if the memory could be restored after a wipe like that. I'm pulling a blank ... did they remember who they were?



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


Last edited by Mona on Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:14 am; edited 1 time in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

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

Back to top Go down

Hermione Granger - Page 3 Empty Posts 2351 to 2400

Post  Mona Sat May 07, 2011 11:06 am

Michael Franz - May 29, 2009 6:19 pm (#2351 of 2486)
Can I just take this opportunity to restate my opinion that Hermione's actions with regard to her parents are in full keeping with the teachings of Herr Grindelwald? He believed that Muggles need wizards to do their thinking for them because wizards are superior in intelligence and wisdom to a race of beings that are, after all, objectively inferior. And Hermione did literally that — gave her parents completely new thoughts of her own design because she believed, in her magical superiority, that she knew best.

But, how can that be? She's a Muggle-born! Yes, but she's still a witch, a member of the superior race. I mean, Muggle-born prejudice is obviously irrational because Muggle-born wizards and witches are still just as powerful as pure-bloods. But Muggles are objectively inferior — they have no magical powers and never will. Therefore, Hermione felt completely justified in doing what she did — for the same reasons as Grindelwald.

Oh, but there was no other way to protect her parents, you might say. I seem to recall that Harry didn't need to format the Dursleys' brains, despite overwhelming temptation to do so. He placed people he detested into the Order's protection. Instead of simply changing their minds for them, he argued them into complying until he was blue in the face. Why did he do that, anyway? Wouldn't a quick Imperio have gotten the job done faster?



Madam Pince - May 29, 2009 7:46 pm (#2352 of 2486)
All very good points! That action of Hermione's has always bothered me a bit.

And journeymom... I think JKR messed up, too. It's another one of those instances where -- gosh darn it, it was GREAT to be along for the whirlwind that was the Potter Phenomenon, and I was first in line to be yowling for her to hurry up and write the next one already, BUT... things like this are the price we pay. Alas.



Solitaire - May 29, 2009 9:40 pm (#2353 of 2486)
I think you're way off-base comparing Hermione to Grindelwald. Grindelwald wanted to control Muggles for his own benefit and "the greater good," whatever that was. I am willing to give Hermione the benefit of the doubt and believe that she knew her parents' abilities to cope with her death (and and danger) better than I do. She also may have felt out the potential scheme of hiding them with the Order and realized it would not work. Either way, leaving them to face potential torture was unconscionable, and, since they were Muggles, she may have guessed that the Ministry would have considered them expendable. She did the only thing she could think to do under the circumstances.

As to Harry ... he was not able to do any of these things even if he'd wanted to. He was underage at the time (Hermione was not).



Julia H. - May 30, 2009 2:05 am (#2354 of 2486)
I'm also in the "JKR messed it up" camp. Even if the memory charms are different in the case of Hermione's parents and in the case of the DE's, modifying the mind by planting new memories into it as well as wiping out the old ones sounds more difficult than simply wiping out existing memories, without planting new ones. BTW, it would have been a perfect solution if Hermione performed the same kind of memory charm on the DE's as the one she had already practised on her parents - of course, we can assume that it would have taken too much time.

I wonder if the memory could be restored after a wipe like that. (Solitaire)

We don't know how much of their minds Hermione cleared, but we know that Voldemort managed to "restore" the wiped out memories of Bertha Jorkins, although it caused her terrible pains.



Michael Franz - May 30, 2009 6:39 am (#2355 of 2486)
I am willing to give Hermione the benefit of the doubt and believe that she knew her parents' abilities to cope with her death (and danger) better than I do.

It doesn't matter. The death of one's child is a horrible thing, but for someone to make you forget that child ever existed — even if it is the child herself — is unconscionable beyond words. And, don't forget, "Monica and Wendell Wilkins" don't even know that Mr. and Mrs. Granger ever existed either. If Hermione died without lifting the charm, her parents would be as dead as surely as if she'd AK'd them.



Solitaire - May 30, 2009 9:21 am (#2356 of 2486)
I still think she did her best to protect them. JM2K ... you're entitled to yours, too.



Solitaire - May 30, 2009 12:26 pm (#2357 of 2486)
Michael, I think the reason I empathize with Hermione in this probably stems from a situation I observed in my past. Over a period of years, I watched a local family disintegrate over the untimely death of a child, and I doubt any of them will ever be the same.

You may not think that is sufficient reason for Hermione's actions, but I can certainly understand how she might have arrived at that decision. I'm not addressing the right or wrong of her actions. I'm only saying that her decision was motivated from love. Hermione acted out of a desire to spare her parents what she felt would be unnecessary grief and suffering, just as parents sometimes do for their children.



Michael Franz - May 30, 2009 1:25 pm (#2358 of 2486)
Grindelwald wanted to control Muggles for his own benefit and "the greater good," whatever that was.

Perhaps I was too harsh in comparing Hermione to Grindelwald. I doubt Grindelwald actually believed his own rhetoric; he just hated Muggles and wanted an excuse to enslave them. Dumbledore, on the other hand, genuinely believed Grindelwald's words and wrote a letter to him about how wizards had the right to rule, but also had an obligation to rule well.

Hermione is like Dumbledore, not Grindelwald. Dumbledore, too, wanted to spare Harry pain, but by holding back vital information, he indirectly caused the death of Sirius. Hermione is the kind of person about whom you'd say, "Bless her heart, she means well" — but we all know that's not exactly a compliment.

I agree that it's understandable why Hermione would do this. I could even forgive her for doing it (though whether or not her parents would, I cannot say.) But what I won't do is say she did the right thing.



wynnleaf - May 30, 2009 2:34 pm (#2359 of 2486)
I agree with you Michael, that Hermione's motivation is more like DD. As you pointed out in an earlier post, the muggle bias is really throughout the Wizarding World, not just among the Bad Guys. Bias against muggleborns makes no sense of course and we get to see that Hermione and Lily, both muggleborn, are highly talented and powerful. But even those in the Wizarding World that are opposed to bias against muggleborns are quite biased against muggles. It's kind of like the parental attitudes that many industrial nations have for people of developing nations, or especially nations that are hardly developed at all. You know, that kind of "Ah, we have so much sympathy for their plight, but they haven't got a clue what's good for them. We people of greater knowledge, wealth, and understanding have to make their decisions for them." Well, actually it's incredibly arrogant of course.

Hermione's attitude toward her parents is kind of the same. I had not really thought about contrasting it with Harry's methods of convincing the Dursleys, but you're quite right. Harry argues and works to be convincing never apparently even considering putting any sorts of coercive spells on the Dursleys to force them into safety.

I agree that it was Hermione's concern for her parents that motivated her, but you have to wonder when regardless what kind of mistakes JKR made about Hermione and memory charms, Hermione couldn't have been particularly experienced with them and yet she went ahead and worked memory charms on her parents, without apparently asking anyone's help to make sure it was done correctly.

I've seen this whole thing of memory loss discussed in depth (not just in the HP world). Many people feel that without their previous memories they simply would not the same person. It would be as though the real self would be dead and a new self taking their place. The idea of losing one's memories is like death to many people. And the fictional idea of taking someone's memories is often viewed as an extreme violation of privacy.

Because JKR seems to have probably made a mistake about Hermione and memory charms, I tend to think that JKR had Hermione alter her parents memories without really giving this plot device a great deal of thought. After all, if JKR had thought it out in depth (Hermione changing her parent's memories), would she have made such a mistake as to have Hermione say she'd never done any memory charms in the past?

I think JKR just wanted a very quick device to remove the Grangers from harms way, for which JKR wouldn't have to spend much page time on how it was accomplished. It's just one more of those things about DH that I feel made not only a plot hole with Hermione's later comments, but also gave us another random ethical problem that need not have existed.



Madam Pince - May 30, 2009 7:13 pm (#2360 of 2486)
I was just about to chime in as well that the comparison might be better made to Dumbledore rather than to Grindelwald, but I see other brighter minds got there first. Soli and Michael Franz make a good point that Grindelwald was probably just blowing smoke with what he said in order to cover up a personal agenda, while DD evidently naively believed it.

One other point about what Hermione did -- by creating Wendell and Monica Wilkins (who have no knowledge of Mr. and Mrs. Granger) she not only "saved" them from knowledge of her own existence, but also of any other relatives or friends they might have. No man is an island, after all. What if Hermione's grandparents were still living? Aunts, uncles, cousins? What about them? Here those people are left thinking an entire family that they love has simply disappeared. Not too nice for them. Yes, she may've saved their lives, and yes, she acted out of the goodness of her heart with all best intentions. But there was lots wrong with the idea, unfortunately.

JKR often makes what seem like comparisons to "real life" situations although to my knowledge she never specifically acknowledges this (ex: Nurmengard : Nuremgrad.) I wonder if the Hermione-parental-memory-wipe isn't meant to parallel something like the hiding of war refugees so that they could be sent abroad, which saved lives but separated families and caused untold anguish? Or to point out the arrogance of industrially-developed countries, as wynnleaf mentions?



Solitaire - May 30, 2009 8:03 pm (#2361 of 2486)
(ex: Nurmengard : Nuremgrad.)

Did you mean Nuremberg, site of the Nazi war crimes trials?

As to Hermione's extended family ... it is possible she has none. If both of her parents were only children whose parents had already died, there would be no extended family to grieve for them. Given Hermione's attention to detail, I believe that this was probably the case. Leaving "loose ends" around in the form of grandparents, aunts and uncles, and cousins would not have been wise, and she makes no mention of modifying anyone else's memories.



wynnleaf - May 30, 2009 8:41 pm (#2362 of 2486)
Given Hermione's attention to detail, I believe that this was probably the case. (Solitaire)

It's more likely JKR's inattention at this point. If Hermione were actually being attentive to detail in this case, I hardly think she'd completely forget she'd ever done memory spells.

Sorry, I realize some readers (can't recall if you're one, Solitaire) like to work to make all of canon somehow fit together, even if some of it is possibly written in error. If that's your intention, that's fine. I don't do that. If it's highly likely an authorial error, I don't try to make it fit.



Thom Matheson - May 30, 2009 8:44 pm (#2363 of 2486)
To switch gears a bit, While rereading POA for the thread, I was reminded again of something that has bothered me for some time now. Hermione gets the time turner after the school and McGonnagal stepped up. I assume that Dumbledore knew as well. AS with Harry's broom in SS the other teachers seemed to know all about it. Therefore it would make sense that all of her teachers knew about the "special circumstances" of having the time turner would be known as well. That being said Snape would have known about it also. My conumdrum is why did Snape not remember that she had the time turner when he was accusing Harry of releasing Sirius? That to me should have been a big tip off for him. Can anyone help me out here? I hope that I explained that well enough for you all.



Madam Pince - May 31, 2009 5:32 am (#2364 of 2486)
Yes, Soli, I did mean Nuremberg... sorry. That's what I get for posting when I'm tired.

I find it impossible to believe that there was absolutely not one other soul in Muggle-land that would miss Mr. and Mrs. Granger. Whether Hermione paid attention to detail or not -- clearly her parents were not hermits who lived in a cabin in the deepest woods with no human contact. It could indeed be possible that the grandparents were deceased, or that the Grangers were only children and all four grandparents were also only children, and/or all aunts/uncles/cousins were deceased or something. But they were dentists -- surely they had colleagues, neighbors, and friends at the very least. That's just what makes Hermione's actions problematic -- you can't really do a "surgical strike" with something like this, I don't think.

I think it more likely that it was as wynnleaf said -- just a quick and sloppy plot device by JKR that wasn't well-thought-through and thus qualifies as an error. Of course, JKR usually has a very good answer for things like this when she's "called" on them -- I'm sure she'd reply with something similar to "they died in unremarkable circumstances and they don't enter into the story at all" like she did when asked about Harry's grandparents. And perhaps that's enough -- it doesn't affect our story, so why worry about it? But it does come up and become interesting if we're analyzing characters' actions.

Good catch, Thom, about the time-turner thing. I think you've caught another error... but again, JKR would probably say "Snape missed the staff meeting when Miss Granger's time-turner was discussed."



Steve Newton - May 31, 2009 5:35 am (#2365 of 2486)
I think that Hermione had to do whatever she did to her parents memories to help to protect the Wizarding World. They could have been used against Hermione which may have stopped her from helping Harry.

Wynnleaf, making canon all fit together is part of the fun. Do some reading of Sherlock Holmes fans and see how they reconcile the placement of Watson's war wound. (Three different places are mentioned in canon.)



Julia H. - May 31, 2009 6:30 am (#2366 of 2486)
My conumdrum is why did Snape not remember that she had the time turner when he was accusing Harry of releasing Sirius? That to me should have been a big tip off for him. (Thom)

I've read several posts by Wynnleaf about this and they have convinced me perfectly. After Madam Pomfrey's assertion that Harry and Hermione had not left the hospital room, Dumbledore said: "Unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are able to be in two places at once, I'm afraid I don' see any point in troubling them further." Then Snape stared from Fudge to Dumbledore, whose eyes were twinkling behind his glasses, and stormed out of the room. It seems at this moment Snape understood not only the time-turner thing but also the fact that Dumbledore knew what had happened and approved of it, moreover that Dumbledore was actually warning him not to pursue this question any longer.

Snape may have taken up the topic with Dumbledore later, but he had understood that he was not to talk about it in front of Fudge. He was clearly furious, nevertheless he did what Dumbledore wanted him to do.



Solitaire - May 31, 2009 10:42 am (#2367 of 2486)
I think Snape did know about the Time-Turner. I'm not sure about whether Fudge would have known or not, given that it was done through the Ministry. Ah ... I am now at Julia's post, and I see she has mentioned Snape's reactions. I think you have nailed what happened perfectly, Julia. I do seem to remember, in one of the later books, Fudge trying to discredit Harry by mentioning something about him being in two places at once ... but perhaps I'm misremembering.

Steve, I'm with you ... I enjoy the books and I can usually find some way to reconcile in my mind the things which are "fuzzy." I'm not really into picking things apart so much, even though I have been known to do so with other authors.



Thom Matheson - May 31, 2009 3:00 pm (#2368 of 2486)
Julie, thanks for that explanation, and Wynnleaf as well. I can see that clearly as plausible when I reread that passage.



Orion - Jun 1, 2009 3:08 am (#2369 of 2486)
Am I the only one who thinks Hermione acted out of love and absolutely correctly? Even if you lose everything in life, all your memories and you stay a different person for the rest of your life, you're infinitely better off than if you're caught by sadistic maniacs and tortured to death. Sometimes you simply have to be utilitaristic and sit down on the grass beside your moral hippogriff and eat a sandwich and then say, okay, lunch is over, now we're going to be absolutely morally correct again, but that was an emergency!

Off topic: Soli, you have heard of Nuremberg! Great! Have you been there? If any forumer comes to Germany, make sure to see Nuremberg, it's lovely! I lived there for half a year. It's a beautiful medieval city with a large castle and it's great for shopping, too. It was heavily destroyed in the war but thankfully rebuilt after the original plans. Every year I visit it because it hosts a big rock festival on the Zeppelinfeld with headliners like Metallica and Linkin Park and it's always a great holiday. Off topic off!



wynnleaf - Jun 1, 2009 6:06 am (#2370 of 2486)
Even if you lose everything in life, all your memories and you stay a different person for the rest of your life, you're infinitely better off than if you're caught by sadistic maniacs and tortured to death. (Orion)

Personally, I disagree. In my opinion, if my memories were completely gone and I was starting over, from this side of things (currently having my memories), I might as well be dead and someone else living in my body. Plus, remember we're not talking about the one and only way to prevent certain death. Hermione did not attempt any other method of protecting her parents, yet the method she picked would, if she had never returned, effectively "killed" the people that they had been. And the worst part was that she did not appear to have consulted them. When you compare that to Harry's approach to the Dursleys, add the fact that Harry got help from others and that Hermione used a spell she had practically no experience with, and it all seems quite high-handed, risky, and overall arrogant. She cares about her parents, but it seems a selfish caring. She doesn't care what they think, or their personal rights, only that they are physically alive so she can find them again later, if she happens to make it through and put them back to normal.

Sometimes you simply have to be utilitaristic and sit down on the grass beside your moral hippogriff and eat a sandwich and then say, okay, lunch is over, now we're going to be absolutely morally correct again, but that was an emergency! (Orion)

I have a personal exceedingly strong abhorrence for utilitarianism. Taken to it's logical conclusions, it can lead to horrific reasoning, as in some of Peter Singer's philosophy. That's a whole other topic with nothing to do with HP, as JKR doesn't seem to be utilitarian, although the "greater good" idea relates to it as it does to a number of other philosophies.

Orion, I don't mean that as a statement again you, only against utilitarianism.



Solitaire - Jun 1, 2009 7:23 am (#2371 of 2486)
Orion, I was one who felt Hermione did act in the best interests of her parents, knowing what would probably face them if they remained as they were, where they were. I am not looking at the right or wrong of it but at her motive, which was to spare them pain and suffering.

And no, I did not get to visit Nuremberg when I was in Germany. Perhaps next time ...



Chemyst - Jun 1, 2009 8:22 am (#2372 of 2486)
From Live Chat, Bloomsbury.com, July 30, 2007

Laura Trego: Did hermione really put a memory charm on her parents she says she did but then about 50 pages later tells ron shes never done a memory charm
J.K. Rowling: They are two different charms. She has not wiped her parents' memories (as she later does to Dolohov and Rowle); she has bewitched them to make them believe that they are different people.
JKR's answer, more than anything else, convinced me that it was an error. It ought to have been caught in editing and changed to Hermione saying that she never did a a memory wipe.



journeymom - Jun 1, 2009 8:54 am (#2373 of 2486)
sit down on the grass beside your moral hippogriff and eat a sandwich Lolol! Beautiful!

Comparing Hermione to Dumbledore is perfect, and I think JKR meant the comparison to be there. Hermione's attitude towards house elves parallels Dumbledore's attitude toward muggles: well-meaning but arrogant.

Hermione explaining to Harry that she'd bewitched her parents and sent them off to Australia gave me chills. That was harsh! I think JKR meant it to be harsh and extreme.

==========

Edited to say, I think it's interesting that JKR says Dumbledore and Hermione both spoke for her sometimes, and both characters are good people, arrogant, superior and well-intentioned. I don't think JKR is implying that she is arrogant and superior. But this attitude is not black-and-white, it's nuanced. Flawed characters are so much more interesting.



John Bumbledore - Jun 1, 2009 9:13 am (#2374 of 2486)
Well, I don't have my book, but I remember that Hermione was greaved to discuss how she was protecting her parents. Crying or Very sad Did her dialog preclude the possibility that she discussed these actions with her parents first and got their approval? From the reader's viewpoint, Hermione was now an orphan who's parents had in essence died. I believe it was Hermione who suffered the most from the choice. She remembered her parents and was still morning her loss / estrangement emancipation. Isn't that a fate worse than death, she knows they live but they now have no knowledge of her. They would feel no loss, indeed they may have a new freedom they had not experienced in nearly two decades.

From Mr. and Mrs. Wilkins point of view they were traveling to a country they had always wanted to visit and were not encoumbered by a child. Okay, from my viewpoint as a father of four... well that would be a holiday indeed (to try and put a finer point on it). Wouldn't it be a bit like a second honeymoon? Perhaps Hermione did not consider the possibility that if she survived and restored her parent's memory, that she may need to deal with the news of an expected sibling.

--John

P.S. Due to the very long time I took to edit my thoughts before posting I did not see the previous three posts (Soli, Chemyst, & Journeymom). I would agree with you Chemyst, Jo's comment seems to be a wave of the hand (pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain).

Thom, my question was why didn't Fudge know of the time turner? Snape and the other teachers must have know but also knew that it was of a "top secret" matter not to me mentioned. Perhaps Hermione was not identified when the time turner was requested? Would the MoM issue a time turner for use by an unnamed student of Hogwarts simply because the head master and staff requested it? Had other students used time turners?

The professors did seem to take it easily in stride. It is almost as if they make plans in secret meeting with code word, deep cover operatives, emergency extraction plans, cover stories...
by golly I think Tearchs must think like, like covert intelegence agents (spys).
We even have a few teachers as members here that we know primarily by "code names."


--John



Solitaire - Jun 1, 2009 2:28 pm (#2375 of 2486)
by golly I think Tearchs must think like, like covert intelegence agents (spys).

We do. After all, we are plotting to take over the world. **evil laugh**

Code name: Solitaire



rambkowalczyk - Jun 2, 2009 12:50 pm (#2376 of 2486)
They are two different charms. She has not wiped her parents' memories (as she later does to Dolohov and Rowle); she has bewitched them to make them believe that they are different people. JKR

We know in book 4 Crouch Obliviated Jorkins. She knew who she was, she just had a gap in her memory about seeing Crouch Jr. Since Voldemort was able to find it, I think we can conclude that Obliviation doesn't erase the memory but bury it so it can't be found or retrieved.

I think what JKR wants us to believe is that what Hermione did was not as drastic. For one thing it seems to be easily reversible unlike say what happened to Lockhart who was still in a locked ward three years later.

Although the book implies she worked alone, I suspect she probably told her parents before the spell. How else could they have gotten falsified passports with out help.



Madam Pince - Jun 2, 2009 2:17 pm (#2377 of 2486)
Hermione confunded the passport people and transfigured their birth certificates... There's always a possible answer...



Michael Franz - Jun 2, 2009 4:18 pm (#2378 of 2486)
Why do Hermione's defenders insist "it was the only way", when Harry's protection of the Dursleys proves that it was not? I have yet to hear a true explanation of why what Harry did would have been impossible for Hermione.

I mean, Darth Vader told Luke, "Come with me. It is the only way," and Luke said, "No... another way is down." Smile

Yes, Hermione... embrace the Dark Side of Magic. It is the pathway to many abilities that some consider... unnatural. Can you learn these powers? Not from a teacher. Only through me can you achieve a power great enough to save people from dying.

I think ol' Darth knows better than anyone that good intentions aren't enough.



Solitaire - Jun 2, 2009 5:45 pm (#2379 of 2486)
Is it possible that the Order didn't want to take on Hermione's family? Was she afraid that, if her parents knew the dangers, they might not allow her to go with Harry? Since the decision to do what she did obviously cost Hermione something--based on her emotional reaction when she talked about it with Harry and Ron--there must have been a reason she went that direction.



Madam Pince - Jun 2, 2009 7:12 pm (#2380 of 2486)
I would bet that her parents wouldn't want her to go with Harry if they knew the full danger. That may've been a reason.

We know that in general the magical world was OK with helping muggles -- was it on the... oh what was the name of that radio show that Fred and George did?... anyway, on that show, didn't they say they were encouraging magical folk to look after their poor helpless muggle neighbors who wouldn't even know what was coming?



Solitaire - Jun 2, 2009 8:55 pm (#2381 of 2486)
Well, the Weasleys were "blood traitors," remember ... so I'll bet loads of magical people who would have helped otherwise might have been scared, given the consequences to those who did help them.



Michael Franz - Jun 7, 2009 10:02 am (#2382 of 2486)
I would bet that her parents wouldn't want her to go with Harry if they knew the full danger.

Well, sure! Mrs. Weasley didn't want any of the Trio to go! But what, exactly, could she have done to stop them? Would Molly Weasley have really raised a wand against Harry "for his own good"? Maybe Imperio him into staying home and doing the dishes? Of course not. She'd coax, cajole, threaten, and plead. But she would never put a gun — or a wand — to Harry's head.

But Hermione did, in fact, raise her wand against her parents. She deleted Mr. and Mrs. Granger and put two strangers in their place. But you say she was protecting them from torture and pain? Why didn't she just use the Barty Crouch Jr. method? I'm pretty sure neither one of his parents will ever feel pain again.

Somehow I doubt anyone would accept that argument, yet they unquestioningly accept the very same argument when Hermione uses it. The thing is, Hermione is really very good at logic. But when her emotions get the better of her... watch out.



rambkowalczyk - Jun 7, 2009 10:36 am (#2383 of 2486)
How do we know that the Grangers didn't consent to this? I understand the sentiment that Hermione is arrogant like Dumbledore, but maybe her parents thought Hermione was right.



Solitaire - Jun 7, 2009 1:59 pm (#2384 of 2486)
Why didn't she just use the Barty Crouch Jr. method?

Alas, that method is permanent. Hermione's can be undone, if she lives.



Michael Franz - Jun 7, 2009 4:15 pm (#2385 of 2486)
Hermione's can be undone, if she lives.

A big if when you're going up against Voldemort, indeed. And, in fact, Hermione actually said that was one of the reasons she erased her parents' identities — if she died, they wouldn't remember having a daughter. That is, in my opinion, not much different than the Crouch Jr. method. Or, as they'd say on Law and Order, clear evidence of intent.



Solitaire - Jun 7, 2009 4:32 pm (#2386 of 2486)
Michael, I suppose it is one of those issues on which we will never agree.



Chemyst - Jun 7, 2009 4:36 pm (#2387 of 2486)
I have yet to hear a true explanation of why what Harry did would have been impossible for Hermione. ~ Michael Franz

Well, if you don't mind some speculation and conjecture…
Throughout HBP, Harry was The Chosen One and the ministry, Scrimgeour in particular, had been trying to get him to come on board. In that brief interlude after DD's death but before the Death Eaters gained control of the ministry, (while the WW still believed Snape had killed DD and before Voldemort's propaganda machine accused Harry,) protecting Harry would have been very important to the remnant of "good" wizards at the ministry. Scrimgeour was a former auror, and early in HBP we hear DD point out that this auror experience gave him an understanding of the danger posed by Voldemort. He had to play politics. And I think the Minister saw that allowing the Order to protect Harry was Harry's best chance at survival. Scrimgeour knew the ministry was being infiltrated and therefore could not trust his own men; I think he probably helped "unofficially" as much as could. The closest thing to canon that I have to back this up is that later Harry finds out Scrimgeour was tortured before he died but still didn't give Harry up.

To a Ministry in turmoil, Hermione's parents would not qualify for special services. The Order was thin on personnel and high work. I suppose she could have begged Harry to use his influence to save her folks, but that goes against nearly everything we ever learned about her character. Harry didn't really do much at all to save the Dursleys; that was primarily a humane decision of the Order. Hermione was not an Order member nor had her parents ever been members as Harry's had. So while the Order might "look after its own" out of respect to Lilly's sacrifice, they had no obligation to spend their precious resources on the muggle parent of someone who knows someone we need to protect.

A long post to conclude that Hermione did not have the depth of resources to get protection for her family and, independent spirit that she is, would not try to impose. It would have been impossible for Hermione to protect her parents by sitting tight and waiting for the Order to hide them.



Solitaire - Jun 7, 2009 4:53 pm (#2388 of 2486)
A very good explanation, Chemyst. It makes absolute sense.



wynnleaf - Jun 7, 2009 7:46 pm (#2389 of 2486)
How do we know that the Grangers didn't consent to this? (ramb)

We don't, but we do know for certain that the author believes quite heavily in the power of parental love. As a parent and also having read JKR's many comments on a parental willingness to die for their child, I think JKR would probably agree that any loving parent would be willing to risk any sort of horrific death rather than to forget entirely the existance of their child, especially knowing that their child could die and they'd never, ever know it.

Oh, yes, I'm sure some can come up with imaginary plots where Hermione tells her parents all about how they can endanger her, but that's not what JKR said was Hermione's motivation, and if it was Hermione's motivation, then her actions would be all the worse -- for all practical purposes killing the people her parents were in order to protect herself and her friends.

Chemyst, in my opinion your argument only explains why the Ministry was willing to protect Harry, but doesn't explain a special willingness to protect the Dursleys after they are gone from Privet Dr and Harry leaving as well. What's the point? To make Harry happy? The Ministry wasn't historically particularly interested in making Harry happy, especially when he wasn't willing to work with them. In any case, the protection of the Dursleys seems to be an Order action, more than the ministry.

Why couldn't the Grangers have stayed with the Dursleys, where ever they were? Or with the Weasleys? I don't exactly see the huge problem in protecting a couple of more muggles in locations that were already being protected, other than some extra food and water and one more bed.



Solitaire - Jun 7, 2009 9:36 pm (#2390 of 2486)
Hermione probably thought she would be endangering the Weasleys by asking them to safeguard her parents. It might not have been a big deal ... but it probably would have. We do not really know how much more difficult it might have been to have to "get outta Dodge" quickly if they'd had to move Muggles, too. Witches and Wizards could apparate and disapparate, as the Trio did, if they had to leave instantly. What about the Grangers? Is it even possible for Muggles to do side-along apparation? It seemed the Ministry managed to penetrate the Burrow's defenses at the wedding. What if they'd found the Grangers there?

IMHO, the Dursleys were really put under protection to give Harry one less thing to worry about. Honestly, how many DEs do you suppose would put up with Uncle Vernon's big yap for more than a second or two before AK-ing him? We know enough of Harry (and that pesky "saving people thing") to know that, even though he did not love the Dursleys, he would come back and attempt to save them if they got into trouble ... and so did the Order ... and so did Voldemort. The Order were doing their best to safeguard Harry by safeguarding the Dursleys. Hermione was doing the same by removing her parents from the danger.

Why couldn't the Grangers have stayed with the Dursleys? Maybe Hermione realized her parents would not be able to take Uncle Vernon's anti-Wizarding attitudes and would eventually leave, putting themselves in danger. Hey, it's Jo's book. I'm willing to accept what she has done and roll with it.



Orion - Jun 8, 2009 9:52 am (#2391 of 2486)
"Hermione's can be undone, if she lives.

A big if when you're going up against Voldemort, indeed. And, in fact, Hermione actually said that was one of the reasons she erased her parents' identities — if she died, they wouldn't remember having a daughter. That is, in my opinion, not much different than the Crouch Jr. method. Or, as they'd say on Law and Order, clear evidence of intent." (Michael Franz)

But you write as if the Grangers were dead if they wouldn't get their old selves back. But in fact they wouldn't be dead, they would only have different memories. They would happily live on in safety. There are many people who suffer from amnesia because of an accident, and I wouldn't consider their lives afterwards worthless. They have to start over again. Other people have to do similar things, like fugitives who lose everything. (Not a good example, I know, they have their memories. Whether they'd like to erase the horrors in their memories or not is another question.)



Chemyst - Jun 8, 2009 10:50 am (#2392 of 2486)
...your argument only explains why the Ministry was willing to protect Harry, but doesn't explain a special willingness to protect the Dursleys after they are gone from Privet Dr and Harry leaving as well. [...] In any case, the protection of the Dursleys seems to be an Order action, more than the ministry. ~ wynnleaf

I quite agree, but I wasn't trying to answer a question about the Ministry's willingness/unwillingness to protect the Dursleys. I was just tying to state the political climate after DD's death when Hermione acted to "protect" her parents. I said that the Order was "'look(ing) after its own' out of respect to Lily's sacrifice" when it saved her sister's family.

I was showing that Hermione did not have the options of either Ministry or Order support to protect her parents. The only card she was holding was her friendship with Harry and she was not about to ask him for that sort of favor.

Have the Grangers have stay with the Dursleys? Get real! Let's just stick needles in their eyes while we are at it.
Or with the Weasleys? They'd be in more danger than ever to be found with those blood traitors!

The sole point of the post was to show that when you look at the political climate of those weeks and compare it to the resources available, it is clear that Hermione did not have anywhere near the same options that Harry had. You can't really compare their choices– and Harry didn't really make choices until after the Ministry fell; before he was of age, he just followed the Order's decisions for him. It was Hermione who was making adult decisions on her own at that point in time.



rambkowalczyk - Jun 8, 2009 12:01 pm (#2393 of 2486)
As a parent and also having read JKR's many comments on a parental willingness to die for their child, I think JKR would probably agree that any loving parent would be willing to risk any sort of horrific death rather than to forget entirely the existence of their child, especially knowing that their child could die and they'd never, ever know it. Wynnleaf

I am suggesting that Hermione could have explained to her parents that as a Muggleborn witch who was a close friend of Harry Potter's that she could be a special target of Death Eaters especially because she had no intentions of going back to Hogwarts for her 7th year. (At that point in time I don't think Muggleborns were banned from Hogwarts yet.) Death Eaters and corrupt Ministry Officials would at some point be looking for her and questioning her parents.

Hermione specifically tells Harry that she has told her parents alot about him. The parents choice is not between a horrific death and forgetting about their daughter's existence but making sure that whatever tidbit of information they know about Harry does not get into the wrong hands. They may have been willing to have the memory change because they trust their daughter's judgment.

Hermione probably thought she would be endangering the Weasleys by asking them to safeguard her parents.Solitaire

She would be endangering the Weasley's because she would know that the ministry would be questioning why Ron isn't going to school. It would look suspicious if two Muggles were living there as well.



wynnleaf - Jun 8, 2009 7:12 pm (#2394 of 2486)
But in fact they wouldn't be dead, they would only have different memories. They would happily live on in safety. There are many people who suffer from amnesia because of an accident, and I wouldn't consider their lives afterwards worthless. (Orion)

The people living happily on the other side of the world are the Grangers in bodies, but not their true "selves" at least not that they can remember. Personally, I would consider losing my memory and living on as some other person for all intents and purposes becoming a vegetable -- oh how nice, at least I'm alive, but "I'm" not really there anymore. I think there's a big difference of opinion in that many posters seem to assume that you can loose all of your memories and still be "you". But often with amnesia sufferers the personalities do seem to change. I'm not saying the new personality is worthless, but it's not necessarily still "you". Besides, who would choose amnesia, even if you can somehow create a new life?

Or with the Weasleys? They'd be in more danger than ever to be found with those blood traitors! (Chemyst)

The Weasleys chose to take the risk; why not the Grangers? Sure, the Weasleys are wizards, so they can fight back, but they were still at a huge risk -- after all plenty of wizards died if they got caught by DEs and LV. Is there some measure of risk where it's okay to make up your own mind so that, for instance, Ron isn't supposed to obliviate his parents and spirit them away to Australia, because they are somehow within whatever the accepted level of risk is that you can choose for yourself. But Hermione is okay to make the decision for her parents? In any case, Arthur and Molly aren't the only options, just one option. There's also Bill, or other Order members that we rarely hear much about. And Order members do seem to care about each other -- it's not like they only care about Harry. In any case, caring about Harry isn't the same as caring about taking care of the Dursleys. Harry cares far more about Hermione than the Dursleys, so why would the Order be more interested in protecting them after Harry left home?

The parents choice is not between a horrific death and forgetting about their daughter's existence but making sure that whatever tidbit of information they know about Harry does not get into the wrong hands. (ramb)

Hermione didn't have to obliviate their memory of her in order to protect them -- if they were willing to go to Australia under assumed names and identities. In other words, if they were so willing to help her protect info they'd have about Harry they could agree to change names and move to Australia. If LV found them - obliviated or not - he'd still search their memories and possibly find out something. But he actually wouldn't find out anything important like about horcruxes or what the Trio were up to. The main reason to worry would be that he'd hurt the Grangers, not that he'd actually find out anything useful. All of the memories that weren't generally known by many and could hurt the trio were in Hermione's head as well which, by the way, were at far greater risk residing in Hermione's brain, which LV could easily have ransacked should she be captured - and she was captured and only luckily escaped. Should Hermione have obliviated herself? No, because she assumed her brain (not so much her magical defense skills) was much more important to Harry than the risk of losing info to LV. She was right about that of course, but my point is that it wasn't her ability to fight off LV in a duel that made it okay for her to stay and risk her life.

Look, I completely agree that JKR probably didn't give much thought to her small plot point of having Hermione obliviate her parents, because if she'd thought much about it at all she'd have remembered it later. But the reasons I think JKR didn't give it a lot of thought is because 1. I think she wouldn't think any loving parent would ever want to be "protected" like this and 2. the ethical considerations are huge and if she'd dwelt on them at all she'd have remembered it later.



shepherdess - Jun 8, 2009 8:11 pm (#2395 of 2486)
I would consider losing my memory and living on as some other person for all intents and purposes becoming a vegetable~Wynnleaf

That's your personal opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it. And obviously, for you, what Hermione did wouldn't be the right choice. But you can't assume that everyone is of the same opinion.

Besides, who would choose amnesia, even if you can somehow create a new life?~Wynnleaf

Being able to leave behind all the garbage you have to deal with in the situation you're in and starting fresh somewhere new? That could be appealing to some. It would depend on your situation of course; and I'm not saying that it applies to the Grangers.

I think she wouldn't think any loving parent would ever want to be "protected" like this~Wynnleaf

"Want" and "need" are not the same thing.

Maybe JKR was ok with this because she had enough confidence in Hermione to knew it would never become the issue we're making it out to be.



wynnleaf - Jun 9, 2009 3:33 am (#2396 of 2486)
That's your personal opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it. And obviously, for you, what Hermione did wouldn't be the right choice. But you can't assume that everyone is of the same opinion. (Sheperdess)

It's not my assumption, but it appears Hermione is quite willing to make the opposite assumption.

If Hermione had asked her parents and they were happy to go off and live completely new lives in Australia, then why obliviate them? After all, if LV actually found them, he'd search their minds anyway. So the danger of harming them is the same whether they go to Australia and take on new identities willingly with their memories or be obliviated.

If Hermione had asked them first and they were willing to go into new identities in Australia, then the only other reason to obliviate them would be to protect Harry from some sort of crucial knowledge the Grangers might have. What crucial knowledge would they have that plenty of other people had? Surely, if Order members weren't told, Hermione hadn't told her parents about the horcruxes. So what other damaging info could the Grangers reveal? DEs already know about the Cloak, the friendship between the Trio, who Harry's other friends are, etc.

In fact, there was no reason to obliviate them except Hermione's own assumption that that was the only way to get them into the new identities. But to do that, she makes the assumption that losing their memories won't be, to them, like losing self.

And this isn't "starting over" like someone offered the opportunity to leave the bad behind and start fresh. They don't lose just bad memories, they lose deepest best memories, deep and most loved relationships, etc.

Maybe JKR was ok with this because she had enough confidence in Hermione to knew it would never become the issue we're making it out to be.

I realize you're joking, but I doubt that would be the reason, otherwise it makes JKR okay with any wrong action as long as, in the end, it all worked out. You know, a kind of "it's okay to cause deep risk or harm to others as long as you fix it later." And the whole point of the Trios work during DH was that it was, supposedly, quite life threatening, so there was no assurance that Hermione would be able to bring her parents back.



Madam Pince - Jun 9, 2009 5:13 am (#2397 of 2486)
You know, sometimes I think JKR just really isn't all that "deep," particularly in the later books when she was rushed. She just wrote details as needed to advance the story, and moved on with it. There have been interviews where she's sort of seemed befuddled that anyone would even bring up the question -- she takes the attitude of "That doesn't even enter into the thread of the story, so why do you care?" (it seems to me, anyway.) I'd bet the whole Hermione mind-wipe falls into that category. Because surely if she'd put any serious thought into it at all, she'd have noticed at least some of the issues we're discussing. I mean, regardless of which stance you take on the "vegetable" thing, clearly there are issues. But, they don't advance the story -- they're only interesting when you do in-depth character analysis and study the plot like we do. JKR would probably do an if she'd read this thread. LOL!



Solitaire - Jun 9, 2009 8:14 am (#2398 of 2486)
Perhaps, after telling her parents all about Harry and hearing what they had to say "if he were my child," she knew how they would feel about what she was preparing to do instead of return to school. Believe me, my parents left me in no doubt whatsoever about how they would have felt had I done various things my friends had done. I have to say that their sentiments informed the greater part of my conduct when I was growing up ... and even into adulthood. There were things I simply did not do because I didn't want to upset them.

Just because you (and I'm speaking collectively rather than to any one person) would rather endure torture and possibly death--and know that your only child had been tortured and murdered--instead of being blissfully enchanted and sent to a place you'd always wanted to go anyway, doesn't mean others would feel the same. Every day people give up careers they love, homes, family, and friends and go into witness protection programs. For those left behind, it's as if they have been wiped from the face of the earth, because their previous lives are lost to them. Any attempt to contact loved ones weakens the protection that can be provided for them. I realize that most people do this voluntarily ... but I wonder what kind of torture it is to try and pretend you are someone else for the rest of your life, all the while knowing you are separated from everything that has been important to you for your whole life. I think a Hermione-like enchantment might be welcomed by many who are enduring such separations and emotional torture.

A lot of people are unable to cope with the pressures and develop emotional problems. Others break cover and try to contact someone from their old lives ... and are killed. Hermione would know better than anyone what her parents could and couldn't handle in the way of pressure and torture. Perhaps she felt that the anguish they would feel over losing her--even supposing that's the only thing they had to cope with--would be more than she knew they were capable of handling. Many marriages and families break up when a child dies, because people start playing the "blame game," and I can see a lot of potential for it there. Hermione also would know that not having to worry about parents constantly would make her a better ally to Harry than she could be if her attention and efforts were divided between helping him and attempting to keep her parents safe.

Jo knew the character of Hermione well. She is a thinker and a planner. I think Hermione's actions are entirely consistent with her character in the previous six books.



Madam Pince - Jun 9, 2009 1:37 pm (#2399 of 2486)
I think they're consistent with her character's brain and logic, but I think they're at odds with how appalled she was with the whole concept of "the greater good."

I guess, upon reflection, I think Hermione is a bit inconsistent with herself on that. She said she was opposed to the concept, but she did it herself when she tried to trick the Hogwarts house-elves into picking up clothes and freeing themselves. That's sort of like what she did to her parents.



wynnleaf - Jun 9, 2009 7:18 pm (#2400 of 2486)
I think Hermione's actions are entirely consistent with her character in the previous six books. (Solitaire)

I guess, upon reflection, I think Hermione is a bit inconsistent with herself on that. She said she was opposed to the concept, but she did it herself when she tried to trick the Hogwarts house-elves into picking up clothes and freeing themselves. That's sort of like what she did to her parents. (Madam Pince)

I agree, regardless how much thought JKR gave to this tiny plot point, Hermione was acting completely in character. And Hermione's character is not completely consistent. For instance, she doesn't always plan things out very well -- in fact, she often plans things rather poorly. For instance, her great plan to "protect" the DA through the charmed list didn't protect anyone at all. The only thing it did was tell the DA after the fact who the informant was. Or Hermione's bright plan to carry along Phineas' portrait. Wow, if Phineas had been helping out the Bad Guys, that would have been one of the most idiotic moves Hermione could make. They knew the other portrait was in the Headmaster's office and that the portraits there had to obey the Headmaster. And yet there was Hermione, bringing it along assuming her planning was well thought out when it wasn't.

Sure, Hermione does think a lot of things through quite well, but she makes huge mistakes that could easily cost them a Lot, and it's just that luck is on her side.

And Hermione is, as Madam Pince pointed out, completely in character when she decides to take over someone else's life "for their own good", quite willing to cause major life-changing events for others without so much as a "by your leave".

She's neither consistently good at planning, consistently right in her decisions, nor consistent in her ethics.



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


Last edited by Mona on Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:15 am; edited 1 time in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

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

Back to top Go down

Hermione Granger - Page 3 Empty Posts 2401 to 2450

Post  Mona Sat May 07, 2011 11:11 am

Solitaire - Jun 9, 2009 11:17 pm (#2401 of 2486)
I didn't say she planned well. I just said she was a planner, and she is. I still think she made what was probably the best decision possible for her parents, given her limited resources and her predicament. I don't require anyone to agree.



Chemyst - Jun 10, 2009 7:47 am (#2402 of 2486)
Harry cares far more about Hermione than the Dursleys, so why would the Order be more interested in protecting them after Harry left home? ~ wynnleaf

I thought I answered that—it had little to do with Harry's friend's extended family. It had to do with Died-in-the-Line-of Service Order member Lily Potter. It would be a Duty & Honor to protect Lily's helpless sister.
I just don't see any way that JKR could have furthered the plot by having any Order member help hide the Grangers because any such alliance would have put both the Grangers and the member at greater risk, and because the Order was a fairly small band with limited resources. For the sake of consistency, having them leave the country was a good choice. That is the advice given to the Cattermole family and others.
Merely giving the Grangers an unplotable residence in Australia may not have been enough because, as we saw, security at both GH and 12GP was breeched.

As my own personal interpretation of plot strategy, having the Order hide the parents of a friend of the son of their fallen comrades does not make anyone safer. JKR had a talented, independent, adult witch in Hermione and needed to get the Grangers out of the way—to a place where they could not be found and with no chance of a misspoken memory ever dropping a clue that they were not native Aussies; so she just did it. Out of sight; out of mind—literally and figurativley.
As my own personal fan-fic to fill in the holes, I think Hermione probably told her parents half-truths to get them to cooperate. I think the Order eventually stashed the Dursleys in Canada for the interim. (Don't you think a winter in the Yukon Territory would serve them right?)



Solitaire - Jun 10, 2009 9:45 am (#2403 of 2486)
(Don't you think a winter in the Yukon Territory would serve them right?)

LOL Most definitely! However, you need to read the fanfic I'm reading now ... it utilizes far more interesting methods of getting even! **wicked, maniacal laugh**



mona amon - Jun 10, 2009 10:13 am (#2404 of 2486)
Merely giving the Grangers an unplotable residence in Australia may not have been enough because, as we saw, security at both GH and 12GP was breeched. (Chemyst)

But the people who breeched the security of these two places knew that they existed, and where they were. They only had to get around the Fidelius in order to find them. But if Hermione sent her parents off to Australia, she being the only one who knew they were there, I don't see how the DEs could have traced them. Doesn't Aberforth suggest that Harry go abroad with Ron and Hermione to save themselves from Voldemort?

I don't see why it was necessary to rob the Grangers of their identities and memories, and substitute Wendall and Monica Williams in their place.



Solitaire - Jun 10, 2009 3:19 pm (#2405 of 2486)
I seriously doubt that Voldemort would have sworn a few oaths and been disappointed that Harry & Co. had just scarpered off to Europe ... or America ... or Asia ... or Australia ... or wherever. Quite honestly, I always thought that was a pretty lame suggestion, and I think Aberforth knew it. This was war--a Wizarding World War--and Voldemort was playing for keeps. His intent clearly seemed to be to wipe Harry and his friends--and, most likely, everyone who'd supported them or who was related to them--off the face of the earth. The kids understood this and acted accordingly.



Julia H. - Jun 10, 2009 5:26 pm (#2406 of 2486)
Well, Voldemort was definitely willing to go abroad for certain purposes... like for the purpose of finding Grindelwald. Of course, it was not difficult to find him, but I'm sure Voldemort would have been ready to do a bit of searching for anyone really important. Nobody seems to have considered hiding the Potters in a far-away corner of the world.

I don't think the Grangers were important to Voldemort, at least not initially. Still, if they had been easily available, Voldemort could have used them to lure Hermione into a trap (in case he understood how important Hermione was to Harry). It is not probable that the Granger parents knew anything of importance, still for their own safety and because Hermione wanted to avoid a situation in which later Xeno found himself, they had to be moved out of Voldemort's sight. (For a while, I also thought that the disappearance of the Granger parents would give the impression to DE's that Hermione had disappeared with them, i.e. that the whole family were somewhere far away and Hermione was not really hiding with Harry. Of course, as soon as Voldemort saw Hermione at Bathilda's, he knew that Hermione was helping Harry.)

It is another question whether the Grangers were safer without their memories or not. On the one hand, in this way they could not give themselves away accidentally, but on the other hand, they did not know there was something they had to avoid - what if they decided one day to go on holiday in England? My conclusion is that the memory charm must have had a different purpose: Hermione either was not sure that her parents would consent to leaving the country and leaving her behind in mortal danger, or she wanted to spare them the feeling of loss and mourning. In the first case they were not given a choice - it's a bit inconsistent with the main theme of the novel -, while in the second case, well, I'm sure Hermione's intentions were good, but even Muggles have a right to their own lives and fates, including experiencing their own losses and sorrows. In theory, it is possible that her parents agreed to it all, but I find it difficult to imagine that loving parents would ever really want to forget that they once had a child... Thinking something like that in a moment of despair is one thing, cool-headed premeditation is quite another. But I can very well imagine that it was easier for Hermione if she did not have to think of it in every moment that her parents would be devastated by her death.



Madam Pince - Jun 11, 2009 7:46 am (#2407 of 2486)
I don't see why it was necessary to rob the Grangers of their identities and memories, and substitute Wendall and Monica Williams in their place. --mona amon

I had another thought about this upon reading this post... maybe it was the way it was phrased that made me think of this. I put myself in the Grangers' place -- as a parent, there's no way in heck that I would go away into hiding somewhere and leave my 17-year-old child to face an evil warlord. I would darn sure want to be around to be available, muggle or not. I still don't think this makes what Hermione did OK, in my personal opinion, but it's a spin on it... Basically, what Julia said in her second paragraph...

I don't think the Grangers were important to Voldemort, at least not initially. Still, if they had been easily available, Voldemort could have used them to lure Hermione into a trap (in case he understood how important Hermione was to Harry.) --Julia

This goes back to the whole idea of Voldemort not having any comprehension of the concept of "love." Perhaps it would not have even occurred to Voldemort that parents could be used as a lure, or that Hermione could be used as a lure for Harry. JKR definitely explained this to us, but in my opinion she could have emphasized it a bit more in the finale.



Solitaire - Jun 11, 2009 8:38 am (#2408 of 2486)
Perhaps it would not have even occurred to Voldemort that parents could be used as a lure, or that Hermione could be used as a lure for Harry.

Doubt it! That is precisely what he did with Sirius, isn't it? IMO, it is this prior occurrence that showed Hermione the awful use to which her parents could be put in the war, even though they were "only Muggles." The fact that Voldemort could neither feel nor comprehend the nature of love didn't mean he was not aware that Harry would move heaven and earth to save those he loved ... and if Voldemort didn't know the extent of Harry's love for Ron and Hermione, the Malfoys and Bella did ... as we saw.



shepherdess - Jun 11, 2009 11:11 am (#2409 of 2486)
I still also think it's possible that when Hermione told her parents that, instead of going back to school, she was going to go help Harry fight against Voldemort, the Grangers may have said something like "Oh, no, you're not! We're putting our foot down on this! You're staying right here!" or "going back to school!" or "You're coming to Australia with us!"

They may have flatly refused to let their daughter go off into such danger. But it was necessary for her to do so. She would have had to figure out a way to, not only keep her parents safe, but also get away from them to go with Harry, and keep them from worrying themselves to death about her safety. And she had limited time to do this in.



Solitaire - Jun 11, 2009 2:29 pm (#2410 of 2486)
A very realistic scenario, Shepherdess.



Madam Pince - Jun 11, 2009 4:31 pm (#2411 of 2486)
That is precisely what he did with Sirius, isn't it? --Soli

Yes, but wasn't that right after the "mind-connection" thing with Harry? Voldy was able to "look into" Harry's mind and probably actually even "feel" the emotional connection, as Harry was able to feel Voldy's emotions. This wouldn't have been the case with Hermione and her parents, and Harry with Hermione, so he may not have thought it. Remember, Slytherins naturally expect people to act in ways that serve their own self-interests. I don't know... there's probably canon that would show that Voldy was smart enough to think of that. I'm just thinking about JKR pointing us in the direction of the idea that Voldy's lack of understanding of love was one of his major weaknesses.



Julia H. - Jun 11, 2009 5:38 pm (#2412 of 2486)
Voldemort did not understand love and he made some huge mistakes in this respect, but he was capable of some crude manipulation based on others' ability to love at least on certain occasions. Sirius is only one example. Voldemort also used Ginny to lure Harry into the Chamber of Secrets; and, in the battle of Hogwarts, he specifically tried to make Harry give himself up to him by blackmailing him with the death of people who were dying "for Harry". Voldemort himself would never have been able to make a sacrifice that he was sure Harry would make nevertheless. In a broader sense, DE strategies seemed to include intimidating people by hurting their loved ones: Xeno is one example, Neville is another.



Michael Franz - Jun 11, 2009 5:39 pm (#2413 of 2486)
"Oh, no, you're not! We're putting our foot down on this! You're staying right here!" or "going back to school!" or "You're coming to Australia with us!"

Two words: Petrificus Totalus. It's not like Hermione doesn't have experience using that.



shepherdess - Jun 11, 2009 5:58 pm (#2414 of 2486)
I'm confused~what would it accomplish for Hermione to petrify her parents?

Sure it would give her a chance to walk out the door without them stopping her, but she couldn't just leave them there like that.

It wouldn't keep Voldemort from capturing them and using them to lure Hermione. Or keep him from torturing them to get information about where Hermione (and Harry) might be. It wouldn't keep them from worrying constantly about what might be happening to her.

Whether it was the best thing to do or not, modifying their memories was a actually a charitable thing for her to do. In addition to solving several problems at the same time.



Michael Franz - Jun 11, 2009 6:33 pm (#2415 of 2486)
Whether it was the best thing to do or not, modifying their memories was a actually a charitable thing for her to do. In addition to solving several problems at the same time.

Oh, come now. "Solving problems" doesn't make an act moral. If it did, every mob hitman would be a saint. "Luigi, I've got this problem I need solved, if you know what I mean." Smile

And I'm sure Hermione could create a Petrificus that only lasted 10 minutes or so. My point was that she's had experience in dealing with well-meaning but misguided people who've tried to stand in her way. Sometimes, those people even get awarded House points — if you know what I mean. Smile



shepherdess - Jun 11, 2009 6:59 pm (#2416 of 2486)
I have never said that what Hermione did was morally right. Nor have I ever said that there's no other way to solve the problems that were solved by what what she did. But what she did did solve those problems. And keeping the Grangers from being captured/tortured, from months of horendous worrying about the safety of their daughter, and possibly future greiving over the death of said daughter was charitable even if it wasn't morally right.

Yes, Hermione has had experience using Petrificu Totallus, and perhaps she could have made one temporary. And yes, that would have allowed her to leave without being stopped. But that doesn't solve any of the other problems.



rambkowalczyk - Jun 11, 2009 8:00 pm (#2417 of 2486)
Michael Franz, I think it's possible you are misunderstanding shepardess.

If Hermione's parents absolutely refused to let Hermione battle the Dark Lord and wanted to try and stop her, or worse Wink try to help her, or they refused to hide, how would you propose she stop them?



Solitaire - Jun 11, 2009 8:06 pm (#2418 of 2486)
Madam Pince, Voldemort wouldn't have needed to read Harry's mind to know about Hermione. There were plenty of people in the WW--not the least of whom was Toad Face herself--who knew about Harry's close friendship with Hermione and also knew she was Muggle-born.

Julia: Voldemort did not understand love and he made some huge mistakes in this respect, but he was capable of some crude manipulation based on others' ability to love at least on certain occasions.

Exactly!

Michael, I do not believe anyone, including me, has said that Hermione's actions were morally right. What we said was that her heart and her intentions were in the right place. She was seeking, with the resources at hand, to prevent her parents from being harmed, from being used to harm her, and from being devastated if she should be killed in the War. Remember, too, that she was operating from the perspective of a childless young adult, so her actions were probably based on how she assumed she would feel in their position.

Again, no one has said Hermione made a morally impeccable decision. I do believe, however, that she made what she felt was the best and most humane decision in the circumstances ... from her youthful point of view. I do not know about others, but I do know that I think very differently now about many things than I did when I was 18. Hermione's character might well feel differently about her own actions once her own kids are in their late teens. We'll never know, unless Jo either tells us or gives us another story and allows Hermione to tell us.



Madam Pince - Jun 12, 2009 5:08 am (#2419 of 2486)
...knew about Harry's close friendship with Hermione...

True. But I don't know that he would've known that this translates to "would sacrifice a lot for..." I'm still going back to the Slytherin thing of self-preservation. They just don't think anybody would be that "stupid."

Plus, even if all of the cronies knew about Hermione, would they be eager and forthcoming with the information? Maybe Bellatrix. But it seems to me that most of Voldemort's other followers preferred to stay out of the limelight and keep their traps shut, lest something they suggest would fail. Although they hope to curry favor, it seemed to me they were even less anxious to have something they were responsible for causing Lord Voldemort's displeasure. What if they suggested it, and it turned out Harry could've cared less about the Grangers? Menacing voice, green flash, ick. Very unpleasant. Best stay quiet.

I still think the main "problem solving" this plot device served was JKR's problem of just clearing them out of the way. Charitable, maybe. Hermione-doing-the-best-she-could-in-a-short-amount-of-time-while-under-pressure, ummmm maybe OK (I can accept that although I think she could've done better perhaps.) Still not the morally right thing to do, in my humble opinion, although perhaps understandable.

It was a problem Hermione (and JKR) needed to solve. JKR probably knew how many people she was already going to kill off and she didn't want to have to kill off the Grangers too (although that would've been a convenient plot device.) Hermione was young and under pressure. All granted. Still lots of problems with the decision, but I wouldn't lock Hermione in Azkaban for it.



Solitaire - Jun 12, 2009 9:42 am (#2420 of 2486)
I don't know that he would've known that this translates to "would sacrifice a lot for..."

Don't forget ... this is the kid with the "saving people thing" who risked his life and the championship to save a Triwizard hostage (Gabrielle) that he'd never seen before. Even Voldemort saw him risk precious seconds of his own life there in the graveyard, when he stopped to take back Cedric Diggory's corpse to his parents. It was this fierce love that took Harry to the DoM.

IMO, it is precisely this tendency of Harry's to risk his own life for others that Voldemort realizes is Harry's weakness and uses to undermine him. Voldemort's problem at this point in his battle to kill Harry isn't that he doesn't realize the depth of Harry's love for those closest to him ... it's that he doesn't understand the terrible strength and, yes, magic that such love holds. This is what Dumbledore took such pains to try and get Harry to understand about the power of love. It isn't that Voldemort doesn't realize the depth of Harry's love ... it's that he does not understand the "ancient magic" that is entwined in that love, so he disregards it. He doesn't realize what will happen to him if he disregards the strength of that love ... although he has had ample opportunity to see it in action more than once.

If Voldemort had not been aware of the deep friendship of the Trio before, he would have known it once they went on the lam. After the invasion of the Ministry, when Yaxley had grabbed Hermione as she disapparated with Harry and Ron, there would have been no doubt. Who but the closest of friends would have put herself in mortal danger for someone else? What's more, these three kids had managed to fool a lot of Ministry workers. There would be scores to settle, and Voldemort would have grabbed the most vulnerable first. Beyond that, the Malfoys and several of the DEs knew. IMO ... Voldemort knew.



Michael Franz - Jun 12, 2009 5:38 pm (#2421 of 2486)
Michael, I do not believe anyone, including me, has said that Hermione's actions were morally right.

Throughout Deathly Hallows, Harry finds increasing evidence that Dumbledore once followed Grindelwald on his quest to conquer the Muggle world by force. Ron and Hermione offer up a flurry of excuses which all basically say, "But he was young!" Harry says, "He was our age. That doesn't justify anything."

Perhaps no one has actually claimed Hermione was morally right, but they've done everything short of that, including saying "But she was young!" While JK might not have put a lot of thought into Hermione's parents, she definitely put a lot of thought into her main moral themes, and I'd say, based on those alone, that Hermione's actions were profoundly wrong.

In fact, I assert that they fall just short of actually killing her parents on the scale of wrong, because she had the specific intent of leaving them in that state permanently if she died. "Just short" because it is theoretically conceivable that some other wizard might happen upon the Grangers and lift the enchantment before they died. But, as Ron might say, "Not bloody likely."

Do I think that Hermione is "evil"? No. However, I don't think a kid who throws a beer keg into a campfire is "evil", either, even if it explodes and kills one of his friends. The kid will undoubtedly lament that he was just having fun, that he never intended to kill anyone. And it's true. But his friend is still dead, nonetheless. No matter how good Hermione's intentions were... no matter how good Dumbledore's intentions were... the consequences do not take this into account. Dumbledore knows this better than most because his sister's death was the consequence.

So, do I think Hermione deserves punishment for her actions? Well, quite frankly, I haven't the slightest idea. I mean, what could anyone actually do to her that would somehow set right what she did to her parents? But, what do you think her parents will do? Will they forgive her for utterly destroying their lives and careers in a misguided attempt to "protect" them? Or, will they become paranoid for the rest of their lives that witches are out to get them, because you can't trust any of them — even your own child?



wynnleaf - Jun 12, 2009 7:37 pm (#2422 of 2486)
Do I think that Hermione is "evil"? No. However, I don't think a kid who throws a beer keg into a campfire is "evil", either, even if it explodes and kills one of his friends. The kid will undoubtedly lament that he was just having fun, that he never intended to kill anyone. And it's true. But his friend is still dead, nonetheless. No matter how good Hermione's intentions were... no matter how good Dumbledore's intentions were... the consequences do not take this into account. Dumbledore knows this better than most because his sister's death was the consequence.

So, do I think Hermione deserves punishment for her actions? Well, quite frankly, I haven't the slightest idea. I mean, what could anyone actually do to her that would somehow set right what she did to her parents? But, what do you think her parents will do? Will they forgive her for utterly destroying their lives and careers in a misguided attempt to "protect" them? Or, will they become paranoid for the rest of their lives that witches are out to get them, because you can't trust any of them — even your own child? (Michael)

While no one has directly said that Hermione was morally right, I don't believe anyone has said that Hermione was evil or didn't care for her parents. Really, in my opinion, that's not the issue here. The issue is responsibility and whether having good intentions absolves one from accountability. In my opinion, repeatedly falling back on the "Hermione had good intentions" or "she was young" appears, at the least, to be basically saying that she needn't be held accountable for taking such extreme actions against her parent's wishes, or without their knowledge, and risking so much of what made the Grangers themselves, because good intentions and youth are such mitigating circumstances.

But JKR has many of her characters make life-changing Bad Choices in their youth and they are held accountable within the books, not just by the other characters, but by the author in that she has those characters bear the responsibility or the results of choices. Dumbledore, Snape, Draco -- even Sirius in that his youthful rash choices land him innocently in Azkaban and later his rash choices after escaping make it almost impossible for others to see his innocence.

Hermione's action with her parents was not, in my opinion, ethical -- at least if it fell out the way it appears, not having gotten her parents permission. Indeed, if the parents agreed, why change their memories at all, and instead just send them into their new identities memories intact? If we go by JKR's approach to the youthful mistakes of other characters, then Hermione is just as accountable.



Steve Newton - Jun 13, 2009 1:47 pm (#2423 of 2486)
Michael, I don't think that Dumbledore 'followed' Grindelwald. From the description it sounds like they were partners for a while. Sorry for going off topic.

Not so sorry that I didn't do it, however.



rambkowalczyk - Jun 13, 2009 8:33 pm (#2424 of 2486)
They may have flatly refused to let their daughter go off into such danger. But it was necessary for her to do so. She would have had to figure out a way to, not only keep her parents safe, but also get away from them to go with Harry, and keep them from worrying themselves to death about her safety. And she had limited time to do this in. Shepardess

I consider this to be a valid theory (certainly better than mine asserting that her parents agreed to it)against the idea that Hermione was totally arrogant with regards to her parents welfare. The key point here being that Hermione's parents would not let her be, but might actually try and stop her from helping Harry and thereby alerting the Death Eaters to their whereabouts.

This is unlike the case with the Dursleys who at times fought against the idea of hiding, but they didn't object to Harry fighting against Voldemort.

Two words: Petrificus Totalus...And I'm sure Hermione could create a Petrificus that only lasted 10 minutes or so. Michael Franz

This would theoretically allow Hermione to make an escape but it wouldn't stop her parents from looking for her and trying to stop her.

Do I think that Hermione is "evil"? No. However, I don't think a kid who throws a beer keg into a campfire is "evil", either, even if it explodes and kills one of his friends. Michael Franz

Not a valid analogy. A kid who throws a beer keg in a fire isn't trying to help anyone. If anything he is just doing it for fun. This is not Hermione.

A better analogy would be Dumbledore ordering Snape to kill him. It is just as wrong yet JKR seems ok with this idea.

...all basically say, "But he was young!" Harry says, "He was our age. That doesn't justify anything." ...Perhaps no one has actually claimed Hermione was morally right, but they've done everything short of that, including saying "But she was young!" While JK might not have put a lot of thought into Hermione's parents, she definitely put a lot of thought into her main moral themes, and I'd say, based on those alone, that Hermione's actions were profoundly wrong. Michael Franz

If we go by JKR's approach to the youthful mistakes of other characters, then Hermione is just as accountable. Wynnleaf

I question whether JKR thinks this is a youthful mistake. Before book 7 came out, alot of people (me included) didn't think that it was morally right to kill regardless of the reason, yet this doesn't seem to have been a big dilemma for JKR



Solitaire - Jun 13, 2009 10:33 pm (#2425 of 2486)
Two words: Petrificus Totalus...And I'm sure Hermione could create a Petrificus that only lasted 10 minutes or so.

I'm sure she could, too. But what would have happened to them after it wore off? Would it have kept them safe and prevented them from becoming targets of DEs and Voldemort? That was Hermione's concern, I think.



Madam Pince - Jun 13, 2009 11:14 pm (#2426 of 2486)
Would it have kept them safe and prevented them from becoming targets of DEs and Voldemort?

I'm still just not buying the whole thing that Voldemort was just itching to pounce on them and use them as lures for Harry. Why would the Grangers have been any more of a target of the bad guys than the Weasleys? If, as you say, DEs such as the Malfoys, and also Ministry officials such as the Toad, knew about Hermione being friends with Harry, then they knew the same thing about Ron, surely. Yes, I know supposedly Ron was up in the attic being sick and thus wasn't with Harry, but still it was common knowledge he was a close friend and Harry spent vacation time with his family. If it was a goal of Voldmort's to find someone Harry loved and torture them and thus bring Harry to him, he could've easily done it with the Weasleys. Yes, the Weasleys know magic and can defend themselves a bit, and yes there were originally some protective enchantments around the Burrow when Harry was there, but for a good part of DH they were just living at home going about life as usual... Ginny was going to Hogwarts, Arthur was going to work at the Ministry. Nobody said "Hey, let's snatch one of these relatives of a friend of Harry Potter's and see if that'll bring him out of the woodwork." That makes me think it likewise wouldn't occur to them to do something similar to the Grangers.

I went back and re-read a good portion of this discussion. It seems to me that as much as you guys are seeming to disagree, you're actually agreeing. I'm paraphrasing, but Soli, Shepherdess, et al have said repeatedly things like "We're not addressing the moral right or wrong of it, we're just saying we understand her actions and think she was doing what she thought best." Michael Franz has said he also understands her reasoning, (just like Soli and Shepherdess) but his thesis is addressing the moral-right-or-wrong of it. That's why he brought the topic up in the first place, I think, or am I mistaken? Anyway... just for what that's worth... I personally agree with both sides -- I can definitely see that Hermione was doing what she thought was best, but I definitely feel that what she did, while it was with the best of intentions, was not morally/ethically right. Another example of a JKR flawed character, I guess. (Except I still think she didn't really intend to do that with Hermione's character. I still think JKR probably just needed a convenient plot device and didn't really think it all through.)



Solitaire - Jun 14, 2009 12:52 am (#2427 of 2486)
Why would the Grangers have been any more of a target of the bad guys than the Weasleys?

To me, that one seems obvious. The Grangers, not being Wizards, are pretty much defenseless against anyone from the magical world who wants to take them out. BTW, I do not require anyone to agree. My interpretations are all based on what i think I would do in Hermione's place. The fact that many disagree and are aghast at her actions suggests much different ways of seeing things.

Yes, the Weasleys know magic and can defend themselves a bit, and yes there were originally some protective enchantments around the Burrow ...

I would say the Weasleys can certainly do more than defend themselves a bit. And the protective enchantments around the Burrow--assuming they were the same as those around the Tonkses' house--would apparently have been able to stop Voldemort that first night. I do not know why they were able to be breached at the wedding, but apparently they had been compromised or weakened, and by that time, the Trio were gone. Had the Grangers been there, I suspect Hermione would not ... but there is no point in belaboring this.

Another example of a JKR flawed character, I guess

Wow. Aren't most characters flawed in some way? Two of the major themes of this entire series are love and choices ... and Hermione's actions link both. None of the "good guy" characters make the best decisions every single time, do they? Look at how many errors Harry makes, simply because he is trying to do what he believes is best. It's Harry's love that takes him to the DoM, which ultimately leads to Sirius's death. What about Snape? Dumbledore? Every single character is flawed in some way. If they weren't, none of us could relate to them.

I think a lot of these things that some posters see as Rowling's errors, bad judgment, and convenient plot devices mirror of some of the things that are happening in the world arena at this time. Think about the whole "for the greater good" business and then look very closely at some of the new laws and restrictions we are seeing come down the pipe in government. I don't think Rowling's portrayals are errors ... I think they are are intended to mirror things we can see if we look around us. Okay, I do not want to start a political debate. I just think that dismissing Hermione's actions as "a convenient plot device" is off the mark. Again, JM2K, and I realize I am in the minority here, but that's okay.



Dryleaves - Jun 14, 2009 4:27 am (#2428 of 2486)
I think a reason why Hermione's actions can be regarded as "a convenient plot device" is that the discussion people have had on this thread is not really in the books.

In a way Hermione's actions can be seen as mirroring real life events. Yesterday I visited a museum about the time of the second World War in Sweden. Sweden was not in the war, but Finland was, and many children from Finland were evacuated to Sweden. This was of course done to keep the children safe from the war. In this exhibition was a photo that one mother had taken of herself and her four daughters before the girls were sent away. The youngest daughter was two years old and by that age a child has a rather short memory and she would probably soon forget her mother, but possibly feel abandoned. Her mother was probably aware of this. Later this child would have to leave her new family to go back to her real mother in Finland, who would then be a stranger to her.

This is something that often happen in war times (and even in other hard times) all over the world, and it is possible that J.K.R. by Hermione's story would like to mirror the feeling a parent would have when they leave their very young children, whom they love above everything else in the world, to someone else, in order to keep their children safe or give them a better life, knowing that the children might lose every memory of them eventually. When Hermione's solution is presented in the books, what we see is her own sorrow over the fact that her memory-altered parents don't know they have a daughter.

If this is what J.K.R. wants to say with the story of Hermione's parents, the problem with the analogy is that it is the witch daughter who alters her grown-up Muggle parents' memories, and while the feelings are the same as when a parent leaves their child in someone else's care, it is possible in this case to see the adult Muggles being treated like children. The ethical implications of wizards seeing themselves as "parents" of non-magical people is not really addressed in connection with Hermione's actions.

But it is possible that J.K.R. needed an explanation for what happened to Hermione's parents, and wanted this to show some of the horrors of war, i.e. another way to split a family. This might have been what she primarily wanted to say and she did not really consider other aspects or parallels to Hermione's actions, such as similarities to Dumbledore and Grindelwald's ideas, for example.



wynnleaf - Jun 14, 2009 6:26 am (#2429 of 2486)
I think a reason why Hermione's actions can be regarded as "a convenient plot device" is that the discussion people have had on this thread is not really in the books. (Dryleaves)

Absolutely. We do see in the books where ideas such as "the greater good" are actually addressed and it's clear that the problems of DD wanting Snape to kill him are considered as well, and Hermione's actions with the house elves. Yet this gets no such consideration. It's done and that's that, and then JKR apparently completely forgot it had been done at all and had Hermione claim she'd never done memory charms.

While I know we can explain and work around Hermione's later comment, it is most likely that JKR simply forgot about Hermione changing her parents memories, which means JKR didn't give it the same thought as those other ethical problem areas -- making it most likely a tiny plot device that JKR forgot.

My comments earlier where I said that JKR made many characters accountable for their youthful mistakes wasn't meant to imply that JKR personally held Hermione accountable for changing her parents memories. What I mean is that the principal of holding characters accountable for their youthful mistakes is apparent throughout the books, even if JKR didn't give much thought to this particular action of Hermione.

As for whether posters agree or not, I think we agree in general on what was going on -- that Hermione was acting the way she thought best to protect her parents, etc. But I think posters disagree on whether Hermione is accountable for her actions. As I understand various posts, some posters appear to think her youth and good intentions absolve her from accountability.



Madam Pince - Jun 14, 2009 7:42 am (#2430 of 2486)
Good observations, dryleaves. I wondered the same thing in my post of May 30, 2009 7:13 pm (#2360 of 2429)....

JKR often makes what seem like comparisons to "real life" situations although to my knowledge she never specifically acknowledges this (ex: Nurmengard : Nurem(berg).) I wonder if the Hermione-parental-memory-wipe isn't meant to parallel something like the hiding of war refugees so that they could be sent abroad, which saved lives but separated families and caused untold anguish? Or to point out the arrogance of industrially-developed countries, as wynnleaf mentions?

Soli, yes of course most characters are flawed -- no "wow" about that. I was referencing the fact that JKR as an author is well-known as making sure her fictional characters have flaws, when many authors, particularly those of children's books, don't really do that -- the heroes are heroes and that's that. But JKR makes sure hers do have flaws, and makes them pretty clear.

I think the Grangers may have been "easier" prey for Voldemort than the Weasleys, since they're completely non-magical, but I do think Voldemort would've had little trouble with a Weasley, if he'd truly thought about using someone for a lure for Harry. The bad guys were able to take out Madam Bones, and many other wizards died -- he could've done it. I just really don't think it occurred to him. Of course, for the sake of your argument it doesn't really matter, because Hermione thought he might, so that's what ruled her actions.



Solitaire - Jun 14, 2009 10:46 am (#2431 of 2486)
I do think it would be a lot tougher to take Weasleys, Madam Pince, because they were "in the loop" on the seriousness of the situation. They anticipated events to come and acted accordingly. They got Ginny out of harm's way before she could be snatched away like Luna was. Even Neville was wise enough to go into hiding when news of his Gran got to him ... as were other kids who suspected they might be targets.

Dean Thomas got away from his family asap, just in case (as his father had done before him, btw), since he wasn't certain of his parentage. Why couldn't Hermione have simply done the same? I think it is because she was a more important fugitive than Dean, thanks to her relationships with Harry Potter and the blood-traitor Weasleys. Besides, she had already pledged to help Harry, and there was no way she would back out on that promise.

Truthfully, Harry needed Hermione on this quest. She had access to information that he would need ... and she was better (at least, initially) at making connections. Harry would eventually get to this place, but for a time, he needed Hermione's logic. I think it took events in Luna's house and in Malfoy Mansion, Dobby's death, and the discussions with Ollivander and Griphook to really get Harry focused on what he needed to do. At this point, he truly does begin to make those connections and "assume command" of the quest. But I do not believe he could have gotten that far without Hermione's help.



me and my shadow 813 - Jun 14, 2009 10:47 am (#2432 of 2486)
I haven't had any time to post these days, but have been keeping up on this discussion. So far, to toss in my two knuts, I feel that Dryleaves post #2428 is precisely my feelings. I hadn't given this part of the plot much thought because of the very reasons Dryleaves gives: 1) if the Grangers hadn't been "put" somewhere safe, readers would be all over JKR for leaving a hole in her plot; 2) it seems that as Muggles they are more oblivious, or in the case of Hermione's parents at the very least more helpless, than wizards to defend themselves against DE's; and, 3) the analogy of sending children off to protect them with the fact that they might never know you existed is a very real aspect of war and a great point made by Dryleaves.

It is very possible, and in my mind I've always assumed, that these guys have the Longbottoms in the back of their mind. With not many options, what Hermione did is a better fate than that for her parents.



Solitaire - Jun 14, 2009 3:09 pm (#2433 of 2486)
I agree, Shadow!



mona amon - Jun 15, 2009 6:58 am (#2434 of 2486)
the analogy of sending children off to protect them with the fact that they might never know you existed is a very real aspect of war (Shadow)

I feel it's no longer a valid analogy when the roles are completely reversed and it's the child treating the parents like children (I think Dryleaves bring up this point in her post). Parents do not always know what's best for their child, but making decicions about their lives is at least in accordance with the natural order of things. The thought of children deciding that they know what's best for their parents and acting on it is appalling, IMO.

But it is possible that J.K.R. needed an explanation for what happened to Hermione's parents, and wanted this to show some of the horrors of war, i.e. another way to split a family. (Dryleaves)

Then I think she would have to show us that there was no other alternative. But this is not the case. It is not shown convincingly that Hermione had no other options.

They may have flatly refused to let their daughter go off into such danger. But it was necessary for her to do so. She would have had to figure out a way to, not only keep her parents safe, but also get away from them to go with Harry, and keep them from worrying themselves to death about her safety. And she had limited time to do this in. (Shepardess)

Emotional blackmail would have done the trick. When the kid is 18 years old, the parents are hardly the bosses. She could have explained to them, "Voldemort is targetting muggleborns like me. Harry is our only hope, and he needs me. I'm going with him to help him. Now the first thing Voldemort will do is find you and try to torture our whereabouts out of you. So the only option, for your safety and ours, is to change your names and go abroad, and lie low." Sounds like a persuasive argument to me.



shepherdess - Jun 15, 2009 6:23 pm (#2435 of 2486)
The thought of children deciding that they know what's best for their parents and acting on it is appalling, IMO.~mona amon

So if your parents reach an age where they're half blind and can't see properly to drive, you're just going to allow them that choice knowing they're in danger of killing themselves?

The Grangers, not being very involved in the wizarding world, are, in effect, half blind about the powers of magic (especially dark magic), and cannot fully comprehend how dangerous it can be in the wrong hands. Sure they can understand the words "it can kill you". But being able to truly embrace the magnitude of the horrors of it may be as difficult as an aging parent accepting the fact that getting behind the wheel of a car might very well cause their body to end up in a mangled mess somewhere. Not to mention the possibility of killing both family members and strangers.

Parents in that situation are never happy to give up their freedom, their right to choose to go where and when they want. They might respond to such a suggestion in a myriad of ways, including a flat refusal. But they're still endangering themselves and others in order to have that freedom. How can a child just stand by and let that happen?

Yes, it's natural for parents to make decisions for their children and unnatural for children to make decisions for their parents. But if parents start making choices that put their lives and the lives of others at risk, and there's a way to avoid that, I would hope that the children would be responsible enough to do what's necessary for the safety of all those people.



Madam Pince - Jun 15, 2009 8:02 pm (#2436 of 2486)
...you're just going to allow them that choice knowing they're in danger of killing themselves?

Killing themselves? Absolutely.

I wasn't going to get into this, but in light of Shepherdess' post, I will go ahead. I can speak very personally to this. I had an elderly uncle who wanted to die at home. When I went over to his house one day and found him in a diabetic coma, I called the EMTs, over protest from my aunt, who was in early stages of Alzheimer's. The EMTs literally dragged him from the house and rushed him to the hospital, where after a long touch-and-go, they managed to save his life. The next three months of his life were pure misery for him -- he had lost all mobility, he was forced to stay in a miserable nursing home, and the care he received was far less than stellar, which led to a massive bedsore which led finally to his death. This was not how he wanted to go -- it was long, drawn-out, amongst strangers, and painful rather than quietly going to sleep at home -- and I beat myself up about it daily. I thought I was doing the right thing. I had the best of intentions. I see now that he was an adult and I should have respected his wishes and let well enough alone, even if it had resulted in him dying a bit sooner. So anyway, yes... I agree that sometimes actions need to be taken to take away someone's keys if they are no longer able to drive -- that's protecting other innocent people. But that's not the same thing as taking away someone's entire life, which is what Hermione did. And I do not believe that others would've been endangered -- the mere existence of the Grangers is not comparable to driving blindly down an interstate. The Grangers were hardly blind, stupid, or doddering. They were professional adults, fully capable of understanding their daughter if she had chosen to talk with them.



me and my shadow 813 - Jun 15, 2009 9:33 pm (#2437 of 2486)
I agree with Shepherdess's response to mona. Just because Hermione is the "child", that does not exempt her wisdom: as a witch with strong magical powers she was involved in Superhero level strategy by the age of 11-12 that her parents could never possibly fathom. Had she ever told them about Fluffy or the chess game or the basilisk or the Time Turner or saving Sirius or the Rebirthing or the DoM battle... It seems she is in the parental role, and her wisdom "trumps" theirs IMO.

The issue of erasing another person's memory is a different matter. I really do not believe that JKR wished us to confront such a personal and horrific subject regarding the Grangers... that this was meant to be a way to simply put them out of harm's way so the DH plot could carry on.

edit: I just wanted to add for Madam P that I agree with your difficult feelings and I can relate. It is a very hard "lesson" to learn to butt out of such a personal decision.



mona amon - Jun 16, 2009 8:57 am (#2438 of 2486)
I agree with Madam Pince absolutely! It's a question of human rights, really. No one, man, woman or child (even your own child, even your own child with good intentions, even your own child who's much brainier or more magically powerful than you) is justified in taking away those rights from you without your consent.

So if your parents reach an age where they're half blind and can't see properly to drive, you're just going to allow them that choice knowing they're in danger of killing themselves? (Shepherdess)

No one has the right to endanger others, so any responsible person will have to stop half blind people from driving around, even if they are one's parents. But the Grangers are not shown to be handicapped or non compos mentis or even just irresponsible. Yes they are muggles. But even muggles can understand when their daughter explains to them that a homicidal maniac can use them to get to her, and that they'd best go into hiding.

I really do not believe that JKR wished us to confront such a personal and horrific subject regarding the Grangers... that this was meant to be a way to simply put them out of harm's way so the DH plot could carry on. (Shadow)

I think this really was the case. But if so, JKR has unconsciously made Hermione do something very characteristic of her. To never stop and consider other's rights and feelings, but just go ahead and do what she, Hermione, thinks is best.



wynnleaf - Jun 16, 2009 10:57 am (#2439 of 2486)
So if your parents reach an age where they're half blind and can't see properly to drive, you're just going to allow them that choice knowing they're in danger of killing themselves? (Sheperdess)

All depends. When I'm too old to drive, my kids will be mature adults, not a 17 year old kid who only a couple of years before thought she was mature and wise enough to force life changing decisions on a whole group of people (the house elves). And it would still be my decision. Would I expect my child to come by one evening and steal the car keys and drive off with my car? I should hope not! Hopefully they'd instead engage in a reasoned discussion with perhaps some other less evasive inducements.

No one has the right to endanger others, so any responsible person will have to stop half blind people from driving around, even if they are one's parents. But the Grangers are not shown to be handicapped or non compos mentis or even just irresponsible. (mona amon)

Absolutely. Blind drivers endanger others due to their own irresponsibility. The Grangers, as far as we're told, aren't irresponsible.

Just because Hermione is the "child", that does not exempt her wisdom: as a witch with strong magical powers she was involved in Superhero level strategy by the age of 11-12 that her parents could never possibly fathom. Had she ever told them about Fluffy or the chess game or the basilisk or the Time Turner or saving Sirius or the Rebirthing or the DoM battle... It seems she is in the parental role, and her wisdom "trumps" theirs (MAMS)

You're equating Hermione's magical power with wisdom. It's simply not the same thing. She's got magical power, is 17 and perhaps legally an adult, but that doesn't give her the sort of mature wisdom come anywhere close to the right to decide for her parents regarding their own future, safety, etc. Remember, Hermione's "wisdom" didn't stop her from trying to force other magical people to bend to her idea of what was best for them (house elves), nor did her wisdom cause her to make great decisions at other times (other flawed decisions I've already mentioned).

I really do not believe that JKR wished us to confront such a personal and horrific subject regarding the Grangers... that this was meant to be a way to simply put them out of harm's way so the DH plot could carry on. (Shadow)

I agree. Still, it was included in the plot and therefore we have to deal with it. Further, while I don't think JKR gave it a lot of thought, I do think she remained true to Hermione's character in having her go with this particular decision, so I think it's a worthwhile topic to discuss. In other words, it's not just a glitch like Hermione's middle name, or having the Thestrals grazing on the grass. JKR may not have thought much about it, but she didn't write something out of character for Hermione.



John Bumbledore - Jun 16, 2009 11:27 am (#2440 of 2486)
The issue of erasing another person's memory is a different matter. I really do not believe that JKR wished us to confront such a personal and horrific subject regarding the Grangers. (Shadow)

Ah, but the wizarding world has never had such a view of obliviating Muggle memories. They use memory charms to project the Wizarding world through secrecy. Hermione did just the same and no more. (Wizarding view, not mine)

To protect the wizarding world, Harry, Ron, and herself, she gave up her parents. She made the sacrifice. What have Wendell and Monica lost? Nothing. They should not be aware of any loss or suffer any harm from the memory charm.

Simplistic as it may sound, you do not miss what you do not know.

It is not the same as dementia or alzheimers. With either affliction, one may have some indication that something, some memory should be there and one would feel the frustration in not being able to recall it. Or one would feel the helplessness of not being able to remember a word for something, or what one was intending to do upon arriving in a room.

Hermione's parents will feel not loss, confusion, or helplessness as long as they are Wendell and Monica (or what ever neames she gave them).

If she finds her parents, they will not recognize her. How will she approach them to restore their memories? What if she is unable to restore their memories? Again Hermione suffers, but her parents will wonder why this strange young lady is bothering them.

--John



rambkowalczyk - Jun 16, 2009 12:41 pm (#2441 of 2486)
With all due respect, Madame Pince's story does not fully relate to Hermione's situation.

yes, I agree parents should be in charge of their own lives even if it puts them in danger. By this logic Hermione replacing their memories is arrogant and disrespectful.

But in Hermione's situation we are postulating that not only are the parents putting themselves in danger, but because they will try to stop Hermione from doing what she has to do, then they may also be putting Hermione in danger as well.



Thom Matheson - Jun 16, 2009 1:56 pm (#2442 of 2486)
John, You said all that needs to be said here, as it relates to the Grangers, characters in the books. "In the Wizarding World, not mine" I think you said Jack. The Grangers have let Hermione have her way and say since the very beginning of the books. This in no way relates to our world other then the thread conversation we are currently having. I can remember only 1 time was there a challenge between parents and daughter, and that was about her dental work. Hermione having this idea of offing them to Australia fits very well with the books, and the characters.



Madam Pince - Jun 16, 2009 2:59 pm (#2443 of 2486)
But in Hermione's situation we are postulating that not only are the parents putting themselves in danger, but because they will try to stop Hermione from doing what she has to do, then they may also be putting Hermione in danger as well. --rambkowalczyk

All due respect right back at you, , but the Grangers would not be the ones putting Hermione in danger. Hermione would be the one putting Hermione in danger, because she is choosing to accompany Harry on his dangerous mission -- she doesn't have to do it. Likewise, Harry is the one who would put Harry in danger, if he chose to try to rescue the Grangers if they were kidnapped by Voldemort. The Grangers are sitting there innocently living their daily lives and filling cavities every day, as far as we know. I cannot see how their mere existence puts anyone in danger.

And I still quite respectfully do not believe that any 17-year-old, no matter her magical ability or whether she's "the most gifted witch of her age" or whatever, can have the life experience and wisdom to make decisions for her perfectly-competent parents. Granted, we know next to nothing about the Grangers except that they're dentists. But all the implications are that they are perfectly normal parents, with normal capabilities. As my anecdote shows, even 30-some-year-olds sometimes do not have the wisdom of their elders.

JKR does gift her 17-year-olds with remarkable "maturity" and puts a great deal of weight on their shoulders -- otherwise there wouldn't be a book, I suppose. But some of them are just real head-scratchers: Harry as a godparent at age 17? Hermione making decisions on her own to completely wipe out her parents' lives and memories?

It's just a story, I guess. It has to be the kids, because the series is about the kids. But if we get into realistic analysis, a lot of it just doesn't ring true. To me, anyway.



Michael Franz - Jun 16, 2009 4:30 pm (#2444 of 2486)
yes, I agree parents should be in charge of their own lives even if it puts them in danger. By this logic Hermione replacing their memories is arrogant and disrespectful.

Oh, dear. Well, I thought I was pretty harsh before, but I guess I wasn't. How about morally equivalent to murder? She didn't talk back to her parents here; she destroyed Mr. and Mrs. Granger with the full, premeditated intent of leaving them in that state permanently should she die — a likely situation had she not been a protagonist.

And if you want to talk about her "superior wisdom" justifying her actions — once again, we're back to Herr Grindelwald. It seems that even a Muggle-born is only capable of talk when it comes to Muggle rights. When push comes to shove, those rights are so quickly forgotten that the wizards probably forget that they even forgot.

And they wonder why Muggles once feared them. Go figure.



Michael Franz - Jun 16, 2009 4:47 pm (#2445 of 2486)
And, you're probably wondering why I'm so worked up about this. It's because Hermione is supposed to be a good guy. I mean, if Voldemort had done something like this, nobody would be surprised or shocked — he's evil! Atrocities are his stock-in-trade!

And everyone would have considered destroying the Grangers' identities an atrocity if Voldemort had done it. You know it's true.



me and my shadow 813 - Jun 16, 2009 6:24 pm (#2446 of 2486)
I know the old saying is "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", but I would not put Hermione in the same category as Grindelwald regarding Muggle rights. She is indeed a realistic character in that she is hypocritical, like all of us. She is manipulative, like many of us. She is calculating, like many intelligent people who feel they know more than others. But, as with most of her other manipulative acts, there were good intentions there. I'm not condoning erasing memories, but if JKR had written that her parents were living with friends of Victor Krum hidden away in Bulgaria, I am quite sure readers would be throwing a fit about that, too. Something like, "of course the DE's could find them, of course Voldemort could get past those enchantments", etc. Discussing ethics for ethics' sake is fine but I feel the plot as it stands is both in character for Hermione (taking charge, manipulative, good intentions) and solved the problem of what to do with the Grangers.

Regarding Hermione's wisdom or lack thereof -- and I'm not going to post the dictionary definition of 'wisdom' -- my feeling is that she is wise well beyond her years. I would say she is one of the wisest characters in the series. I would also say that, compared to Muggles in general, Hermione at age 11 was more wise than any Muggle would be to prepare for or avoid a wizard attack. So to me she is more wise than her parents in the context of our series (as opposed to any "normal" parental-role context, i.e., when she was an infant and touched a hot stovetop, etc.)



wynnleaf - Jun 16, 2009 9:12 pm (#2447 of 2486)
I am uncertain why the continued reiteration of Hermione's good intentions is a key point for some posters (no one in particular - a lot of people note this).

Back when he was 17, the brilliant DD had good intentions behind his admiration for and enthusiasm for Grindelwald's ideas. So what??? His good intentions were leading him to follow a path full of atrocities. Does this make it somehow better?

Personally, I feel that in some ways the "good intentions" can make it actually worse in the long run. If Hermione did indeed later become a powerful legal force in the Ministry, I certainly hope her good intentions were not all that was leading her "wisdom". Unfortunately, people in Real Life have justified all sorts of human rights violations and other despicable actions because they felt the overall intent was good.



Solitaire - Jun 16, 2009 9:47 pm (#2448 of 2486)
Aw, Wynnleaf ... if Hermione had behaved like you think she should, you wouldn't have anything to argue about on this thread! By having her behave in a controversial fashion, Jo provided us with weeks of fodder for dissent and discussion! Aren't you secretly glad she did?



Julia H. - Jun 17, 2009 4:29 am (#2449 of 2486)
And everyone would have considered destroying the Grangers' identities an atrocity if Voldemort had done it. (Michael Franz)

You see, I can perfectly agree that modifying the parents' memory was unethical on Hermione's part. It is possible to do something unethical/wrong even with good intentions. However, I do think that "evil" is a strong word in Hermione's case. In this respect, intentions matter. Voldemort would have done something like that with evil intentions, but Hermione's intentions were not evil. It does not make her actions any more ethical or right, but they are not in the same category as Voldemort's actions.



Madam Pince - Jun 17, 2009 6:01 am (#2450 of 2486)
I would agree with Julia. What she did was pretty darn bad, in my opinion, but I would not use the words "murder" or "evil." I do think her attitude towards muggles is disquietingly similar to Grindelwald's, though -- although hers (and Dumbledore's) seems to be more like "poor things, they need our help" and Grindelwald's seems to have been more disdainful and dismissing.



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


Last edited by Mona on Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:16 am; edited 1 time in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

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

Back to top Go down

Hermione Granger - Page 3 Empty Posts 2451 to 2486

Post  Mona Sat May 07, 2011 11:25 am

rambkowalczyk - Jun 17, 2009 8:03 am (#2451 of 2486)
The Grangers are sitting there innocently living their daily lives and filling cavities every day, as far as we know. I cannot see how their mere existence puts anyone in danger. Madam Pince

If this were true I would not disagree with you. But what I am postulating is a possible situation where Hermione would be more justified in doing what she did. Suppose Hermione told her parents that she was going to help Harry fight Voldemort and that their lives are at risk. She suggests that they go to Australia to be out of harms way. (let's leave out the memory charms for a minute). Her parents are adamant in refusing to let Hermione stay and help Harry. It's not that they don't think Australia is a good idea; they think it's great, but they want Hermione to come along. Worse if she doesn't they are going to involve the Muggle authorities to help stop her. Or if Hermione disappears they would have the Muggle policemen trying to find Death Eaters looking for Hermione.

I am not saying this happened, only that given the facts it is a possibility.



wynnleaf - Jun 17, 2009 9:12 am (#2452 of 2486)
Suppose Hermione told her parents that she was going to help Harry fight Voldemort and that their lives are at risk. She suggests that they go to Australia to be out of harms way. (let's leave out the memory charms for a minute). Her parents are adamant in refusing to let Hermione stay and help Harry. (ramb)

I don't think this fits the rest of the books. Hermione never seemed to have any trouble coming back to school year after year, even though she had personally been seriously injured more than once. Even after OOTP, we don't hear of any difficulties with her parents letting her return. After HBP, Hermione was an adult. By Brittish muggle standards, she'd been of age since 16; by wizarding since 17. Her parents couldn't stop her and they'd know it -- no more than a muggle parent could stop their son or daughter from joining the military to go to war. In fact, there are strong similarities.

Did Hermione actually tell her parents that she would personally be a target? We aren't told that she did this. We aren't told to what degee Hermione kept her parents informed. But one must at least expect that they heard about Hermione's involvement with the battle at the MOM in OOTP and her life threatening injury. And we don't hear of any difficulty for Hermione getting back to school.

Sure, there could have been plenty of exceptions that we could think up, but by the end of HBP we'd never been told of the Grangers having any objections. This is in contrast to other students who did report that their parents were fearful and wanted them to stay at home. Given the distinct lack of any such evidence that the Grangers were trying to stop Hermione from getting into risky situations, I don't think the idea that they were some sort of Big Problem attempting to stop her from following Harry in DH holds much water.



shepherdess - Jun 17, 2009 11:08 am (#2453 of 2486)
So, Wynnleaf, are you saying you believe that Hermione didn't tell her parents anything about what was about to happen, and just decided to zap them them one day when they least expected it? And you think that's in keeping with her character?



rambkowalczyk - Jun 17, 2009 12:31 pm (#2454 of 2486)
After HBP, Hermione was an adult. By British muggle standards, she'd been of age since 16;

In HBP, Vernon implies that adulthood begins at 18, then Dumbledore informs him in the wizarding world it begins at 17. Hermione would not have turned 18 until Sept, so that in July of 1997 Hermione would still be a minor.

But one must at least expect that they heard about Hermione's involvement with the battle at the MOM in OOTP and her life threatening injury. And we don't hear of any difficulty for Hermione getting back to school.

When Hermione was petrified in COS, her parents never came to visit. Were they even told?

We don't know how much her parents were told after the ministry battle. They may not have objected to Hermione fighting at the ministry, because at that point the Muggle world at large had no concept of the danger.

But maybe after year 6, when presumably there was more unexplained terrorism her parents concluded that the risk to Hermione was too great, that not even her and Harry Potter could defeat the Dark Lord and that they should all go to Australia.

Another possibility is that her parents wanted to stay and 'help' Hermione. Although Hermione is certainly being arrogant thinking there is no way for Muggles to help, it is possible that in trying to 'help' Hermione that they might be putting her in more danger.



John Bumbledore - Jun 17, 2009 12:41 pm (#2455 of 2486)
Oh, I don't see how it was "destroying the Grangers' identities." Nor anything close to murder.

Perhaps it is because I work with digital information, but it seems to me that Jo views memories as discrete units (like files on a computer). She shows us the Pensive and how magic can take a copy of a memory (silvery stuff) and bottle it. In this way they can easily be moved about, hidden, removed, or restored. It is just like moving songs on and off one's MP3 player. So long as they are not destroyed, they can be restored to the person.

As to Hermione's motive, it was given.* She told Harry that she had told her parents many thing about Harry and what the three of them had done. Their knowledge of Harry, Ron, and herself was a danger not only to the Grangers but also to Harry and the entire Wizarding world. So she moved their memories of these things into some secure storage and made them believe they had different names and never had a daughter.

This is much easier to say than to do, if one considers the details of how memories are tied together in associations more like a web than a single string. But Jo shows us that Wizards and Witches can simply draw out a memory as a silvery, liquid-like thread and stopper it in a bottle. Has it been removed or merely a copy taken? That may depend on the intent of the spell caster.

Now that I've written this post, I can see one way to explain why Jo had Hermione say she had never used a memory charm before. The Pensive type memory extraction must be a different spell than the obliviate spell.

--John

P.S. *Here is what she said:

“I’ve also modified my parents’ memories so that they’re convinced they’re really called Wendell and Monica Wilkins, and that their life’s ambition is to move to Australia, which they have now done. That’s to make it more difficult for Voldemort to track them down and interrogate them about me – or you, because unfortunately, I’ve told them quite a bit about you.


Solitaire - Jun 17, 2009 1:38 pm (#2456 of 2486)
I wonder ... could they be under some sort of Imperius spell?



rambkowalczyk - Jun 17, 2009 3:00 pm (#2457 of 2486)
I wonder ... could they be under some sort of Imperius spell?

Oh no, we get to argue whether or not Hermione did an Unforgivable?

Seriously it is a valid question, if only because she is making them act in a manner contrary to what they might do if they had their full memory intact. ... Maybe it's why I argued before that Hermione could have had her parent's consent to modify their memories.

John, very good points. said much better than I could have.



Solitaire - Jun 17, 2009 4:22 pm (#2458 of 2486)
Oh no, we get to argue whether or not Hermione did an Unforgivable? **Evil, Peeves-like cackle**



Michael Franz - Jun 17, 2009 6:54 pm (#2459 of 2486)
OK, folks. Try this on for size. Suppose Hermione were to come into possession of a small, golden Ring that would give her the power to control the minds of others — allowing her to correct their wayward thoughts just a bit. 'Cause, you see, Hermione knows what's best. But, sadly, there are all these other people who think she doesn't. They're not evil or anything, just woefully misguided. Hermione could spend days, weeks, even months arguing and pleading with them — but what a waste of time, when she could be sharing her wisdom with so many!

With the Ring, she could change their minds for them... make them more cooperative... more peaceful. Surely, that would be preferable to all this conflict! After all, if everyone agrees with Hermione, then no one disagrees with anyone else, and everyone is happy. And they all have Hermione to thank for it... because she is beautiful and terrible as the dawn! Treacherous as the sea! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! ALL SHALL LOVE HER AND DESPAIR!!!

Well, apart from that last bit, I don't really see a downside here. I mean, just imagine the improvement in Ron's grades!

RONALD! YOU SHALL DO YOUR HOMEWORK AS I COMMAND, OR YOU SHALL YOURSELF BE CAST INTO THE FIRES OF DOOM!



Michael Franz - Jun 17, 2009 7:05 pm (#2460 of 2486)
But seriously, I think I've found Hermione's key flaw. Once she's decided The Way Things Should Be Done, she never questions it, even in the face of contrary evidence. Remember how she stubbornly clings to her "official" copy of Advanced Potion-Making even though Harry gets much better results from Snape's version? Instead of displaying intellectual curiosity about these improvements, she takes them almost as a personal insult.

It's not so much that she thinks she's right — everyone thinks they're right. But you have to allow for the possibility that you might be wrong, and, if you are, you should change. Hermione never does such self-examination, I think.

I suspect, though, that she might overcome this flaw after marrying Ron. After all, we know they've been happily married for years. If he'd married the old Hermione, Ron wouldn't have survived a week!



Solitaire - Jun 17, 2009 7:44 pm (#2461 of 2486)
I don't think Hermione wanted/wants to control anyone, Michael ... and if presented with your interpretation of her actions, she would be horrified.



wynnleaf - Jun 17, 2009 8:25 pm (#2462 of 2486)
It's not so much that she thinks she's right — everyone thinks they're right. But you have to allow for the possibility that you might be wrong, and, if you are, you should change. Hermione never does such self-examination, I think. (Michael)

I have to admit, I kind of agree with this view of Hermione.

I don't think Hermione wanted/wants to control anyone, Michael ... and if presented with your interpretation of her actions, she would be horrified. (Solitaire)

I'm sure she would be horrified, and she wouldn't believe it, and would justify all of her actions by proving how "right" or necessary they were. Most people who are this sort of person -- always for the cause of what they see as Right, of course -- don't see this aspect of themselves at all.



Solitaire - Jun 17, 2009 8:28 pm (#2463 of 2486)
I don't think she would deny it, Wynnleaf, particularly if it were presented to her in the same light as DD's "for the greater good" mantra. I do believe she would be shocked to realize that this was how her actions were perceived. Personally, I understand why she did what she did, so I would not throw that judgment in her face.



wynnleaf - Jun 17, 2009 8:53 pm (#2464 of 2486)
I didn't mean just about Hermione taking over her parent's lives as she did. I mean that JKR wrote Hermione very much in character when she did that, because we see Hermione make other very questionable choices throughout the series and never seems to look back on her actions with any sort of question as to whether they were right or not.

Hm... for instance, she finds out in COS, almost immediately after Ron and Harry question Draco, that in fact Draco had absolutely no knowledge of who was Slytherin's Heir. The entire plan to endanger a class of kids with an explosion, steal from a teacher, drug two other kids, take over their identities, sneak (apparently unauthorized) into another House was Hermione's idea. She never looks back and considers that any of that was wrong, because after all, as far as she knew at the time, it was the "Right" thing to do. As long as Hermione thought it was "right" and her intentions were good, explosions that harm other kids, stealing, drugging others, etc. is all okay to her.

When the fake-Moody, who everyone thought a legitimate teacher, turned Draco into a ferret and bounced him on the pavement -- even though Draco was about to hex Harry -- Hermione seriously questioned fake-Moody's action. When the twins actions hurt Montegue, a member of the Inquisitorial Squad in OOTP, and Madame Pomfrey can't seem to sort out his problems, Hermione wonders if maybe they should tell what they know in order to help out Montegue. But when Hermione's own action gets Marrieta a jinx which no one can remove, even though Marietta can no longer even remember anything about being a member of the DA, Hermione has no self-searching about whether she should give any info about the jinx that might help Marrieta.

Hermione is very concerned about others forcing the house elves to do things, but sees nothing wrong with her own actions to force them to do as she believes is best.

There's many more instances where Hermione is very concerned when others do questionable things, yet appears completely unconcerned when she does something similar for a cause she believes in.

This isn't some unusual flaw. Lots of people have it. It does tend to be (in my opinion and experience), a particular problem for very, very bright people. Maybe it's because some people are so used to being right far more often than everyone around them, so after awhile they start to assume something is simply right if they believe it is.

In my opinion, Dumbledore fell into this trap. He even commented in HBP (I think) about how he was so brilliant and his guesses were usually right. And he tended to assume that he was so Right in all his plans and guesses that he could afford to basically be the only person holding all the cards, all the facts. If Harry hadn't figured out all the things DD got wrong, then Harry might well have died in the end and LV won -- because DD didn't turn out to be right nearly as often as he had assumed.



Solitaire - Jun 17, 2009 10:32 pm (#2465 of 2486)
Hermione has no self-searching about whether she should give any info about the jinx that might help Marrieta. But we know that this is how Jo feels. When asked about this in a chat or Q&A event, her comment was that some of the pimples remain, because "I loathe a traitor." Interestingly, Dumbledore and the other heads of houses don't seem to bothered by Marietta's pimples. Could they, perhaps, agree with Hermione that a traitor deserves what he (or she) gets?

There is a lot more I could say, Wynnleaf, but I'm pretty sure I've already said it on the Marietta thread.

He even commented in HBP (I think) about how he was so brilliant and his guesses were usually right. He also said that when he was wrong, his mistakes were usually correspondingly bigger, too.



wynnleaf - Jun 18, 2009 5:01 am (#2466 of 2486)
Oh, I definitely don't want to start a discussion on the infamous Marietta problem!!

The only reason I brought it up was to point out that -- right or wrong -- it's another case where Hermione was concerned about the ethics when other people injured kids who were doing, or about to do, particularly wrong things, but didn't show any concern about her own actions when she caused a long term jinx. It was referred to later on in HBP, and we still don't see any concern from Hermione, no wondering if she should reveal what she knows about how Marietta got jinxed (Marietta, of course, no longer remembered signing the contract, not that it would help her in knowing exactly how or who jinxed her).

As for DD, yes he does acknowledge verbally that he makes mistakes, but one wonders how much he really believes that his decision making process isn't perfect, because he doesn't appear to allow anyone else into his decision making process as a check or balance. As I said, he makes sure he is the only one who holds all the information about what is going on, so there is no way anyone can ever say, "Albus, maybe you're making a mistake here". And his mistakes do end up being things that, but for Harry being aware of DD's mistake, could have lost them the war. That's a discussion for the Dumbledore thread. I was only mentioning it to point out that the flaw of coming to believe too deeply in one's own "rightness" (not to be confused with righteousness), can be an easy problem to fall into when one is very used to being the smartest person around.



Steve Newton - Jun 18, 2009 8:15 am (#2467 of 2486)
Oh, no! Anything but Marietta!



mona amon - Jun 18, 2009 8:35 am (#2468 of 2486)
Why not, Steve? It could be fun! I missed it last time, you see...

I am uncertain why the continued reiteration of Hermione's good intentions is a key point for some posters (no one in particular - a lot of people note this).

Back when he was 17, the brilliant DD had good intentions behind his admiration for and enthusiasm for Grindelwald's ideas. So what??? His good intentions were leading him to follow a path full of atrocities. Does this make it somehow better? (Wynnleaf)

Exactly. Good intentions are no justification for interfering with the rights of others. Actions have to be judged on their own merit, what their consequences are, whether they are ethically sound.

I wonder ... could they be under some sort of Imperius spell? (Soli)

She used some memory altering 'charm', but she may as well have used the Unforgivable. "Imperio! You are no longer ------ and ------ Granger. You are Wendell and Monica Wilkins, a childless couple, and your life's ambition is to move to Australia!" What is the difference between this and what Hermione actually did?

Tampering with people's minds to make them do one's bidding is recognised by the wizarding world as something evil enough to be considered unforgivable, and deserving of a life sentence in Azkaban. But witches and wizards are able to get around it by using other spells and potions which enable them to control people just as effectively.

I fail to see why the Imperious curse is an Unforgivable, while the confundus curse and memory altering charms can be practiced with impunity, and love potions are considered harmless pranks. The ethics of this world seem very blurry, IMO.

About the Marietta jinx- I think it's not a question of whether Marietta deserved it or not (my personal opinion being, yes! she did! ), but what it says about Hermione's character. She was brilliant enough to create a spell that could mark someone for life. She was not wise enough to consider questions like whether a traitor deserved permanent punishment, or even whether she had a right to make such a decicion.

I don't think Hermione wanted/wants to control anyone, Michael ... and if presented with your interpretation of her actions, she would be horrified. (Soli)

I think I agree with this. She took no pleasure in controlling anyone, or holding power over them, and that's her saving grace, because when it does suit her convenience to force people to do what she wants, she goes ahead and does it with no scruples whatsoever.

If presented with this view of her character she'd be disbelieving rather than horrified, I think. The problem with people who think they're always right is that there's no way to convince them that they're wrong, lol! Nothing happens to Hermione to help her to grow and improve, the way Ron and Neville do. I guess JKR felt she was good enough as she was, or didn't have enough space to work it out. After all the books are about Harry Potter and the ..., not Hermione Granger and the School of Hard Knocks.



John Bumbledore - Jun 18, 2009 8:53 am (#2469 of 2486)
After all the books are about Harry Potter and the ...,
not Hermione Granger and the School of Hard Knocks. (Mona amon>
To quote Glimfeather, "Too true. Too true."

I though there was a fleeting look Hermione's face during the train ride home after ... (DA was in ...) at the end of OP. (Must add "Never leave home without complete HP series" to the list of why I need the spell Hermione used on her beaded bag. —Now that was a piece of work.)

--John



Steve Newton - Jun 18, 2009 10:24 am (#2470 of 2486)
mona, Solitaire and I did not miss it the first time. I proudly say that I helped get the thread closed down. But, I don't want to do it again.



John Bumbledore - Jun 18, 2009 10:50 am (#2471 of 2486)
I think Hermione Granger (or someone else) needs to right "The Harry Potter Lexicon Fourm: A history" then maybe I'd understand...

Well, I was reading on-line from DH about what Hermione said about what she had cast upon her parents. She used charm and enchantment. Does anyone know of any descriptions of spells for the Pensive memories? All I remember seems to have been non-verbal magic.

Does this sound like a plauable alternative to Obliviate?

“Assuming I survive our hunt for the Horcruxes, I’ll find Mum and Dad and lift the enchantment. If I don’t – well, I think I’ve cast a good enough charm to keep them safe and happy. Wendell and Monica Wilkins don’t know that they’ve got a daughter, you see.”
(DH 6 "The Ghoul in Pajamas")


Madam Pince - Jun 18, 2009 10:57 am (#2472 of 2486)
Ah, I love Glimfeather... ...and Puddleglum... "To Serve Man..."

Nice post, Michael Franz, about the Once she's decided The Way Things Should Be Done, she never questions it, even in the face of contrary evidence...It's not so much that she thinks she's right — everyone thinks they're right. But you have to allow for the possibility that you might be wrong, and, if you are, you should change. Hermione never does such self-examination, I think.

I agree with the "disbelieving" vs. "horrified."

JKR has said that when she wants something to come across as something she herself thinks/knows/believes, she has Hermione say it (I'm paraphrasing, but it's to that effect) and I think she said she identifies most with Hermione or is herself most like Hermione. So naturally, if the author herself is like that, she's not going to write in any self-awareness or admission of "iffy-ness" into the character of Hermione -- that would be like admitting that she herself has some "iffy" attitudes, and what author is going to do that if they can help it? I definitely get the idea from interviews and media comments that JKR is very Hermione-ish in that regard -- believing she is always right, I mean.

JKR "hates traitors," so she thinks it's OK to permanently mar Marietta via Hermione. JKR doesn't hate naughty bad boys, apparently, because she sees no reason to punish Sirius for essentially trying to kill Snape by luring him to the Shrieking Shack -- she conveys that she feels Snape deserved what he got for being a snoop, so apparently she hates snoops, too.

She also definitely has the somewhat stubborn attitude of "well, I'm the author and it's my story and I'll do what I want and to anyone who doesn't like it and they don't have to read it!" Which is perfectly true and valid! And that part is sort of like Hermione in the stubbornness part of it, but unlike Hermione in that it's sort-of "rule-breaking-ish." (Now that I think on it, though, she does have Hermione break away from her rigid rule-following... so maybe the character of Hermione reflects previously-meek-and-mild-JKR breaking out of her shell and becoming a bit of a rebel?)

I suspect, though, that she might overcome this flaw after marrying Ron. After all, we know they've been happily married for years. If he'd married the old Hermione, Ron wouldn't have survived a week! --Michael Franz

***Snort!***



Solitaire - Jun 18, 2009 11:28 am (#2473 of 2486)
when it does suit her convenience to force people to do what she wants, she goes ahead and does it with no scruples whatsoever. Hm ... I thought the stories were told from Harry's point of view. I didn't know we had insight into Hermione's mind, in order to know what she was thinking. I think reading the mind of a character whose mind is not opened to us is taking a leap. I also think that assuming Hermione never grows and improves is pretty harsh.

Mona, if you want to read about the Marietta wars, here you go ... Marietta's thread!



wynnleaf - Jun 18, 2009 12:32 pm (#2474 of 2486)
I didn't know we had insight into Hermione's mind, in order to know what she was thinking. I think reading the mind of a character whose mind is not opened to us is taking a leap. (Solitaire)

As with any character in a book, we have to go by what the author wrote. It's not like real people, who actually go around thinking things that we can't see. Hermione didn't think anything that JKR doesn't know about, and JKR didn't hide Hermione's thoughts that were important for us to know. If she was having scruples, it must not have been important enough for us to be told about it.

In my opinion, when JKR has Hermione repeatedly act in rather high-handed ways, trusting her own judgement regarding punishing others, infringing on the rights of others, breaking rules, etc., and yet without openly questioning herself, we interpret the character based on what JKR shows us.

Naturally, anyone is welcome to imagine whatever they want going on "off the page", which is why fan fiction can be fun.

Of course, we use what we may think of as various cues or hints to figure out how Hermione perhaps thought, just as we do with other characters. But JKR does tell us how Hermione thought in several cases, such as the house elves, so it's no particular leap to conclude that Hermione does as she sees fit, regardless of rules or standards for others, and doesn't appear to doubt her conclusions.



Solitaire - Jun 18, 2009 1:42 pm (#2475 of 2486)
doesn't appear to doubt her conclusions

Well, maybe once ... in OotP. She changes her mind about the reality and validity of prophecies. This suggests that she is capable of seeing the error of her ways and seeing other points of view.



Hieronymus Graubart - Jul 5, 2009 9:27 am (#2476 of 2486)
My apologies for the delayed contribution, there was some work to do (I may explain this later).

Let my try to fill the pothole in John Bumbledore’s road with some hermione-ish reasoning:

On first glance, “memory charm” seems to be a generic for any kind of charm tampering with menory, and we know at least three:
1) “Obliviate” is a simple charm used to remove any menories from a short period of time (often used by many witches and wizards).
2) What Kingsley Shacklebolt did to Marietta Edgecomb was a much more sophisticated charm which removed any memories of a specific topic spread over a long period of time without affecting any other memories (I assume that Marietta still remembered nearly everything she had learned during this year).
3) Hermione used a complex charm to modify her parents memories, giving them new consistent biographies.
4) I’m not sure if “confundus” would qualify as a “simple memory modifying charm”. When McLaggen was confunded in HBP, he still remembered how to go left or right, but was unable to decide in which direction he should go to catch the quaffle or pass the door. In a similar manner, when Hermione said “But you’ve just done that!”, the confunded guards at Gringott’s may have been unable to decide that this should be rejected because it contradicted what they remembered, thus overlaying their memories with new information which seemed to be valid. I think “confundus” affects judgement rather than memory. (I can also imagine Mad-Eye saying “What you just told me is an excellent plan of yours” after telling Mundungus everything about the Seven-Potters-Plan).

But witches and wizards are as lazy as muggles. We all tend to use short descriptors, especially when we have to use them often. Since “Obliviate” is the most common memory charm used often by a great number of persons, it is quite natural that, in dayly speech, “The Memory Charm” became synonymous to “Obliviate”. (If you don’t believe this, ask an expert.)

Witches and wizards would say “Hermiones complex memory modifying charm” or “Kingsleys memory removing charm” in the few occasions when this is necessary, but nobody (except young Hermione Granger!) would ever refer to “Obliviate” as “the simple memory removing charm”.

Of course, during her first years at Hogwarts Hermione would have said “the simple memory removing charm” for “Obliviate”, in accordance with the text book, but revealing herself to be a “stupid mudblood who does not even know how real witches talk”.

By now she has learned that everybody will understand “a Memory Charm” to be “Obliviate” and not even Hermione would insist on beeing unnecessarily precise in a situation where no time should be wasted.

This wasn’t a glitch, it was deliberately written this way to show us how far Hermione had come in her attempt to fit into the wizarding community.

Chemyst, Hermione did probably not say memory wipe because this would imply what Gideon Lockhart had done to himself , wiping out nearly everthing. Even if Jo had remembered (often she doesn’t in quick-question-quick-answer-situations ), I doubt that she could have given the full explanation in this chat, while many other people were waiting to have their questions answered (although she can probably type much faster than I can). But what she said (different charms) is the essence.

There is also another, very simple explanation:

Ron said: ”But I’ve never done a Memory Charm”, obviously meanig “Obliviate”, because nobody would have expected him to be able to do somethimg much more complex.

Hermione never said “I’ve never done a Memory Charm”, she said “Nor have I”, refering to what Ron really had meant, not to the possible (but not applicable, highly theoretical) extended meaning of what he had said.

I like the first explanation much more



Hieronymus Graubart - Jul 12, 2009 3:36 am (#2477 of 2486)
Great discussions about the moral-right-or-wrong of Hermione’s decission. I really enjoyed to read this. And consider that we only could have all this because Jo so deliberately omitted the words “with their permission” from “I’ve also modified my parents’ memories so that they’re convinced they’re really called Wendell and Monica Wilkins, ...”

Honestly, I still don’t see why I should believe that Hermione did not discuss the matter with her parents and got their approval. Since their is no evidence in the book this (let me emphasize this: very valuable) discussion is entirely based on the assumption that the Grangers would not have agreed and that Hermione woluld have hexed them anyway.

Do I sense an anti-muggle-prejudice here?

Muggles are objectively inferior, they can not perform magic.

But are Muggles unable to understand who Voldemort is and what he tries do do?

Are Muggles unable to at least try to do what is right over what is easy?

Wouldn’t it be selfish if parents insisted on keeping the memories of their child while they know that this will endanger their child?

You may conclude that I didn’t give Hermiones choice much consideration, because I was, for obvious reasons, much more concerned with Mr. Grangers choice (if he was ever asked).

Being the mad scientist I am (yes, I lied on the tell-about-yourself ), I spent the last few weeks on an attempt to establish a time tunnel to get some direct input from Mr. and Mrs. Granger before their memories are modified. (I wouldn’t fully trust their “restored” memories .) Results will be published soon (I hope).

It is another question whether the Grangers were safer without their memories or not. On the one hand, in this way they could not give themselves away accidentally, but on the other hand, they did not know there was something they had to avoid - what if they decided one day to go on holiday in England? (Julia H.)
Oh, now I understand! Although it seems reasonable that Hermione changed her parents appearance as well as their memories, she never mentioned this to Harry. So we may assume that this did not happen, and if the Wilkins still looked like the Grangers, Hermione’s explanation ”That’s to make it more difficult for Voldemort to track them down ... “ (page 84 Bloomsbury) doesn’t sound convincing.

But Hermione also never mentioned faked passports. Should we assume that the Wilkins went to Australia with passports saying they were Mr. and Mrs. Granger? Or should we assume that Hermione did everything possible to have her parents save, but told Harry only the worst part of it?

The point of the memory modification (combined with faked passports and altered appearance) is, that it is nearly impossible to find the Grangers, even for a “mind-reader” like Voldemort. Yes, he could find them by extracting the original memories of their real personality from random people, but where should he start?
At England, assuming that they, being unrecognizable, had not bothered to travel?
At Mongolia, assuming that they would hide at a place where you would not expect to find much englishmen?
Even if Voldemort concentrated on english-speaking, married couples of approximately the right age, it would be a big task to search the world.


“Was there no other way?” is a valid question, but regarding only maximal safety their were few “better” ways:
We should appreciate that even Hermione did not think of divorcing her parents to make it even more difficult.
Obviously Hermione did not know the horrible spell which makes you speak german for the rest of your life .

Ummph, this high-tech-monster seems to make me timeless or put me out-of-time while I’m testing. I’ve lost another week.



wynnleaf - Jul 12, 2009 5:18 am (#2478 of 2486)
The reason that it is far more likely that Hermione did not ask her parent's permission is this:

Modifying memories and even Obliviate can be overcome by a powerful Legilimens like Voldemort and Hermione knew it. Therefore removing their memories of their daughter does nothing to protect vital info from LV. The only thing that actually protects info from LV is getting the Grangers hidden out of the country where LV can't find them. So why modify their memories if LV could still find crucial info? The only reason to modify their memories is to convince them to leave the country under assumed names.

You're right, it doesn't seem likely that bright people like the Granters who supposedly know a good deal about Harry's situation would object to going into hiding if Hermione had laid out a convincing argument. After all, even the Dursleys agreed.

This leaves it more likely (and very in-character for Hermione) that Hermione did not spend time trying to convince her parents, but instead simply changed their memories to make it easy to send them out of the country into hiding.

The memory change wasn't to protect memories from LV, as it LV could still get the memories if he found the Grangers. The memory change was to get them to leave the country.



Hieronymus Graubart - Jul 12, 2009 11:39 am (#2479 of 2486)
LV could still get the memories if he found the Grangers, I agree to this.

But why should Voldermort try to extract any memories from the Wilkins, while neither he nor they knew that there was somthing interesting to find?

... getting the Grangers hidden out of the country where LV can't find them would not be enough. Just broadcast the message “Hermione Granger has been badly wounded. Her parents should come to the <insert name> hospital as soon as possible”. How could the Wilkins stay away if they still remembered who this “Hermione Granger” was? Modifying their memories was an essential part of getting the Grangers hidden.

I don’t see a reason to assume motives (in-character or not) for Hermione, when she gave us a perfectly reasonable motive: ” ... to make it more difficult for Voldemort to track them down ... “.

On the other hand, I don’t believe that Hermione was absolutely sincere when she continued ... because unfortunately, I’ve told them quite a bit about you., so we all seem to make our own assumptions.

Knowing, for example, what Harry had seen in the Mirror of Erised (if he ever told Hermione and she told her parents) may have helped Voldemort to trap Harry by faking the return of some long-lost relatives.

But Hermione knew what happened to the Longbottoms when death eaters tried to get information they simply could not provide. She also knew that Voldemort had used a faked danger for Sirius to catch Harry. Of course, Hermione would not rush to the rescue without double-checking that there really was danger, but this would be a perfect reason to really try to catch her parents first.

Obviously there was much more to be feared than Voldemort getting information like “Harry wants a family” or “Hermione likes shopping at Tottenham Court Road more than at other places”. Hermione understated (very british) and distracted from the real sources of her fears, because these were her fears for her family, and (in her view) shouldn’t concern Harry, who had already enough on his shoulders. I don’t believe that Hermione really was concerned with the protection of memories.

Off for another test of the time tunnel (may take me some days again).



wynnleaf - Jul 13, 2009 5:42 am (#2480 of 2486)
The only thing that actually protects info from LV is getting the Grangers hidden out of the country where LV can't find them. (wynnleaf)

I'm sorry I wasn't completely specific and absolutely clear. When I said "getting the Grangers hidden out of the country" I meant that to include a name and identity change as well. LV might wonder where they were, but how would he know they were in Australia? I tend to assume that the Grangers were intelligent people, intelligence usually running in families, so I assume they'd understand the important aspects of keeping their changed identities completely secret. Since changing identities and going into hiding happens in real life, I think two intelligent professional people would be better about it than most.

i Just broadcast the message “Hermione Granger has been badly wounded. Her parents should come to the <insert name> hospital as soon as possible”. How could the Wilkins stay away if they still remembered who this “Hermione Granger” was? Modifying their memories was an essential part of getting the Grangers hidden. (Hieronymus Graubart)

What would LV be doing? Broadcasting this message around the world?? He'd have no idea where they were. He might broadcast the message around the UK, but he wasn't in control of the whole world, just the UK. And if the Grangers were following UK news (as they probably would be), I'm going to assume they'd be bright enough to realize that 1. the bad guys were in charge and 2. the bad guys were after their daughter and her friends and 3. any call for Hermione's parents was certainly not altruistic and had nothing to do with an effort to get the loving parents to the side of their poor injured daughter.

You know, it's like in real life if someone is in a hot spot of the world and captured by terrorists. The parents back in the home country know about it, but how many have you read about rushing to the hot spot country in question attempting to rescue their adult child from the hands of the terrorists? The Grangers probably aren't idiots and wouldn't do that.



rambkowalczyk - Jul 14, 2009 2:09 pm (#2481 of 2486)
The parents back in the home country know about it, but how many have you read about rushing to the hot spot country in question attempting to rescue their adult child from the hands of the terrorists? The Grangers probably aren't idiots and wouldn't do that. wynnleaf

I think there are some instances where a parent or a loved one has tried to contact the country or terrorists directly thinking that they might have a better chance.



Hieronymus Graubart - Jul 20, 2009 1:02 pm (#2482 of 2486)
You were clear enough, wynnleaf. I understood that "getting hidden" included changed names and identities (but obviously not changed memories).

I really imagined that this message would be broadcasted all over the world (not necessarily at the same date). If it doesn’t work in the UK, why not try it elsewhere? It is not necessary to be in control, just call the radio station and beg for help. (Maybe you have to confund somedody so that the journalists believe they have already checked that there really is a Hermione Granger in the hospital.)

Since the Grangers would have known that the bad guys were in charge in the UK, it would probably work better if it was broadcasted elsewere (making the Grangers wonder why on earth her daugther was in mongolia).

I’m sure our insufferable know-it-all knew everything about witness protection programs and how often this failed because the witnesses could not keep their secret under all circumstances. The real question here is not, what we would expect, but if Hermione believed that her parents could not be tricked in any imaginable way.

Since Hermione said that the modification of memories was done "to make it more difficult for Voldemort to track them down" and we can see how Hermione may have believed that her parents could be trapped if she didn’t modify their memories, there is no reason to assume that she lied about this und to invent other motives like "they refused to hide" or "they tried to stop her" or even "she wanted to get rid of them anyway" (this one i didn’t see for a long time, and I’m aware that you didn’t exactly say any of the above).

Now, trying to imagine this conversation, I find it quite difficult to say "Well, if I could be sure that you don’t love me enough to be trapped in this way, it would not be necesary to change your memories". Maybe it was more easy to hex them without warning.

The time tunnel project is far off schedule. There is (again) so much to read on this forum that i hardly find time to do anything.



jose043 - Sep 19, 2009 3:14 am (#2483 of 2486)
Happy birthday to Hermione Granger-Weasley hope you have a wonderful day.



Michael Franz - Sep 26, 2009 3:45 pm (#2484 of 2486)
I really imagined that this message would be broadcasted all over the world (not necessarily at the same date). If it doesn’t work in the UK, why not try it elsewhere?

Why am I suddenly reminded of the beginning of the anime Death Note, where L tricks Light into killing a man on a broadcast he said was worldwide, then revealed it was only broadcast in the Tokyo area, thus proving Light was in Tokyo? Probably because the Lexicon's icon is the same "L" as L uses.

Hmmmm.... do Horcruxes protect you against shinigami?



shepherdess - Sep 26, 2009 4:03 pm (#2485 of 2486)
Ok, I'll ask; what is shinigami?



Michael Franz - Sep 26, 2009 5:07 pm (#2486 of 2486)
Shinigami are spirits of death in Death Note. The title refers to the notebook each shinigami carries which can be used to kill anyone whose name is written in it. So, if Harry were to get his hands on one of these and wrote down "Tom Marvolo Riddle"... it would be a short book.



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


Last edited by Mona on Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:17 am; edited 1 time in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

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

Back to top Go down

Hermione Granger - Page 3 Empty Hermione Granger #1 (posts from Aug 29, 2003 to Nov 9, 2003)

Post  Mona Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:30 am

Sly Girl - Aug 29, 2003 12:09 pm Reply
Edited by Kip Carter May 2, 2006 7:50 am

I edited the title of this thread from Hermione Granger #1 to Hermione Granger (posts from Aug 29, 2003 to Nov 9, 2003). When this thread was closed, a new thread Hermione Granger continued the discussion. - Kip Mar 9, 2004 9:41am

I edited the title of this thread by adding in #1, added an additional thread Hermione's True Age at the end as message #206 along with the 23 messages that had been at part of that thread, and closed out posting to this thread. - Kip Nov 13, 2003 1:55am

Our favorite bookworm: JKR has said that Hermione will loosen up. Of course, this was awhile ago, so HAS Hermione loosened up? I know she has a bit, but in re-reading OOTP, I still found her a bit.. rigid, regarding some things. I know in the previous thread we were talking about her parents, but I don't think they will play a part. How many O.W.L.'s do think Hermione got? All of them? Will she break the record?!


 INDEX HERMIONE GRANGER #1

[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 Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:22 am; edited 8 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

Hermione Granger - Page 3 Empty Posts 1 to 50

Post  Mona Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:32 am

mollis - Aug 29, 2003 12:39 pm (#1 of 229)
I really enjoyed how towards the end she and Fred and George seemed to come to an understanding. She complimented them on their advanced magical abilities (headless hats) and they began to respect her desire to be able to study (no practical jokes over the Easter holiday).



zelmia - Aug 29, 2003 12:51 pm (#2 of 229)
I think the fact that she so willingly and casually lies to her parents indicates a great deal of "loosening up." The fact that she chose to spend more time with her friends, boyfriend or whatever, shows that she is becoming a typical teenager. A studious one, yes. But she has placed her friendships much higher on her priority list than she did in the first episodes of the saga.



Liz Mann - Aug 29, 2003 2:17 pm (#3 of 229)
At least she doesn't think being expelled's worse than dying anymore.



Marie E. - Aug 29, 2003 9:47 pm (#4 of 229)
And she admits that some things are more important than homework.



TGF- Aug 29, 2003 10:01 pm (#5 of 229)
I think that it is clear that Hermione's grown substansially as a character. She doesn't tell people what to do because of an adherence to the rules anymore, but rather because she genuinely cares about them. I think that would count as an important difference.



Noreen Sapalo - Aug 29, 2003 10:36 pm (#6 of 229)
In my opinion I think that Hermione will gain about almost all of them because her reason of stating O.W.L IS NICE for me cause she is helping the house elves gain their freedom once again and having a reason to stop working hard and just gain punishments and to ENJOY THEIR LIVES



Maniak - Aug 30, 2003 7:41 am (#7 of 229)
If she prefear study instead adventure and friend she isen't in griffindor Smile



Lady Margot - Aug 30, 2003 11:38 am (#8 of 229)
I think Hermione has loosened up a little - but I think she won't totally stop being the voice of reason for her group (someone needs to be especially around Harry). But I really wish she'd leave the house elves alone. She means well but that's not the way it's coming across - at least not to the elves who are insulted by her insistence that they should be miserable because they aren't free. I keep hoping for a chapter in one of the next two books where a contingent of house elves sits her down and tells her the fact of life - or at least threatens to go completely on strike until she lays off. I think being the only tower in the school where you have to do your own laundry and clean your own rooms because of Hermione's crusade might be just a tad distracting - especially right now. Margot



Sly Girl - Aug 30, 2003 12:52 pm (#9 of 229)
Do you think Hermione got a taste of that when the centaurs were yelling at her? I think Hermione was quite surprised and scared, actually when they told her off for interfering.



Joost! - Aug 30, 2003 1:42 pm (#10 of 229)
JKR uses Hermione as an information source by telling Harry and Ron about stuff she's read. So I think she'll keep annoying the boys with her knowlegde of books. Hermione's behaviour has not really changed in the series (especially compared to Harry's behaviour) In my opinion it's Harry's view about Hermione that is changing more than Hermione herself...



Gabrielle D - Aug 30, 2003 1:57 pm (#11 of 229)
I think you right Joost!,

I think it's not just the people that are changing, but it's Harry learning to accept sertian people for who they are.



Sly Girl - Aug 30, 2003 2:11 pm (#12 of 229)
Oh I don't know about that.. Hermione definitely changed since the first book.. if you doubt me, read the chapters BEFORE she becomes friends with Harry and Ron and you'll really see a difference in her personality.



mischa fan- Aug 30, 2003 3:00 pm (#13 of 229)
I think that Hermione has changed alot since we first meet her on the Hogwarts Express. The biggest change I see in her is that she is more comfortable with herself and who she is. I have always got the impression that before Hogwarts Hermione was the kid no one liked because she was so smart. I think she felt entering this new world she would be accepted, which I think is the reason that Ron saying she had no friends hurt he so much.

Since the Troll episode when she, Ron and Harry became friends, I think she started to beleive that she didn't need to be "Hermione who always knows the right answer" and could be just Hermione to have really good friends.

I also see Hermione growing up as a person who has realized that you can break rules and still be a good person. I think Dumbledore has had a major effect on Hermione here.

Hermione is still Hermione, but she has grown(I think grown is a better word then changed) in the books. Her studies are still important to her and she doesn't beleive in breaking rules for the sake of breaking rules, she just understands that her studies are not the be all end all, and that rules sometimes need to be broken.



OkieAngel - Aug 30, 2003 10:17 pm (#14 of 229)
I can see the difference in Hermy's attitude since the beginning of the books. As was stated above, she now realises that people are more important than books. Plus, let us not forget how it felt to see her waltz into the Yule Ball on Krum's arm. THAT was definitely a different side to her. Another instance that comes to mind are when she walloped Draco good for bad-mouthing Hagrid, that was great.



Brave ol' Neville - Sep 1, 2003 6:55 pm (#15 of 229)
Hermione cares about her friends now. She will do what ever she can to help Harry and Ron. An example is she lies to her parents to go see Harry and Ron during winter break. But at the same time, she still is careful and will do the smart thing and think things over before she does them. An example, when Harry wants to go to the ministry right away she tells him to confirm the sirius really is gone, and even then, she wants to make sure no one will find out about going through the fireplace instead of just running to Umbrides office and using her fireplace right there like Harry wanted to do. (wow, that was a run on)



OkieAngel - Sep 1, 2003 8:04 pm (#16 of 229)
Very true Seek W, Hermy is continually the voice of reason, the Jiminy Cricket if you will, of the group, which is highly needed. It hasn't yet failed that she has been right in her to Harry (i.e. "You do have a bit of a bit of a hero thing [paraphrasing}). You would think after five years our yong hero would learn to listen to her...

ah well, such is youth, I suppose... Smile



Sly Girl - Sep 1, 2003 8:09 pm (#17 of 229)
Were any of you expecting some sort of fall-out from Hermione about Dobby wearing all of the clothing she had made? Doesn't he come into the DA wearing them all? Did she not put two and two together?



OkieAngel - Sep 1, 2003 8:17 pm (#18 of 229)
Ya know Sly, I really was expecting more on that topic, but it didn't come up,perhaps in the next book. It doesn't seem like something our Hermy is willing to just give up w/out a fight.



TGF- Sep 1, 2003 8:26 pm (#19 of 229)
I hope she does drops the bloody SPEW thing, its been tiresome since day one.

One would think that Hagrid, the final word on magical creatures and what will make them happy and what won't, telling her that the House Elves are best off the way they are would knock some sense into her, but it seems that Hermione is uncharacteristically short-sighted about this.



OkieAngel - Sep 1, 2003 10:51 pm (#20 of 229)
You would think, TGF, that Hagrid would have some say in the matter, but he seems to respect her stand in the matter. However, as Dobby proves, there are some House-elves that are willing to take a stand, even if the majority are happy staying as they are.



TGF- Sep 1, 2003 11:14 pm (#21 of 229)
He said 'no' to SPEW in no uncertain terms. Of course he's not going to stop Hermione, he's Hagrid... but he condemned the whole idea as a whole, calling Dobby a 'weirdo' and I think he would know more about House Elves than anyone else at Hogwarts. That really should've been enough for Hermione, but again, she persists...

Besides, Dobby was tortured and beaten by the Malfoys... Of course he wanted to be free. That doesn't happen to the Hogwarts elves. The Hogwarts elves are hardly in need of emancipation. Even Dobby doesn't seem too keen on freeing them. Again, she's just stubborn on this issue.



OkieAngel - Sep 1, 2003 11:19 pm (#22 of 229)
True, our Hermy needs to learn to choose her battles...



Brave ol' Neville - Sep 2, 2003 1:54 pm (#23 of 229)
Spew would be a good thing but Hermione is approching it the wrong way. She thinks that all elves want to be free. Not true. Maybe she should take a poll to figure out wich leves need freeing (like Dobby did) and which elves are taking care of and are part of a family.



timrew - Sep 2, 2003 1:59 pm (#24 of 229)
I think maybe Hermione should be channelling her efforts into finding a nice family for Winky; and making one miserable elf happy, rather than a lot of happy elves miserable.



Professor Kosh - Sep 2, 2003 5:15 pm (#25 of 229)
I firmly believe the SPEW thing is going to blow up in her face, most likely in book 6. (If it continues much more, I'm gonna barf!) It will provide an opportunity to show her that she is not always right, and that things are occasionally more complicated than she realizes. I think it will be a good oppourtunity to help her grow a bit.



OkieAngel - Sep 2, 2003 8:39 pm (#26 of 229)
ooohhh, good idea Tim. Winky definetly needs another family to take care of. I think that once Hermione gets past the whole "slave labor" indignation, she'll really be able to help the house-elves in a way that they will accept.



Lisaren - Sep 3, 2003 7:45 am (#27 of 229)
I am getting tired of SPEW also. But there has been a lot of book time taken up on this topic. I begin to believe if Hermione finds the correct approach for the house elves, they will become very important in the upcoming battles. SPEW has got to be included for some reason other than showing how inflexible and determined Hermione can be.



haymoni - Sep 4, 2003 8:41 am (#28 of 229)
This is my first time posting here, so if my question has been discussed previously, please excuse me. I know Hermione is brilliant and everything, but how was she able to get to Diagon Alley and get on the Hogwart's Express?? Was there an extra sheet of parchment in her Hogwart's letter explaining where to buy books and how to get on the Hogwart's Express? There was nothing in the letter that Hagrid handed Harry about the Leaky Cauldron or Platform 9 3/4. There could have been extra info in the original letter that Dudley grabbed. Once Dumbledore realized Harry wasn't getting the letters and had to send Hagrid to help him, I suppose it wouldn't be necessary to explain everything. Dumbledore may have assumed that since Lily had gone to Hogwart's, Petunia would know what to do. Any thoughts?



Olivia Wood - Sep 4, 2003 1:31 pm (#29 of 229)
Maybe all Muggle-born/raised students get a teacher to deliver their letter to them?



timrew - Sep 4, 2003 1:36 pm (#30 of 229)
Edited Sep 4, 2003 2:36 pm

Maybe a horseless coach pulls up outside their front door, and a disembodied voice says, "GET IN!!!"



Olivia Wood - Sep 4, 2003 1:39 pm (#31 of 229)
Well, those thestrals have to be good for something, right? Smile



Professor Kosh - Sep 4, 2003 1:45 pm (#32 of 229)
Yeah, you have to wonder. If Harry hadn't run into the Weasleys, would he have made it to the train? I'm guessing that most Muggle-borns have a person (instructor, liason) who shows them the ropes (Diagon Ally, Platform 9 and 3/4). I'm guessing Hagrid was supposed to help, but had to see a man about an egg?



S.E. Jones - Sep 4, 2003 2:23 pm (#33 of 229)
Edited Sep 4, 2003 3:23 pm

Actually, I think Hagrid had assumed before hand that Harry had already been told everything by his Aunt and Uncle, remember the "yeh'll know all about Hogwarts, o'course" line and the conversation that followed in PS. I think that's why Hagrid forgot to tell Harry about Platform 9 3/4. I find it interesting that Hermione never mentions seeing her first wizard or anything like that. Hm, maybe that's why Mark Evans was introduced in OotP, to show us what happens when a Muggle-born gets his/her letter. Then maybe Hermione can confirm it later in Bk. 6.



OkieAngel - Sep 4, 2003 5:36 pm (#34 of 229)
Edited Sep 4, 2003 6:54 pm

If memory serves, Our Hermy was described as stunning when she waltzed in on Krum's arm to the Yule Ball, leaving most of the Great Hall speechless.



S.E. Jones - Sep 4, 2003 5:39 pm (#35 of 229)
Who's post are you replying to, Angel? Or are you making a new point?



OkieAngel - Sep 4, 2003 5:51 pm (#36 of 229)
No Sarah, I was replying to a previous post, but obviously it wasn't on this thread being as I can't find it now. Someone had said that they thought it odd (quote??) how Hermione's appearance seem to be improving faster in the movies than in the books. They said she was still described as "ugly" in book 4, so I was coming to my favorite crusaders defense...just in the wrong place.



Hem Hem - Sep 4, 2003 5:53 pm (#37 of 229)
Edited Sep 4, 2003 6:54 pm

You were responding to a post that WAS here...it got moved over to the movie thread a few minutes ago by Denise.



Denise P. - Sep 4, 2003 5:58 pm (#38 of 229)
I moved it while you were in the process of typing a reply to it. The discussion belonged on the movie thread rather than here. Sorry for the confusion.



OkieAngel - Sep 4, 2003 6:05 pm (#39 of 229)
Whew, I was beginning to wonder if I imagined it...ya know, I've developed this habit of reading between the lines of EVERYTHING...



St. Mana - Sep 5, 2003 7:58 pm (#40 of 229)
Well i'm still getting my posts bumped around alot. Sorry about that.



Denise S. - Sep 6, 2003 11:07 am (#41 of 229)
I don't really mind S.P.E.W., except for the fact that in the last book, it didn't really go anywhere; she tried to trick the House Elves into freedom, they didn't like it, and...that was it. -_-.

I'm very sure S.P.E.W. will be in the 6th book, and likely the 7th as well, but that Hermione will learn to take a different approach for it. "Society for the Protection of Elvish Welfare"--this doesn't mean necessarily freeing the elves, but making sure they're well taken care of. So why doesn't she focus her struggle on trying to make sure that elves are treated well by their owners? Fine the owners for mistreatment, or perhaps (the way welfare societies do with abused pets) find new homes for them.

Hermione can't force her own cultural values upon those of another culture, because it's not going to work and will only lead to friction between herself and the elves. She needs to start working and making contacts with people in the MoM who can influence the treatment and status of House Elves--after actually talking to more House Elves than just Dobby. How can you claim to speak for any group when you hardly have contact with them anyway?

That said, I still admire Hermione for this--this has gone on for two years, and I doubt she'll be dropping this any time soon. She's bound to grow and mature along with everyone else, and so her positions on S.P.E.W. are bound to change and evolve as well--especially when she sees that her approach is not working.

So, in short, I'm curious to see what turn S.P.E.W. will take next, how she'll change her strategies, and whether she'll succeed in making any meaningful changes .



Landman - Sep 6, 2003 11:41 am (#42 of 229)
JKR has been quoted as saying that Hermoine's name came from Shakespeare "The Winter's Tale". Here's a review I found on it:

A sad romantic play about human behavior and emotions ...a merciless decision issued by the king Leontes against his wife Hermione and his boyhood friend Polixenes is the shocking beginning of a real tragedy ....immaturity,mistrust and devastating jealousy that completely blinds Leontes of seeing the truth and the consequences of his actions..

So, since JKR tends to borrow and reshape events from other books, could something bad be in store for our Hermoine? Personally, I think that would be devastating. Her and Ginny are the last one's I'd want to see get hurt.

If jealousy does come into play, could it involve that Krum-bum, Viktor? Or would Harry and/or Ron be so petty to cause a tragedy to happen with Hermoine?

Food for thought. . .



S.E. Jones - Sep 6, 2003 11:48 am (#43 of 229)
Edited Sep 6, 2003 12:48 pm

I thought JK said that, though she took the name from Shakespeare's play, her Hermione had nothing to do with his....



Denise S. - Sep 6, 2003 12:09 pm (#44 of 229)
JKR said that a name like "Hermione" would be a perfect name for the daughter of two pretentious dentists .


Sly Girl - Sep 6, 2003 12:26 pm (#45 of 229)
Yeah.. I just read the old interveiw where she said she liked the name but that her Hermione wouldn't meet the same fate as Shakespeare's Hermione. By the way, Gary... thanks for using my pet name for Viktor.

I agree with Denise.. Hermione needs to work within the system first, instead of clamoring and ranting about house-elf welfare to no one who will listen. Although, admittedly, sometimes you have to rant and rave just to make people wake up.



Professor Kosh - Sep 6, 2003 2:08 pm (#46 of 229)
One problem with Hermione and SPEW, is that she really hasn't talked much to the elves themselves. In the kitchen scene in GoF, she jumps into the conversation with the elves full of her own ideas and presumptions, without listening to the elves themselves. She hasn't evaluated their culture, just assumed it was like human culture and the elves were being exploited. Her knowledge of Dobby has skewed her perception somewhat (and besides, Dobby really isn't much different. He rebelled against the abuse of the Malfoys, but basically functions as a normal house elf in Hogwarts. He is paid next to nothing, has almost no time off, and doesn't care. He is happy.) SPEW will never come to anything if she doesn't stop campaigning and talk to the elves!



timrew - Sep 6, 2003 3:20 pm (#47 of 229)
Seeing as SPEW stands for Society for the Promotion of Elvish Welfare, why doesn't Hermione promote some Elvish Welfare by finding a good home for Winky? Some decent family like the Weasleys, for instance? Or would Hermione regard this as sending Winky into slavery?



Olivia Wood - Sep 6, 2003 3:24 pm (#48 of 229)
It's not like Dumbledore's paying Winky, anyway, so I don't see how she would be more enslaved than she is now. I always thought Winky should go to the Weasleys.



mischa fan- Sep 6, 2003 3:39 pm (#49 of 229)
I agree Professor Kosh, Dobby didn't want to get paid alot of money, he didn't like the abuse he was getting from the Malfoys, and he did want to get paid something. In GoF it says:

"Professor Dumbledore says he will pay Dobby, sir, if Dobby wants paying! And so Dobby is a free elf, sir, and Dobby gets a Galleon a week and one day off a month!"

"That's not very much!" Hermione shouted indignantly from the floor, over Winky's continued screaming and fist-beating.

"Professor Dumbledore offered Dobby ten Galleons a week, and weekends off," said Dobby, suddenly giving a little shiver, as though the prospect of so much leisure and riches were frightening, "but Dobby beat him down, miss...Dobby likes freedom, miss, but he isn't wanting too much, miss, he likes work better."

So even Dobby doesn't want tons of free time and money. He likes to work, as, I think, all house elves like. I think the money for Dobby is more of a gesture then anything else.

I think Hermione needs to see this, and work with the House elves, keeping their wishes in mind when she is working on SPEW, instead of the attitude she has, that she knows what is best for the house elves then they know them selves.



Denise P. - Sep 6, 2003 3:49 pm (#50 of 229)
It won't matter if Hermione talks to elves until the thestrals come home. She will not listen to them telling her that they are HAPPY. She is convinced that they are a downtrodden people who don't realize what a miserable lot in life they have. She is totally sure of the fact that once they are free, that they will be a happy, giddy, joyful bunch. Hermione has ignored the fact of how utterly miserable Winky is, she focuses on Dobby instead despite the fact that Hagrid tells her that he is a weirdo.

Our Hermione is a bright young lady but on SPEW, she is woefully blind.



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


Last edited by Mona on Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:39 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

Hermione Granger - Page 3 Empty Posts 51 to 100

Post  Mona Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:53 am

Professor Kosh - Sep 6, 2003 3:50 pm (#51 of 229)
There is something very much like the 'honor' cultures of East Asia in the house elves attitudes. One could make a strong case for some policital commentary here from JKR with the house elves and Hermionie. But, as that is considered inappropriate for this forum, I will leave it up to everyone as individuals to see it.



Dr Filibuster - Sep 6, 2003 4:25 pm (#52 of 229)
Do you think Hermione will apply for a job at the MoM and request the House elf relocation Department? What was she thinking of when she was asked about her career options?



St. Mana - Sep 6, 2003 6:15 pm (#53 of 229)
I wouldn't doubt it, Filibuster my man.



Gred-n-Forge - Sep 6, 2003 8:57 pm (#54 of 229)
Well, in OoP, when the trio were discussing career options, Hermione did mention that she was thinking about taking SPEW further. . .



TGF- Sep 6, 2003 9:12 pm (#55 of 229)
I was very disappointed in her when she did... I mean, seriously, dedicating your whole life to HOUSE ELVES who don't even want your help? Come on, Hermione, you can do so much better than that.



Gred-n-Forge - Sep 6, 2003 9:21 pm (#56 of 229)
Yeah, I was pretty disappointed in her, too. To me, the biggest hint she could have possibly got about the futility of her crusade was when the house elves just about pushed her out the kitchen door in GoF. Really, that should have been an eye-opener.

# sigh* Poor, stubborn Hermione. . .



schoff - Sep 6, 2003 9:32 pm (#57 of 229)
I was extremely disappointed in Hermione in OoP. She definitely fell down a rung or two in my favorites list. She gave some stunningly biased (as well as ignorant) quotes about the Elves and Centaurs. I was particularly concerned with her statement calling Centaurs "horses." I was really surprised JKR choose to show this side of Hermione to us (the not-so-perfect one). I'm surprised that so far I haven't seen anyone mention this quote, and I have been looking.

Sometimes I think Hermione's activities are an example of the pot calling the kettle black. While she seems to be a caring and thoughtful person, concerned with the welfare of those less fortunate, she sometimes acts as if she is better than them, ie making decisions for the elves, or dismissing the Centaurs.

I don't think Hermione's bad in any way, it's just that she sometimes came across as an example of the very thing she says she's against.

Note: I had posted most of this on the Forum Annex. I just kinda edited it for here. Mainly because I'm lazy.



Olivia Wood - Sep 6, 2003 9:45 pm (#58 of 229)
I got the impression Hermione was dismissive about Firenze on purpose, since she really did regret leaving Trewlany's class...



S.E. Jones - Sep 6, 2003 9:52 pm (#59 of 229)
Or maybe she dismissed him because she was sick of hearing Lavender and Parvati gush on about him....



Olivia Wood - Sep 6, 2003 9:53 pm (#60 of 229)
Yeah, that too... speaking of which, do we know what Lavendar and Parvati thought of Lockhart? Smile



schoff - Sep 6, 2003 9:56 pm (#61 of 229)
Edited by Sep 6, 2003 10:57 pm

Olivia:

Nah, I think it goes deeper than that, based on her interaction with them in "Fight or Flight." She seemed to be very ignorant on their reaction to her "great" idea (for saving her and Harry). This was especially odd considering that she and Harry had already had dealings with them in "Grawp." It really should not have come as such a shock to her that the Centaurs wouldn't like to be used in her plan.



Gred-n-Forge - Sep 6, 2003 10:30 pm (#62 of 229)
I think Hermione's biggest problem is that it simply hasn't occurred to her that she might be wrong, or be expressing her beliefs the wrong way. After all, she is used to being right so much of the time (given her incredible memory of all that she has read in books, and almost invariably having the right answers in class), she rather expects to be right all the time.

(Been there, done that when I was a bookworm teen myself. My aunt was the one who finally took me down a few notches)



St. Mana - Sep 7, 2003 10:35 am (#63 of 229)
In OoP Hermione was more like a person, and less like a living textbook. The latter being one of the worst things for a teen to go through. So i think the change was good.



TGF- Sep 7, 2003 11:46 am (#64 of 229)
I still like Hermione a lot, don't get me wrong... But I really wish she'd grow up out of this silly SPEW thing. There are REAL problems in the Wizarding World that need to be dealt with. Her energy would really be best placed elsewhere.



Hem Hem - Sep 7, 2003 1:20 pm (#65 of 229)
SPEW is Hermione's way of recognizing her own abilities in bringing about social revolution--even if she hasn't been so successful yet. It's helping her discover her own beliefs and he own wishes to improve the world. Even if she's wasting her time with SPEW, her talents could be vital to bringing about an end to bigotry in the wizarding world, which is one of the most important themes of the series. I love Hermione's activism and its potential, even if SPEW is pretty annoying.


Sly Girl - Sep 7, 2003 2:07 pm (#66 of 229)
S.P.E.W. is annoying, but Jackie's right... you have to give the girl props for sticking to her guns. She saw an injustice and she decided to fight it, come heck or highwater. Did she go about it the right way? No, or otherwise we wouldn't be bemoaning the fact that the storyline drags. Will she learn what is the right way? JKR willing, yes.

I think credit has to be given to Hermione for not losing interest, as so many young people do about things, at that age. She has an inner moral barometer that keeps telling her the elf issue is wrong. Now she just needs to figure out what to really do about it.



S.E. Jones - Sep 7, 2003 11:01 pm (#67 of 229)
Well, I have to admit the girl certainly doesn't know the meaning of the word "defeat", but I'm starting to wonder if her "inner moral barometer" isn't broken. To overturn one injustice, she is willing to overlook another. Trying to give the House-elves a better life by freeing them is certainly just, but using deceipt (covering the hats with garbage so they'd accidentally pick them up) to achieve that end is wrong. To persue the "greater good" she tramples on the lesser goods along the way. She seems to have blinders on when it comes to her own behavior and this fact is really starting to worry me....



haymoni - Sep 8, 2003 6:19 am (#68 of 229)
Maybe this should go under "Errors", or maybe I am totally off, but why are the house elves freed because HERMIONE gives them clothes? Wouldn't Dumbledore, as their master, need to be the one to give them their freedom?



OkieAngel - Sep 8, 2003 12:04 pm (#69 of 229)
Okay, here's my thoughts on S.P.E.W. take them and do with them what you will. I can't help but notice the parallels between House-elves and House-wives, in the archaical sense. The House-elves cook, clean, do laundry, play nanny, keep secrets, give advice; totally run and maintain a household that they are not permitted to leave without permission or an escort. Yet, they love their families. Really deep down love the families they serve, for the most part, there are exceptions (the Malfoys). I think for most of them, freedom is their worst nightmare. They would be homeless, ashamed (for they would've had to have done something to get clothes), and they would have lost the family they spent their entire lives taking care of and loving. This just screams to me of a wife/mother's take on her family and house. Granted, nowadays especially, we domestic engineers can leave the house whenever we want (or at least whenever the kids' schedules allow it), and if we are feeling lazy the family gets to eat hot dogs for dinner (again), but my point is before feminism hit stride in mainstream, women were very much the "property" of their fathers and then husbands, and were very much abused, some without even realising it. Now, what does all of this have to do with S.P.E.W, maybe nothing, but as with the feminist movement, the basis is good and the need for reform is there, but you have to let each person, or elf, take what they need from it, what works in their lives. That's when you'll see true social change, and that's a lesson our Hermy will learn, once she gets over herself.

Whew, that was long and full of run-on sentences...will probably get kipendoed for bad grammar Smile



Madame Librarian - Sep 8, 2003 4:30 pm (#70 of 229)
On one of the Annexes, it was mentioned that the House Elf issue might be a continuing factor in the story because somehow the Elves will arise (as in revolt), or step out of character, take charge of things so as to use their particularly strong magic to assist the Good Guys. Hermione must still be involved with them for this to happen. (For instance, "Oh, that Hogwarts Miss who is thinkin' we want freeing. She be wrong for sure, but Miss has a good heart. We must help her...").

I think something similar will occur with the Centaurs, Giants, Goblins, Trolls and so on. Sort of an all-out battle with all magical beings aligning themselves on the good or bad sides in VWII.

Ciao. Barb



Professor Kosh - Sep 8, 2003 10:00 pm (#71 of 229)
Interesting point haymoni! That does seem to be a fatal flaw! Also, does this mean the house elfs never did the laundry? Did their owners have to be careful about leaving clothes out? I can see the House Elves seeing it as an insult, but I don't think that, if they were to take the hats (even if my accident), they would be freed.

Okie, that is a very thought-provoking comparison. I think you could well be right. I've often had a different take though. I've often seen Hermionie's seeming 'blind-good-intentions' (in respect to most house-elf wishes as well as the centaurs) a characture of the American attitude to other cultures (and, just to confirm, I'm an American from Texas, ye'ha!). The same good-intentions combined with ignorance of a different culture. (Can't go too much further, as I don't want to start talking politics)



haymoni - Sep 9, 2003 7:07 am (#72 of 229)
Okay, don't shoot me - my 3 year old has to watch "Snake", as she calls it (COS - duh), every night - I don't have my books with me and I could be getting the quote wrong. Doesn't Dobby use the word "presents" - Maybe you actually have to hand the clothes over. Telling a house elf to do the laundry or to clean up after you isn't the same thing. Kreacher takes Mr. Black's trousers and he isn't freed.

I agree with you, Professor Kosh, I think they were insulted that Hermione was even TRYING to free them.



S.E. Jones - Sep 9, 2003 12:05 pm (#73 of 229)
Maybe we should move this discussion to the House-elf thread, or start an actual SPEW thread?



Sinister Kittens - Sep 9, 2003 2:55 pm (#74 of 229)
Sarah your right a SPEW thread might be a good idea, most people have an opinion on this issue. I was just wondering wether Hermiones stand on SPEW will have an impact on wether the Goblins will join in against Voldie, after all we know from OotP that a goblin family was killed and nobody is quite sure which way they will go (does it depend on what the offered?)



Bittersweet - Sep 9, 2003 4:24 pm (#75 of 229)
I'm replying to Landman's discussion of the origins of Hermione's name. Even though JKR says she took the name from Shakespeare, it's far older than that. As I understand it, Hermione was the daughter of Helen of Troy, who was Queen of Sparta, and became Queen of Sparta after her mother. Before I knew about the Shakespearean origin, I loved the thought of our Hermione being a queen in her own right, regardless of who her husband was. Hermione G. might like that too.


the Fois - Sep 12, 2003 9:27 pm (#76 of 229)
The Hermione in Shakespeare's "Winter's Tale" has an interesting story as well. She is falsey accused of infedility, banished, and supposedly dies of heartbreak. But, at the end of the play she reappears, as if she was ressurected. I have no idea how this could be connected to the Hermiuone we all know and love, but I trust JKR will find a way...



TGF- Sep 12, 2003 9:48 pm (#77 of 229)
Re: the Homerian Hermione...

From the Odyssey (Fagles translation): "To Helen the Gods had granted no more offspring once she had borne her first child, the breathtaking Hermione, a luminous beauty gold as Aphrodite." (Book 4, line 14-17)

I don't there's any mention of her after that Razz. Thing is, Shakespeare ganked a fair amount of names himself. Odysseus' father's name is 'Laertes' for instance... So JKR is just continuing a long line of name-theft. First there was some random bard, then there was Homer, then there was Shakespeare and now there's JKR. A fine literary tradition Razz.

Anyway, I don't think there's any significance to the name Hermione... Didn't JKR say she picked the name (for its obscurity) so that some little girl with big front teeth who happened to have a certain name wouldn't be mocked at school? (If I ever have a female child [which admitedly won't happen for a while], I hope she doesn't have big front teeth, because that is *SO* her name Razz)



Madame Librarian - Sep 13, 2003 4:29 am (#78 of 229)
As it happens, I just saw "A Winters Tale" last spring, so here's what happens to the Hermione in that play:

She's falsley accused of infidelity by her hubby the king because she has a conversation with the king's best buddy that looks a bit intimate though they were only "plotting" how to get the king to rest a bit more (he's a bit of a hot head, n'est pas?). She's banished, her baby is taken from her, and she "dies" from sorrow. Sixteen years later when he learns the truth, King is lamenting his mistake and weeping horribly in front of this beautiful statue that has been presented to him, TA-DAH...Hermione miraculously comes to life. Her lady-in-waiting (I think that's who it is) has arranged the whole charade; she had secretly been aiding Hermione and keeping her secret. It's happily ever after for all concerned.

Way back in CoS, our Hermione is frozen into a statue-like state, so there is a thin connection between the 2 characters. At that time JKR might have just thought that was enough of a reason to name her Hermione.

Cioa. Barb



Becky Palmer - Sep 17, 2003 2:11 am (#79 of 229)
Hermione's efforts to help the house elves and her acceptance of the foreign wizards in Goblet Of Fire after her initial unfriendliness, representing perhaps her feelings of discomfort and feelings of inferiority (perhaps why she studies so hard, to prove that although she is a "Mudblood" she truly belongs in the wizarding world) demonstrate that she has an understanding and interest in other cultures. She's quite the social activist and seems to me to be the youthful moral conscience and voice of reason at Hogwarts. She stands up for her friends and to those who commit what she considers to be social injustices. I don't think that will ever change. She's a good strong female character especially compared to Cho who was bawling all the time (okay okay I know she was grieving for Cedric) Hermione's tears in OOTP saved Harry from being tortured by a teacher. Hermione will likely have aced her O.W.L.S. Has anyone noticed that her name if you took the "M" out, her name would be "Heroine"? Maybe that's just a coincidence.....................



Anna Katarina - Sep 17, 2003 2:16 am (#80 of 229)
Well actually it would be Herione so no it's not a coincidence. We've talked about the origin of Hermione's name already so I wont go into that.

Anna



Susurro Notities - Sep 17, 2003 8:47 am (#81 of 229)
Rowling says in an interview (that I can't seem to find despite a lot of searching) that HP fans tend to focus on Ron and Harry's ultimate end but they do not ask about Hermione. JKR says that Hermione's vulnerability is overlooked. (Does anyone know where this statement is?) I think this is a very provocative statement.

It seems we are being led to believe that there will be trouble for Hermione in the future. I don't find that terribly surprising. I am more interested in what it is that makes Hermione vulnerable apart from the obvious; her association with Harry.

Could it be her Muggle heritage? She might be vulnerable because she lived for 11 years as a Muggle and so she filters Wizard world issues through a mind that has more Muggle understanding than wizard understanding. Additionally her Muggle knowledge is first hand and her wizard knowledge is partly first hand and partly through books. This could of course be said about Harry too but Harry has had to become more adept at thinking like wizards do because of the situations he has found himself in.

Is this why she is unable to see house elves as other wizards and house elves themselves do?

Is it possible that her involvement in house elf politics will make her vulnerable? Could her ideas about house elves and their resentment of her meddling influence the elves in the prospective good against evil war?


Sly Girl - Sep 17, 2003 8:52 am (#82 of 229)
I think the origin of that statement is from quite a while ago, actually.. she was talking about getting fan mail and kids telling her please don't kill off Ron! please don't kill off Harry! and she remarked that no one ever worried about Hermione. Which I mean, come on.. we ALL think Hermione is way too brilliant to have anything really happen to her, although I think that scene in OOTP may prove JKR's point...



Susurro Notities - Sep 17, 2003 9:37 am (#83 of 229)
Hi Sly Girl. I am surprised at your answer because in searching for information on the topic of Hermione's vulnerability I found a couple of statements from you where you seemed to doubt that her intelligence could protect her:

"I was also looking over old interviews with JKR and she was talking about different characters being vulnerable' to attack and it surprised me who she mentioned (and Sirius wasn't mentioned): Hermione, Ron and Lupin." (Sly Girl, 3/29/03, # 19 of Is poor Snuffles going to get zapped? Sly Girl "Is poor Snuffles going to get zapped?" 3/29/03 10:52am)

..."And then she went on to say that she was surprised that no one really mentioned Hermione, who definitely is open to attack. (I guess because we all think Hermione knows it all. heh)" (Sly Girl, 3/29/03, #21 of Is poor Snuffles going to get zapped?)

I agree with your point about Hermione knowing it all. I say "heh" too. She has a lot of book learning but she doesn't always demonstrate common sense, note S.P.E.W. Additionally Hermione sets herself apart from most of the other students via her ridgity. This hinders her ability to assimilate and come to know the wizarding world first hand. Harry, in addition to his trials and tribulations, is more involved with student life and therefore has developed a better understanding of the wizarding world than Hermione. This is why I wonder if Hermione's Muggle background will make her (but not Harry) vulnerable?



Anna Katarina - Sep 17, 2003 11:35 am (#84 of 229)
Edited Sep 17, 2003 12:35 pm

I wouldn't say that it's Hermione's Muggle background in itself that's making her vulnerable. Hermione is a brilliant student and knows perhaps more theory than what's good for her. What makes, for example, Harry more capable of handling challenges of the WW? It can have something to do with the fact that Hermione strives to be perfect in everything she does, the incantations, the 'flick and swish', every detail needs to be perfect for Hermione to feel that she can do something. That might be why she hesitated during the fight in the MoM.



mischa fan- Sep 17, 2003 11:58 am (#85 of 229)
I agree with you Anna, I think that Hermione's studies may be her vulnerability. It is like in athletics, you can have a very smart and talented athlete, but if he has to stop and think before doing something he isn't going to look that good. Where as a not as smart or talented athlete who has good instincts, and trusts them, will play much better.



S.E. Jones - Sep 17, 2003 12:00 pm (#86 of 229)
Edited Sep 17, 2003 1:01 pm

I think Hermione's brains and overconfidence in her mental ability are her Achilles heel. Think of the surprise she showed when the centaurs didn't show any inclanation to following her well laid plan and when she refuses to see that she is approaching SPEW the wrong way... I think she shows the same prejudice that purebloods have against Muggle-borns and wizards have against house-elves, just on an acedemic level. I think we may yet see the day when this comes back to bite her in the, er, knee....



Susurro Notities - Sep 17, 2003 12:00 pm (#87 of 229)
Edited by Sep 17, 2003 1:04 pm

Hi Anna Katrina Nor would I say that it is only Hermione's Muggle heritage that makes her vulnerable. I think that is part of it but I also think there may be other factors.

I had not thought of her perfectionism as a problem in and of itself. Very insightful. The inability to be spontaneous because one has never done anything without planning for perfection.



Alexander Nevermind - Sep 17, 2003 1:10 pm (#88 of 229)
Here is something you may want to consider when thinking about out Miss Granger’s vulnerability. I don’t know how many of you have read Lord of the Rings. (If you haven’t and are waiting on the third movie to find out how things end up I suggest you read no further)

Anyway, in the first book Frodo was seriously wounded by the one of the Nazgul. Eventually, I think it was about two years after the adventure of the Ring ended, Frodo finally died from this wound. I couldn’t help but think about Frodo’s situation when I read about Hermione’s being wounded by Dolahov and how it took her some time to recover from that wound. Remember that Poppy had her taking at least 10 potions per day to overcome the effects. It’s my belief that Dolahov tagged her with an AK spell that wasn’t at full potency because he couldn’t speak the words. I wonder if Hermione is going to succumb to the after affects of this spell somewhere down the line.



AlbusRiddle - Sep 17, 2003 2:37 pm (#89 of 229)
I hadn't thought about that possibility. They never did identify that mystery spell. And I don't think it will go unexplained, so it is very likely that it will have some lasting affect on her. I think the mystery curse is worthy of its own thread.



TGF- Sep 17, 2003 3:03 pm (#90 of 229)
Avada Kedavra is a green beam. What Hermione was hit with is a wave of purple flame, I believe (Yes, there is consistency in how these spells look like), so no, Hermione was not hit with a toned down Avada Kedavra. That curse MIGHT have killed her if it was given the incantation, but it was *not* Avada Kedavra.

As for permenant damage... Well, perhaps, but I personally doubt it. If Hermione had been hit with serious serious damage, then she would've been transferred to St. Mungo's. As it stands, a collection of Hogwarts potions was able to get her back on her feet. While we still might see her on a recovery curve in book 6, I don't think she's just going to slowly die. If that were the case, I think we'd have seen more than just some gloomy words from Poppy.

Finally, Re: the interview quotes over Hermione... Well, firstly JKR is not in the business of spoiling her own stories VIA interviews. Secondly, I think the function of that quote wasn't to say 'Hermione will die' but rather 'Hermione is as vulnerable as anyone else'. And to add to the suspense of the books... After all, its no fun if you're absolutely certain that a character will be fine.

Anyway, that's enough from me.



Susurro Notities - Sep 9, 2003 8:44 pm (#91 of 229)
Edited by Sep 17, 2003 8:13 pm

TGF I believe you are correct in stating that JKR statement doesn't necessarily mean she will die. I do think she is correct in her assessment that other characters are thought to be more vulnerable than Hermoine or at least HP fans tend to worry more about other characters. Thus I find it interesting to speculate on what we as HP fans are overlooking when we fail to see Hermoine's vulnerability.

I am interested in what the mystery curse was. I think the speculation by Alexander Nevermind is interesting. Could it be that the curse will not kill her but have some other lasting effect?

I am also curious about St. Mungos. Could it be that Dumbledore doesn't send students to St. Mungos because he is skeptical about the hospital's ethics? McGonagall went to St. Mungos but that was after Dumbledore had left Hogwarts.



zixyer - Sep 18, 2003 1:32 am (#92 of 229)
I think that Hermione's vulnerbility is in her insecurity. Remember the form of her boggart? There's no way that would've bothered her if she had any degree of confidence in herself. Her rabid intellectualism is just her overcompensating for her fear of failure. in my opinion, of course.



Anna Katarina - Sep 18, 2003 1:59 am (#93 of 229)
I agree with zixyer, Hermione is too insecure in her own strength ("cleverness and books")to fight. However I don't see why Hermione would be killed off slowly. Although it would be a way to address the subject of death in a different aspect. OY! I hope not. (Anyway, Frodo didn't die, he went with the elves, Gandalf and Bilbo over the water.) Anna



S.E. Jones - Sep 18, 2003 2:22 pm (#94 of 229)
Yup, Frodo didn't die of the wound. Of course, he didn't recover from it totally either. I suppose we could see a lasting effect in Hermione's case, though I don't think it will be life long. There may be some problems, medically, come book 6 but I think they'll have cleared up by book 7....



Becky Palmer - Sep 19, 2003 2:48 am (#95 of 229)
Another example of Hermione's over-confidence in her intellectualism is in COS and what happened to her after she took the Polyjuice Potion.



Fawkes Forever - Sep 19, 2003 5:47 am (#96 of 229)
Edited Sep 19, 2003 6:58 am

I just rediscovered an interesting fact..... Was just reading through a transcript of questions & answers with JKR... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And do you know what day today is (Sept 19th)?

It's Hermiones Birthday

Happy Birthday Hermione....


Liz Mann - Sep 19, 2003 8:23 am (#97 of 229)
She would be 23 today!

[Snape, Gina R]Gina R Snape [/b]- Sep 19, 2003 6:52 pm (#98 of 229)
Yes, Happy Birthday Hermione!

Also, I totally see SPEW coming back to bite her in the behind. Either she'll learn the hard way from the elves why they don't come to Gryffindor Tower, or the other Gryffindors will feel the effects of not having enough house elves and will take it out on her in some way.



Sinister Kittens - Sep 20, 2003 3:41 am (#99 of 229)
Didn't JKR admit that alot of herself went into Hermione, and her Patronus is an otter (might need to just check that one) because that is JKR's favorite animal? I was just wondering what JKR thinks is her weakness (other than Physics - just read that link FF) and whether it will influence Hermiones character?



Susurro Notities - Sep 20, 2003 9:48 am (#100 of 229)
Sinister Kittens,

That is an interesting insight. Does JKR's interview statement about Hermione's vulnerability reference her own vulnerability. Yes, JKR does say her favorite animal is an otter.



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


Last edited by Mona on Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:40 am; edited 1 time in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

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

Back to top Go down

Hermione Granger - Page 3 Empty Posts 101 to 150

Post  Mona Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:55 am

Sly Girl - Sep 20, 2003 9:50 am (#101 of 229)
I think you're correct about the otter/patronus thing. As for weakness... I think maybe because Hermione does learn everything out of a book and doesn't have a lot of practical application (although this is changing) that this is how she's vulnerable. Maybe also her Muggle hertiage puts her at danger with those that look down upon that sort of thing and will go out of their way to harm her.



Anna Katarina - Sep 20, 2003 9:59 am (#102 of 229)
Edited Sep 20, 2003 11:01 am

Yes, but does that mean that any other Muggle-born is equally vulnerable? For my part I see her as a very competent witch, even more considering that she was 10 (?) when she was introduced to the wizarding world.



Sly Girl - Sep 20, 2003 10:02 am (#103 of 229)
Edited Sep 20, 2003 11:03 am

Well, we were talking about why JKR thought HERMIONE especially was vulnerable. Hermione being muggle born, is a part of that. Other muggleborns are probably vulnerable as well, but I included that as being a part of Hermione's overall possible weakness.

I'm not saying I think Hermione is vulnerable because of these things, we were talking about why JKR would think she was.



Anna Katarina - Sep 20, 2003 10:04 am (#104 of 229)
I doubt that JKR meant that Hermione is a more vulnerable person than most, just that people tend not to worry about her. Of course... I don't know what she thinks.



Susurro Notities - Sep 20, 2003 10:18 am (#105 of 229)
Anna Katarina,

I think this is a continuation of a discussion that began on Sept 17 when I wrote: "Could it be her Muggle heritage? She might be vulnerable because she lived for 11 years as a Muggle and so she filters Wizard world issues through a mind that has more Muggle understanding than wizard understanding. Additionally her Muggle knowledge is first hand and her wizard knowledge is partly first hand and partly through books. This could of course be said about Harry too but Harry has had to become more adept at thinking like wizards do because of the situations he has found himself in.

I was just reading in OoP that Harry does not immediately understand the importance of Hagrid's giant heritage because he grew up as a Muggle. Thus it seems that a Muggle background does create some handicaps. In Hermione's case it may be a bigger handicap than for others as she is so reliant on book learning, she does not mingle with other students as much as Harry does and she seems certain that book learning is a replacement for experience.

I agree with Sly Girl that she is becoming more aware of the limitations of book learning. She did for instance organize the DA. The importance of the DA experience became abundantly clear in relation to the MoM battle at the end of OoP.



Anna Katarina - Sep 20, 2003 10:28 am (#106 of 229)
Oh, I thought we're talking about the fact that JKR somewhere said that no one was asking please not to kill Hermione, and that people don't see her as vulnerable as for example Ron. Oh, well. I've been wrong before. I hope I didn't offend anyone. It was not my intention and I'm very sorry if I did.

Anna



LilyP - Sep 21, 2003 9:44 pm (#107 of 229)
I did a search and didn't find anything about this. In PS/SS, Chapter 5, when Hagrid took Harry into the Leaky Cauldron and they met Professor Quirrell (Pg 70-71 in US Edition). After Harry asks about Quirrell's peculiar behavior, Hagrid explains it like this:

"Oh, yeah. Poor bloke. Brilliant mind. He was fine while he was studyin' outta books but then he took a year off ter get some first-hand experience. . . . never been the same since. . . ."

This sounded really familiar. This is the same way we would describe Hermione. It just makes me wonder - not that Hermione will end with the big V in her head, but maybe her book smarts really is her weakness.



Lenka - Sep 22, 2003 3:32 am (#108 of 229)
Good point, LilyP.

But I think Hagrid wanted to point out Quirell didn't have the hands-on experience, and when he went out to the real world, his books didn't help him much.

When we look at Hermione being the first one to object that Umbridge didn't let them do the defensive spells, I don't think there's a danger of that happening.

Lenka Smile



Susurro Notities - Sep 22, 2003 4:27 am (#109 of 229)
Anna Katarina,

That is what we were talking about so you were not wrong. I think our miscommunication is regarding your point that Hermione is not more vulnerable than anyone else. I agree, that may well be. I just think that JKR was pointing out that she is as vulnerable as others.

She is so smart and self controlled (most of the time)that I was wondering what her vulnerabilities were. I believe the list that has been assembled includes, Muggle heritage, reliance on book smarts, and perfectionism.

I hope this clears it up as you certainly did not offend me. I hope I didn't offend you. I did not mean to. I have been bothered all WE that I may have offended you and had no way to let you know that I was sorry if that was so. Sincerely SN



Bluenote1313 - Sep 22, 2003 6:11 am (#110 of 229)
Just to throw this out....now that the DE know who is involved and its Malfoy knows who Hermoine's parents are...are they at risk of being attacked? They have no way to defend them selves being muggles.



AlbusRiddle - Sep 22, 2003 7:08 am (#111 of 229)
I don't think her parents are in any trouble. The way I see it, Death Eaters have no quarrel with muggles. Only muggle-born wizards. They want the wizard and muggle worlds to stay separate. They don't have a desire to attack the muggle world.



Neville Longbottom - Sep 22, 2003 9:32 am (#112 of 229)
But during Voldemort's first war, there were many muggle killings. Or maybe the Death Eaters want to get Hermione, while she isn't in Hogwarts. In this case, the Grangers would probably be eliminated, too. That said, I got the impression, that JKR obviously didn't thought or care much about Hermione's parents, and that they are just there, so that Hermione isn't an orphan, too. I don't really think, JKR would bother to kill them off.



Bluenote1313 - Sep 22, 2003 10:47 am (#113 of 229)
It was just a thought...a way to get at Harry through his friends.



LilyP - Sep 22, 2003 11:59 am (#114 of 229)
That is an interesting thought. They are vulnerable, and JKR does a great job of using those in-the-background characters to really suprise you sometimes. That could be a vulnerability for Hermione. Ron's family is already involved and can defend themselves.

As for the Quirrell quote, Hermione is great in the academic world, like Quirrell. I just have doubts about her common sense about the wizarding world.



S.E. Jones - Sep 22, 2003 1:16 pm (#115 of 229)
You know, Bluenote, that is very interesting. In CoS, isn't it Malfoy who points out the Grangers? Yeah, "Clearly," said Mr. Malfoy, his pale eyes straying to Mr. and Mrs. Granger, who were watching apprehensively. "The company you keep, Weasley...and I thought your family could sink no lower---" (CoS4). They also went through the trouble of leaving the mention of Hermy's parents in the movie, which they didn't really need to do....



Mrs. Sirius - Sep 22, 2003 8:36 pm (#116 of 229)
Edited by Kip Carter Sep 23, 2003 3:49 am

I don't think Hermione is going to drop the house elf/SPEW thing at all. Perhaps I am just looking a little too much at history and not taking it lightly enough. (Yes, JK did seem to poke fun at Hermione in GOF). But I think this undercurrent subplot is a very subtle way for JK reinforcing her message. Somehow I think this subplot will boil down to the point of the books. And I think that having Dumbledore mention this to Harry at the end only re-enforces the importance of what Hermione's crusade.

She has said herself in the interview on the COS DVD that discrimination (racism) is a very important theme in these books. I think that the house elf subplot is away to show another form of discrimination with out hitting you on the head. Hermione is an intelligent, intuitive person, and she is a muggle, an object of some of the discrimination. It's very close to home for Hermione.

For many in the magical community it is taken for granted that the house elves like their enslavement. At some point Ron says to Hermione that house elves like their enslavement. Throughout history people in power have held this attitude about the underclass, the inferior, the unworthy. They have used this excuse to not have to look further at their own values, choices, and morals. This is a time old explanation for keeping the downtrodden down.



Dr Filibuster - Sep 23, 2003 11:00 am (#117 of 229)
Edited Sep 23, 2003 12:08 pm

Mrs Sirius, do you think Hermione's approach to the house elf situation is OK then? You may like to read the house elf thread in the magical creatures section of the forum.

Sarah, your post made me go back and read the bit in CoS Chapter 4 with Mr and Mrs Granger. I'd forgtten they were right there watching Lucius "apprehensively". Next second they're watching Lucius and Arthur's set too. They were "shaking with fright" when they left the bookshop with the others (Molly furious and scoldng her husband). They are part of the "subdued group" heading back to the fireside at the Leaky Cauldron.

My point is, the experience didn't seem to put them off the WEASLEYS! I know if I wasn't yet 12 years old and my mum and dad met a friend's father who had a public brawl they wouldn't be so keen on me staying with them over future holidays.

I suppose they get Hermione explaining everything, can see how nice the family is and would have heard all of Malfoy's snide remarks....but still, Mr Weasley packed the first punch. Don't get me wrong, I'm with Arthur all the way, but my mum and dad wouldn't be impressed!



S.E. Jones - Sep 23, 2003 11:27 am (#118 of 229)
Yes, but also think of the way Arthur was thrilled to find out they were Muggles in Gringott's. He probably spent the whole afternoon talking with them about this and that, asking questions about rubber ducks and the like, and answering questions about the wizarding world too. So, they probably know that Arthur is a nice guy and that he defends Muggles. Also, Arthur may have thrown the first punch but Lucius had insulted his family, I think the Grangers would understand that.....

Back to Hermione, Mrs. Sirius, all the house-elves we've seen do like working, even Dobby says he likes work better than being paid large amounts of money. I definately think Hermy is going about this the wrong way and will suffer for it. Though, that might make her finally change her strategy to improving elf working conditions and status.

Also, I keep thinking of the way the centaurs reacted to being part of Hermione's plan and her surprise that their discontent. And, her surprise at Ron being made a prefect, as if she couldn't believe it possible. She is a bit of an acedemic snob and is thus prejudiced in her own right. I hope she realizes this too....



::StinkerBell:: - Sep 23, 2003 3:08 pm (#119 of 229)
I believe Hermione is a bit racist. Her remarks towards centars are a little on the rude side, though she just might not like them because there into the divination. She did call Frienz a pony(or horse, I'm not sure)instead of a centar. That was when Lavendar was rubbing it in her face that they now had Frienz as a teacher(OoP). Though she could have just said that because she doesn't like to be wrong for running out of the Divination class room. And I think that she is starting to overdo the S.P.E.W. No one is that oblivious to not notice that the elves don't want freedom. That brings me back to the whole part of how she hates to be wrong. She could still be doing the S.P.E.W. stuff because she dosen't want to be told to stop by some one who is under the intellegince level of her. She seems to get a little more stubborn in the 5th book



Lenka - Sep 24, 2003 1:14 am (#120 of 229)
I don't think Hermione is racist. Saying that she didn't care Firenze was "handsome", as he still has hooves, is not racism. It's just a way of bringing Parvati and Lavender back to reality. It's almost the same thing as calling Trelawney a fraud. All she meant to point out is that Firenze is a different "species" and it is impropper to have a crush on him. That's not racism, it's cool logic.



schoff - Sep 24, 2003 10:19 am (#121 of 229)
Edited by Sep 24, 2003 11:21 am

I agree with LongLiveSnuffles. She called him a horse. That, plus her reaction when the centaurs didn't like her plan in the forest, convinced me she wasn't joking with Parvarti and Lavender. She is prejudiced not only towards centaurs, but house-elves as well, thinking she alone knows what's right for them.

I've said it before: Hermione, in regards to the centaurs and House-elves, frequently acts like the very person she's trying to fight against.



St. Mana - Sep 24, 2003 3:23 pm (#122 of 229)
Hey Lenka. People used to think it was "improper" for white people to like black people. I would imagine that love would transcend species in some cases. I wasn't dissing you or anything so dont get the wrong idea^_^.I think it'll be interesting for some students to have a centaur for a teacher, even if Hermoine dosnt like it.



Lenka - Sep 24, 2003 7:24 pm (#123 of 229)
I don't think she minds him being a teacher, she minds that Parvati and Lavender are drooling over him. Smile



Caitlin McCoy - Sep 24, 2003 9:02 pm (#124 of 229)
Edited Sep 24, 2003 10:02 pm

Hermione seems to think it's highly improper to drool over anyone...I think perhaps her "bad" experiences with Lockheart kinda made her not want to think about crushes on teachers in general!

~Caitlin



Lenka - Sep 25, 2003 12:14 am (#125 of 229)
Hey, I always snap at people who drool over teachers. It's this instinct thing.



Caitlin McCoy - Sep 25, 2003 1:56 pm (#126 of 229)
I, on the other hand, just step out of the way. I've been involved in way too many arguments between friends of mine about which teacher is "hotter".

~Caitlin



OkieAngel - Sep 25, 2003 8:37 pm (#127 of 229)
I'm gonna throw my hat in here, and say that I agree that Hermy's parent's may be in danger. Draco despises her, but he knows he can't best her at anything. He also is stewing for a way to get at Harry and we all know that he'd never beat Harry in a direct confrontation. By attacking the Grangers, he'd also get to the Weasley's in a roundabout way. The Malfoy's hate the Weasley's and would take any opportunity to harm or discredit them. The question is how would the attack come about? Narcissa? Bellatrix? Do you think it possible DD could see this coming and have taken precautions to protect the Grangers? Many DE's hate muggles, as was shown at the Quidditch World cup, but then you add personal insult to it, as I'm sure the Malfoy's think Hermione is, I think it puts our friendly dentists in a great deal of peril.



Sinister Kittens - Sep 26, 2003 2:27 am (#128 of 229)
I think that Hermiones parents are safe for at least another year, Draco etc. cannot yet perform magic out of school as they are not 17. Unless they manage to persuade a 'friendly' DE to do it for them...



Sly Girl - Sep 26, 2003 1:01 pm (#129 of 229)
For Hermione's parents to be in peril and for something to happen to them, they would have to matter to the story, and I'm sorry, but they just don't. JKR has made no effort for us to see Hermione with her parents except for book 2 and even that was a small glimspe. I just don't see JKR starting this sub-plot about the danger her parents are in, in book 6. JKR has said that her parents are dentists, they're boring, that's it. I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, really, I just think this idea of her parents getting hurt won't happen.



S.E. Jones - Sep 26, 2003 1:08 pm (#130 of 229)
Well, if they died that would effect the story because it would effect Hermione and thus Harry. Harry could possibly see their deaths as his fault due to his connection to his friend...



Sly Girl - Sep 26, 2003 1:14 pm (#131 of 229)
I still think that is stretching it. Although I guess, if JKR wanted to pair Hermione with Harry, she could kill off her parents, and the two could grow closer because of it. I could see that happening, but again, I just don't. Hermione has parents, this we know. They're dentists. This is the other thing we know. The only way their deaths matter to us as readers is the effect it would have on their daughter and unless this moves the storyline in some way, I don't see JKR doing it. Of course, I am speaking as a person who writes and I try to look at things from a story-line nature. She would have to devote some time in the book to how the deaths effected both Hermione and Harry, I think, for the deaths to not be gratitious and I'm not sure she is going to do that with book 6, as I think she has more important things to delve into. Just my two knuts.



Sinister Kittens - Sep 26, 2003 1:25 pm (#132 of 229)
Sly Girl I think your two knuts are worth a Galleon! From a literary point of view we have not yet explored enough of the relationship between Hermione and her parents for them to gain any significant importance in future plot lines. IMO they were introduced as 'muggles' so that readers could learn of the animosity (and contempt) that L. Malfoy feels for Hermione and her parentage and, in contrast, learn of Arthur Weasleys feelings in this matter.



Sly Girl - Sep 26, 2003 1:30 pm (#133 of 229)
Thanks SK. You communicated what I was trying to say. I mean, I think it would be great to sort of delve into the relationship of Hermione and her parents and the effect their death would have on her, because I love Hermione and I love to write her and I think it would have a prolonged effect on her character (hmm..feels fan fiction need developing) but I don't JKR is going to canonize it because I don't think it is important to the story she is telling. (Of course, I could be wrong, as I most usually am.)



TGF- Sep 26, 2003 2:50 pm (#134 of 229)
It would also be somewhat petty on Voldemort's part to go after a pair of dentists. I mean, they pose no threat to him whatsoever and I don't think Voldemort really cares about Hermione one way or another. The only reason he would do that is because Hermione is connected to Harry.

"I will kill one of his best friend's parents! Thus will she, and therefore he, feel very bad! Muhahahahahahahhahahahah!"

:-\



::StinkerBell:: - Sep 26, 2003 2:54 pm (#135 of 229)
I agree with TGF, it would seem kind of a waste of time on Voldemorts part. No real reason to even bother Hermione, I doubt that Voldemot even knows shes alive.



OkieAngel - Sep 26, 2003 6:48 pm (#136 of 229)
I didn't suggest that Voldy would go after the Granger's himself. My theory was that it would be something the Malfoy's would connive to do, as a way to get the best of a "filthy" halfbreed who needs to realise her place, plus to wreak havoc with Harry and Ron. I know that they are inconsequential now, I'm sure that the Evans's were as well at some point...

Anyway, 'twas just a thought...



Madame Librarian - Sep 26, 2003 8:42 pm (#137 of 229)
There's a possibility that even though the DEs or V. himself does not specifically target the Grangers (and I agree that won't be likely), if the bad guys are attacking Muggles in general or even killing them, Hermione might be very scared for her parent's safety, and this element might drive a side plot or escapade that would, of course, involve Harry and Ron. Again, not likely that the Grangers will figure at all other than in a background way ("Bye, Mum! Hugs, Daddy. See you, maybe, at the Christmas hols.").

Ciao. Barb



Mrs. Sirius - Sep 26, 2003 9:22 pm (#138 of 229)
Yes Dr. Filibuster, it is very possible, if not probable, that Hermione's approach to the problem of house elves is not appropriate. But I still believe that the underlining house elves story is an essential subplot that mirrors the larger discrimination/racism plot.

Hermione has a very top down, "I know what is right for you" approach. I think much of that can be attributed to her youth. But, she is not unique. In the 1980 and 1990's in the USA there were many social ills in certain segments of the society, and there were many people who truely cared and tried to help. But many had never experienced these problems first hand and knew less about how these social problems evolved and how best to solve them but they still went in full steam ahead to find the right answers. They created many great plans which were just not appropriate for the people they were designed to help and ended in failure to cure anything. Many of these people ended up with the unflattering label of "limousine liberals".

I think this is how Hermione is approaching the house elves situation. She sees the problem, and applies her tried and true "book" learned info to solve it. She can't take in the life experience of those affected to find a solution.

Likewise SE, I think that the fact the all the house elves say they "like" working cannot be accepted on it's face as their true feeling. There were so many such stories of the slaves during slavery in the USA it's first two centuries. They didn't w a n t their freedom, they wanted to work as slaves. This is also said today in many other parts of the world to continue the oppression and awful living conditions of so many people.

Back to my limousine liberals, (yes, I worked providing legal services to the poor). Right up to the when I stopped working, I still often heard about the homeless, the addicted and other underclassses that they likes their conditions and that was why "they" lived like that. If you dig a little further you will find that no one likes to live in a state of degradation. (I hope this is on point to my Hermione post. If I wondered to far into politics please feel free to edit as necessary.)



zixyer - Sep 26, 2003 10:27 pm (#139 of 229)
That's a real good point. I can see people saying that Hermione may be going about the house-elves thing the wrong way (which is pretty well established), but what she's doing is a hundred times better than what the other characters in the books are doing -- propping up an unjust system through their apathy.

When you're in a society that accepts slavery, it does seem like it's okay. But that doesn't change the fact that slavery is fundamentally wrong.

The thing that throws a wrench in this, of course, is that they house elves enjoy their servitude. I think the most likely explanation is that the enchantments on the house-elves that Dumbledore mentioned at the end of Book 5 include some that make the house-elves love working for humans. Though we can't know for sure the exact reason, I submit that if this is the case Hermione is entirely in the right -- it's completely immoral to enslave a sentient race.



Mrs. Sirius - Sep 27, 2003 4:54 am (#140 of 229)
Thank you, zixyer. So succinctlyy said!



AlbusRiddle - Sep 27, 2003 7:38 am (#141 of 229)
Again, there's simply nothing in any of the books that would indicate tome that the DE's have any desire to attack the entire muggle world. They pick on muggles occaisionally when the numbers are in their favor (like in GOF), and they certainly feel that wizards are superior to muggles, but the only thing I draw from the books is that they want the magical and non-magical worlds to stay eternally separate, never inter-mingling. Not to mention that muggles outnumber magical people 1,000 to 1, which would make genocide on that scale nearly impossible.



S.E. Jones - Sep 27, 2003 10:12 pm (#142 of 229)
Well, I don't know about genocide, but it is said in the books that Voldemort's supporters practiced Muggle killings, along with the other horrible things they did....

Mrs. Sirius, my statement about elves liking to work is based both on the comments of Dobby, a free-elf, and on the origin of the House-elves. The belief that elves would appear and do things for people for the sheer joy of doing them is a very old one found in folklore. (And, according to that lore, the elves would stay until you presented them with clothes.) I think the elves honestly like to work for others, human or otherwise, and so I say let them. However, I also think that Hermione should be focusing more on improving their working conditions and giving them the freedom to leave an unpleasant environment. Yes, it's unjust to impose your will onto a people by enslaving them, but isn't Hermione trying to impose her will on them by forcing them to accept freedom? I say give them the choice.....



Griffin - Sep 28, 2003 10:05 am (#143 of 229)
Excellent last point S. E. Jones. I don’t know whether the elf’s servitude is a spell or whether it is a part of their basic nature (There doesn’t seem to be enough evidence either way).

One possible approach for Hermione would be to ensure that wizards (under law) must never physical or mentally abuse house elves, and that if an elf wishes to leave the service of a family they are permitted to do so without obstruction to their departure or deformation to their character.



S.E. Jones - Sep 28, 2003 12:42 pm (#144 of 229)
That was exactly what I was thinking Griffin. Let them have the choice in the matter....

I would so love to see someone else be able to argue these points with Hermione. She's such an intellectual snob sometimes that I get very frustrated with her; it'd do her good to see that her opinion isn't the only opinion in the world and that she doesn't always know what's best for everyone. She, like Molly, is a bit of a control freak at times, but we've seen the negative side of Molly's controlling (i.e. not letting anyone tell Harry what he needs to know) but we haven't yet seen the negative side of Hermy's... I think it's coming, though.



::StinkerBell:: - Sep 28, 2003 12:54 pm (#145 of 229)
Though I don't really like Hermione, I have to say she is very useful. She is right most of the time... And thats why I really dislike her when she's wrong. On house elves, she has never asked if they want freedom. She thinks she knows whats best. And since she is so sure she knows she is right, she won't back down. Because she is normally right, she think she is right with spew. Sorry if I don't make sense,or if I repeat stuff. It all makes sense in my mind.



Neville Longbottom - Sep 28, 2003 1:29 pm (#146 of 229)
Well, I can't blame Hermione for being against slavery, even if the house-elves want to be slaves. I consider societies, who still have slavery, as seriously wrong, therefore I admire Hermione for trying to change it. Kreacher wants to get beheaded, so that his head can hang on the wall with his ancestors. That doesn't mean the other wizards have to accept that wish and behead him, (although I suppose many Sirius' fans would be very glad to do Kreacher the favor).



timrew - Sep 28, 2003 2:34 pm (#147 of 229)
The one thing that gives me concern about some people is their pig-headedness when it comes to choice. They get an opinion in their minds, and it becomes an opinion that everyone else has to agree with, whether it's right or wrong.

Hermione has slipped into this category with SPEW. You are with her, or you are against her (where have I heard that before?).

All in all, I like the character of Hermione. But she really has to learn that she can be wrong sometimes.



Fawkes Forever - Sep 29, 2003 1:54 am (#148 of 229)
I think Hermione got a wake up call, following her experience in the forest with the Centaurs.... She does mean well... but its as Tim said, she has to learn that shes not always right!

Regarding SPEW, she might always get a job at the ministry... at the Office of House-Elf Relocation....



buckbeat - Sep 29, 2003 1:18 pm (#149 of 229)
Hi, I am happy to have found this forum again (it´s been a while since a checked last time....)

Anyway regarding Hermione and SPEW: I thing the question here is, whether there are some universial rights/values for everybody in the wizarding world or whether there are differences between cultures/species. This is a question which is often adressed in human rights issues, too and I thing Hermoine is great for keeping this up, even if she is at the moment quite alone with her opinion. Granted, at the moment she doesn´t allways use the right methods, but it´s her first try in elves rights, she´s 15,and a bit overenthusiastic. I am quite sure she will learn how to handle this better and that will be important later on.



Caitlin McCoy - Sep 29, 2003 3:41 pm (#150 of 229)
You're quite sure, Buckbeat, but some of us (myself included) are crossing their fingers and hoping that common sense will override her current full steam ahead attitude on the subject. Otherwise, I fear that some real-world (or wizarding world, your pick) situation will come to a head - the way in which the Dark Forest Centaur situation almost did - and Hermione will have experience, and most likely negative memory to back her new outlook.

To make a long story short, I hope that Hermione sees how she might not be going about the House-Elf situation the best way before her pigheaded-ness on this and other subjects comes back to bite her on the derriere.

~Caitlin


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



Last edited by Mona on Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:43 am; edited 1 time in total
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

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

Back to top Go down

Hermione Granger - Page 3 Empty Posts 151 to 200

Post  Mona Tue Jul 12, 2011 4:07 am

Grant the Great - Sep 29, 2003 5:12 pm (#151 of 229)
I personally hope that Hermione doesn't join the Ministry. Heck, she'd be a whole lot better as a teacher (can you imagine it? "Professor Granger! Professor Granger!" "Oh great, it's that stupid Regnarg kid again. Now I know what I was like as a student!"). Actually, I'd love to take a class from Professor Granger (besides the fact that I would be the equivalent of Hermione over Lockhart; and, no, I don't like the movie Hermione, just the book one). She'd be really good.

And, I think you're right, buckbeat. She's only fifteen. I mean, how many of us (those of us who are still in high school, as in me) feel like everything in life should be like an assignment, the most strenuous ones lasting no more than a month. She must be frustrated, having done every assignment in one night, and then coming up with a personal "assignment"--if you will--that she suddenly will have to devote years to.

However, despite her lack of success with SPEW so far, I think it will have to play an integral part in the books. I think she'll finally get down-to-earth with the house elfs and realize what they want. Then, when Big V comes attacking the world full force in Book VII, she'll have allied all of the house elves in Britain with Dumbledore. I mean, if one house elf can attack Mr. Malfoy like that (or was that only in the movie?), when Malfoy is a top Death Eater, think of what an army of house elves (and centaurs in my opinion, but that's for another thread) could do. And we could accredit it all to our beautiful--I mean, uh . . . intelligent student, Hermy-oh-ninny.



::StinkerBell:: - Sep 29, 2003 6:53 pm (#152 of 229)
Look, I'm 15 years old. I know whats going on in the world. And if more than 3 people tell me the same thing~ I get the point and stop. Its Hermione's personality. Its her stubbornness and arrogants



Weeny Owl - Sep 29, 2003 7:24 pm (#153 of 229)
Edited Sep 29, 2003 8:26 pm

As intellectual as Hermy is, she lacks basic intelligence is some ways.

Her stand on the house-elves is good, yet her methods are pathetic.

She gets into a mindset where she refuses to listen to any opinion that contradicts her own.

I think some of her problems with Snape could be avoided if she would learn to raise her hand just once, and when he doesn't call on her, drop it. She doesn't do that, though... she keeps at it until he loses what little patience he has and then he knocks her down a peg or two. Granted, he could use better methods to get his point across, but she still refuses to see that her constant badgering only makes things worse.

Her good points are that she is compassionate and caring, and she really does have a great store of knowledge if people need answers. She just needs to learn to be more subtle when trying to get others to see her points of view.



buckbeat - Sep 30, 2003 2:01 pm (#154 of 229)
Hello Caitlin, the only thing I said I was sure about is that the elves will be important and that Hermione will be learning something out of her experience.

The question raised by Hermoines interaction (or lack of interaction) with the elves (do they need help without realising it, do they therefore need help against their will etc) are found in the "real world" quite often and I like the fact, that this is included in the books.

I was quite impressed with Hermione in OoP. Apart from her interaction with elves and centaurs she handels a lot of thinks very clever and insightful. I like the way she opposes Umbridge and her reation to Harry moods, especially when she manages to get some contact with him after the attack at Mr Wheasly.



timrew - Sep 30, 2003 2:31 pm (#155 of 229)
Good point, buckbeat. You've highlighted Hermione's character very well. Her pig-headedness regarding SPEW; but also her insight in dealing with Harry, and her fooling Umbridge into following her into the Forest.

It remains to be seen how her SPEW campaign will spin out; but she's only 15......she'll probably see sense when she grows up.



virgoddess1313 - Sep 30, 2003 2:39 pm (#156 of 229)
Let's hope she sees sense. I really like Hermione, but I think the whole campaign is a little silly. I say she should leave the whole house elf thing be.

But maybe I'm just biased against house elves.

Anyway, back on track... I think up to this point she has mellowed a little, and I think we'll continue to see that as time passes. I hope she doesn't get too laid back though... her persitance is what makes he character so fabulous at times.



Mrs. Sirius - Oct 1, 2003 9:39 pm (#157 of 229)
Choice! that is the key word here. Winky was born to service to the Crouch family as was her mother and her mother before that and so on. Likewise Kreacher. If they choose servitude fine so be it. But you can't really say that the house elves are expressing their "choice" when they are in the middle of situation that is all they have known for generations back. That is beyond not having the ability to make an informed choice.

While I definatley agree that Hermione is approaching the fix badly, she is analyzing the problem correctly. Hermione has certainly mellowed some in OoP, in HP VI, I expect she'll have matured more and may alter her approach.



Sly Girl - Oct 9, 2003 2:40 am (#158 of 229)
In light of all the S.P.E.W. talk we've been doing here, I thought some might be interested in these quotes I found from JKR- they seem to support what we've been saying all along...

>EVAN: You used to work for Amnesty International. Two years.

J.K. ROWLING: I did, yeah. Research assistant. Human rights abuses in Francophone Africa. It made me very fascinating at dinner parties. I knew everything about the political situation in Togo and Burkina Faso.

E: And you still do.

JK: No I don't. Not anymore.

E: But here's where it shows up: Hermione and the rights of elves. Civil rights becomes a theme in Goblet of Fire.

JK: Oh yeah. Yeah.

E: This is a real issue.

JK: Yeah, that was fairly autobiographical. My sister and I both, we were that kind of teenager. (Dripping with drama) We were that kind of, 'I'm the only one who really feels these injustices. No one else understands the way I feel.' I think a lot of teenagers go through that.

E: In Britain they call it 'Right On' or something.

JK: Exactly. Well, she's fun to write because Hermione, with the best of intentions, becomes quite self-righteous. My heart is entirely with her as she goes through this. She develops her political conscience. My heart is completely with her. But my brain tells me, which is a growing-up thing, that in fact she blunders towards the very people she's trying to help. She offends them. She's not very sensitive to their...

E: She's somewhat condescending to the elves who don't have rights.

JK: She thinks it's so easy. It's part of what I was saying before about the growing process, of realizing you don't have quite as much power as you think you might have and having to accept that. Then you learn that it's hard work to change things and that it doesn't happen overnight. Hermione thinks she's going to lead them to glorious rebellion in one afternoon and then finds out the reality is very different, but that was fun to write.

From a July 2000 interview with JKR/Canadian Broadcasting



Madame Librarian - Oct 9, 2003 3:18 am (#159 of 229)
Sly Girl, that was great! Thanks for digging it up. It's very illuminating to see what's going on in an author's head when they create a particular character or theme.

Ciao. Barb



Sinister Kittens - Oct 9, 2003 5:10 am (#160 of 229)
Edited Oct 9, 2003 6:12 am

Hear, Hear! Thanks Sly Girl. I'm always interested in JKR's explanations of Hermiones character as she once described Hermione as being herself. Or like herself, you all know what i'm like for never getting the exact quotes!


Sly Girl - Oct 9, 2003 12:10 pm (#161 of 229)
Yeah, I thought it was very interesting to read, since we have basically been saying the same thing on this thread. Smile Great minds think alike and all that. So...maybe JKR does have something planned for Hermione and the elves.



Dan Wells - Oct 14, 2003 8:41 pm (#162 of 229)
HI! Just a newbie with a science fiction/role playing background. I'm afraid that a lot of people are missing something in the 'free the elves!' movement that seems to be forming.

The house elves are not human. They have a completely different mind-set and psychology from humans. Just as humans yearn for freedom and control of our destiny (just look at the last 2,000 years of our history), perhaps the house-elves are domestic because they prefer it.

A comparison can be found in humans: Very few people have the skills and mindset to be an employer; most people are happy to go to work and handle their comparatively small area of responsibility. Some people are natural captains and others are naturally the crew. Since this is a case of people being in the role they want no one complains.

House elves have a pretty good deal for the most part. Free room and board, after all. We have seen the dark side of the house elf situation (via the Malfoys). Weasleys would certainly treat a house elf better.

My point is that we should be careful not to project human values and psychology onto a completely different species. Their origins (no matter your view on human origins) is likely much different than humans. Their drives, thoughts, cares, and desires may be vastly different, also.

Comments?



schoff - Oct 14, 2003 8:47 pm (#163 of 229)
Dan: Great thoughts! You should post them on the House Elves thread!



Mrs. Sirius - Oct 20, 2003 10:20 am (#164 of 229)
Edited Oct 20, 2003 11:22 am

On an earlier post on this thread I paraphrased Hermione on the subject of careers and was asked to give a citation, here is the quote "...I'd really like to do something worthwhile"..

Ron interjects an auror's worthwhile" Hermione counters...

"Yes, it is but it's not the only worthwhile thing .. if I could take S.P.E.W. further" In OoP the American edition it's p.228 and Bloomsbury edition p. 206.



Catherine - Oct 22, 2003 9:46 am (#165 of 229)
I've really enjoyed the Hermione thread, but I think too much is being made over the "horse" comment. Here goes:

First of all, when Hermione says it, she is reading the Daily Prophet, her eyes still on the paper, like she thinks that Parvati's comment isn't worthy of a real response. Or showing them that they can't tease her or get under her skin.

Second, Hermione is skeptical about Divination as a subject, an attitude shared by trustworthy teachers at Hogwarts: Dumbledore was reluctant to even allow its continuance at Hogwarts, and McGonnagall doesn't respect Trelawney. Lavender and Parvati spend a lot of time on what Hermione thinks is a waster of time.

Third, Hermione is angered when people focus on looks (remember her anger at Ron about Eloise Midgen, and getting the best-looking date possible?) Parvati is curling her eyelashes at the breakfast table!

I think the horse comment is to show that Hermione does NOT regret dropping Divination, no matter that a handsome teacher has taken over for Trelawney. In addition, it shows that Hermione, unlike Parvati and Lavender, view Firenze as separate and other--as the centaurs present themselves. Hermione has come a long way from her crush on Lockhart, and seems to me to be more mature than either of these two girls. Hermione's "horse" comment to me was to show the girls how foolish they are acting.



Rich - Oct 23, 2003 1:52 am (#166 of 229)
I always thought Hermione's "horse" comment was because of the fact that she may have realised that Divination with Firenze wouldn't be that bad therefore she regretted dropping the subject. Afterall Firenze isn't teaching tea leaves and crystal balls.

Also because of the fact that she was frustrated that Parvati and Lavender couldn't and wouldn't begin to comprehend what Divination really is (the true predictions made by Trelwaney) and because they also wouldn't be able to appreciate the type of Divination that Firenze would teach.

And don't forget Hermione can be shrewd if she wants to be (the "Wonky Faint"). She knew this comment would get under Parvati and Lavender's shallow skin. She knew what she was going to say if anyone tried to show her up for dropping Divination.



A-is-for-Amy - Oct 23, 2003 7:44 am (#167 of 229)
Hermione is taking ancient runes... any idea what that is? I always thought that runes were a form of divination, but apparently it's not.



Fawkes Forever - Oct 23, 2003 7:54 am (#168 of 229)
Amy, I think Runes was an old written language made up of symbols as used by the Druids/ Vikings. I'm not too sure... I always thought that they where used in forms of divination as well though!

Oh found a link [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Seems that they where used as a 'Viking Oracle'. They looked towards oracles for answers and guidance to their troubles! Perhaps this is the reason why Hermione is able to make so many informed decisions I'm not sure if this is the subject that JK has created however!



Madame Librarian - Oct 23, 2003 8:12 am (#169 of 229)
Amy, I treaded gingerly into the area of runes a while back on the following thread:

Lily Potter dying for Harry #32 - Madame Librarian Sep 24, 2003 06:46 pm (sorry, can't seem to create a link thingie here).

It is a very cryptic (apt choice of word) and confusing subject, these runes. If anyone is an expert, it'll be good ol' Hermione.

Ciao. Barb



Catherine - Oct 23, 2003 8:51 am (#170 of 229)
Even though a lot of this deals with runes, hopefully it still fits in the Hermione thread, as she took Ancient Runes and was angry about mixing up the runes "ehwaz" and "eihwaz."

Barb's post reminded me that I had looked them up back when I first read OotP, because I had no idea what eihwaz and ehwaz were, and am glad that this has come up about Hermione. Hermione, as has been discussed previously in the forum, is often our "authority" in the text, so it seems to me that Rowling is really drawing our attention to these two runes by showing Hermione getting an answer wrong. That almost never happens! I think that they will prove to be of some importance.

Interestingly, Hermione gets "ehwaz" wrong (p 715). Ehwaz is the 19th rune (remember Hermione's birthday is September 19th). Ehwaz represents movement, progress, and a horse (we've heard plenty about Hermione's "horse comment" about Firenze). It looks like an uppercase "M."

Even more interesting is "eihwaz." Eihwaz is the 13th rune, looks like a backward version of Harry's lightning-bolt scar, and stands for defense, aversive power, and the yew tree. Lord Voldemort has a yew wood wand, and there are already Lexicon sources about the meanings behind yew, but I'll just mention how yew is commonly planted in cemeteries (think Lord Voldemort's rebirth) and is thought of as the tree representing death.

I'm not sure this is an appropriate place to really discuss runes, so I'll leave it at that, but I wanted to discuss if Hermione's error on her Rune exam is significant. I found this all rather intriguing...

Cheers, Catherine



Madame Librarian - Oct 23, 2003 12:18 pm (#171 of 229)
Thanks, Catherine, for expanding on the rune idea. You are an excellent researcher.

Perhaps this deserves a thread of its own, though I'm not sure there's enough substance at this point to merit further discussion. I do think something about runes will come up in future books, however.

Ciao. Barb



LilyP - Oct 23, 2003 4:44 pm (#172 of 229)
Wow, Catherine. I think there might be something there. There is no such thing as coincidence in the world of JKR!



Rich - Oct 23, 2003 11:09 pm (#173 of 229)
I have to agree that the runes really could be of some importance. I didn't really take it in when I was reading though. I thought it was just to show how much stress she is under and how much of a perfectionist she is.



Joanna S Lupin - Oct 25, 2003 11:51 am (#174 of 229)
hi! i'm new here;)) disscusion is about runes now, isn't it? well, maybe in future there'll be any usage of it but what about love growing between harry and hermione? have a theory about this point, yes, i suspect that in the end of this story they'll be a very serious couple but she'll die because of voldemort and it'll be a moment when harry mature to kill him any ideas?



Sly Girl - Oct 25, 2003 11:56 am (#175 of 229)
Edited Oct 25, 2003 12:57 pm

Joanna, welcome aboard! Please refer to the Philosophy of the Forum as stated above, we like words spelled correctly and correct punctation, which includes capitalization. You may be wondering why part of your post ended up being italized- it's because you used a small "i" instead of a capital I. This is just one of the reasons we stress correct grammar.

Also; you may wish to direct your attention to our 'Ship-Ship' thread down below which deals with which character will end up with who. We try to keep those speculations out of the main character topics, to avoid arguements.

Enjoy your stay!!



Edward Green - Oct 25, 2003 1:03 pm (#176 of 229)
Excuse me, but why do people think Hermione is a year younger than Harry and Ron? I see it as being that Hermione was born in September of the calendar year before Harry and Ron but being in the same academic year as with normal situations- in PoA Hermione is talking about her 14th birthday, not her 13th- she was born in September 1979 and Harry in July 1980- therefore they would automatically be in the same year without any promotion forward or holding back, wouldn't they?



schoff - Oct 25, 2003 1:16 pm (#177 of 229)
Edward Green: You might wish to visit this page on the Lexicon explaining why Hermione's birth year is set at 1980. I think Hermione's birth year is stated on the Timeline from the CoS DVD, which JKR approved.

Hermione doesn't say which birthday her parents have given her money for, she just says her birthday is in September (PoA 4 US56). She was probably talking about her 13th birthday, not her 14th. Honestly, I'm also of the opinion that if Hermione were older than the guys, then Ron (or Hermione) would have mentioned it by now ("Just because you're older, Hermione, doesn't mean we have to listen to you.")

I hope this answers your question!



abby holmes - Oct 25, 2003 2:29 pm (#178 of 229)
Hermione is also the name of Helen (of Troy)'s daughter and is given away by Helen. In Shakespeare, suspicion erupts as to who is the father of Hermione's child. This leads me to suspect that while Hermione Granger's fate may not be exactly the same as either of the historical Hermiones...Hermione Granger's biological parents are probably not muggle dentists.



Catherine - Oct 25, 2003 3:18 pm (#179 of 229)
Dear Abby,

I'm glad you said it. I've maintained forever that Hermione might not really be a "mudblood." Not that there's anything wrong with being a mudblood, of course. My husband always tells me to cool it, so at least someone else thinks it is a possibility.

Thanks, Catherine



Rich - Oct 25, 2003 10:06 pm (#180 of 229)
I think it would be better if she was mudblood, so that she could prove the WW wrong when she becomes the first ever Minister for Magic with non-magical parents:)! That would be the best fate for Hermione, bridging the gap and proving that everybody is equal regardless of blood. (She could also make SPEW an official organisation.)

rich



Sly Girl - Oct 25, 2003 11:43 pm (#181 of 229)
Edited Oct 26, 2003 12:43 am

Yes, JKR is trying to prove a point with having the 'cleverest witch of her age' be completely Muggle born. Hermione's brilliance merely points to the fact that it is talent, hard work and smarts that makes her such a capabale witch, and not her parentage or bloodline.



timrew - Oct 26, 2003 4:22 am (#182 of 229)
Edited Oct 26, 2003 5:22 am

It's also possible that Hermione was given to the wrong parents when she was born; and that there is a wizarding couple somewhere who are wondering why their squib daughter wants to be a dentist.



Madame Librarian - Oct 26, 2003 4:24 am (#183 of 229)
Hey, tim, we're drifting into Gilbert & Sullivan territory with babies switched at birth.

(Sorry, just saw "H.M.S. Pinafore" last week.)

Ciao. Barb



Mrs. Sirius - Oct 26, 2003 9:00 pm (#184 of 229)
I found this today and thought it was interesting. (OoP pg. 325 Scholastic ed.)

...Harry saw, with an ominous feeling that her face was suddenly alight with the kind of fervor that S.P.E.W. usually inspired in her." This is a description when Hermione first introduces the idea of Harry teaching a DADA class.

We have talked so much about Hermione's fervor and perhaps erroneous manner in approaching the house elf problem. From interviews with JK and of course discussion here, it does look like the air may be taken out of Hermione's sails a bit in the upcoming books for her damn the torpedoes approach on the house elves. But setting up the DA was quite an ingenious feat for one so young who is not a Ministry trained expert, going behind the ministry expert and training students to achieve what they did in the MOM. She took full charge of setting up, organizing, scheduling, recruiting and even peace making and emotionally supporting the group just as she has with S.P.E.W. She hasn't had the success with the house elvs because she hasn't had any first hand experince with house elves. When it is a subject, teaching-learning, that is closer to home for her, she does remarkable work.

The house elf and centuars gaffs are really small miscalculations because of her lack of experience with the members of those societies. But Hermione's analysis of both situations seems very accuarate. With the centuars, they removed/eliminated Umbridge. Her analysis of Sirius' treatment of Kreacher also was right on target according to DD.

I am sorry if it feels like I am beating this subject to death but as I was reading that today it just struck me how perceptive as well as competent Hermione is.



Maollelujah - Oct 26, 2003 9:35 pm (#185 of 229)
Hermione is also the name of Helen (of Troy)'s daughter and is given away by Helen.

Helen doesn't give away Hermione, but rather leaves Hermione with her father when she runs off with Paris. So she is never given away for others to raise.



Madame Librarian - Oct 27, 2003 4:45 am (#186 of 229)
Back on topic--

Mrs. Sirius, I agree for the most part with your analysis of Hermione's talents and dedication. Just one observation: I'm currently listening to the audio of OoP and the first meeting of the DA has just taken place. Harry is put in the awkward position at first with a number of the kids challenging his abilities and demanding to know more. Harry thinks to himself that Hermione should have expected that most of the kids who came to that first meeting would have been there solely out of curiosity. Eventually all comes out OK because Harry is able to defend his postion and display his authority, but he's still irked at Hermione.

So, my point is that Hermione displayed a bit of naivete about people's motives, and though the girl is book-smart, she has quite a bit to learn about advance planning and dealing with people (or elves?).

Ciao. Barb



Catherine - Oct 27, 2003 5:08 am (#187 of 229)
Does anyone else find it ironic that Hermione told Harry that HE had a "saving people thing," when it seems to me that she does, too!

Now, Hermione doesn't dash around wearing a cape and wielding Godric Griffindor's sword. But, I have some examples: S.P.E.W.; setting Snape on fire at Harry's first Quidditch match; all the homework schedules and proofreading she does for her friends; the countercurse she works for Neville, how she tried to help him learn a scouring charm to remove toad guts, and helped him fix his shrinking potion so that Trevor would not be poisoned; Buckbeak's trial prep; adopting an ugly cat who had been in the pet store forever and was unwanted; and, finally, telling McGonnagall about the Firebolt at Christmas, which resulted in her exclusion from the trio for months.

Like Dumbledore said in SS, there are many kinds of courage.



Madame Librarian - Oct 27, 2003 8:27 am (#188 of 229)
In their way, all of the Trio are heroic and self-sacrificing. PS/SS was on HBO last night and is very fresh in my memory (the only way it seems to work), and there's that bit with Ron sacrificing himself in the chess game and even making a little speech about it to convince Harry and Hermione that it is the only way. "You're the one, Harry. Not me, not Hermione..." or something close. My book is not available, so I'm hoping that what was in the film is the same as the book.

Ciao. Barb



Jumbo - Oct 27, 2003 10:40 am (#189 of 229)
There have been significant acts of self-sacrifice throughout the books. Lily's was the first and greatest some of the smaller ones are very important. Hermiome makes up a lie to incriminate herself and make Ron and Harry look like heros after being saved from the Troll in PS. What struck me was that she didn't need to lie, if she had told the truth no-one would have been in trouble.

I cant help thinking we will see one more person make the ultimate sacrifice in the last book.

Jumbo



virgoddess1313 - Oct 28, 2003 5:37 am (#190 of 229)
I don't know... Hemione's methods of "saving" people are noticebly more subtle than the others. I think she would sacrifice herself for the others, but I don't think the situation will come up.



Fawkes8U - Oct 28, 2003 3:42 pm (#191 of 229)
I think that Hermione gets alot of what is happening around her. She studies alot by nature, but I also think that she's arming herself with as much information as possible in order to help Harry. She seems to ride Harry's case to study occulmency, and his books, for his and everyone else's own good. It's interesting to think that in DD's office at the end of OOP, Harry admonishes himself about not listening to Hermione. She's been running interference for Harry and Ron and Neville for years now. Maybe, Harry will start listening more to her and start bulking up on his knowledge of magic. Harry has street knowledge, but I'm betting that Hermione is studying all she can in order to get Harry the information he needs to fight against Voldemort. Wonder if Harry is going to tell her about the prophecy?



Grant the Great - Oct 28, 2003 3:48 pm (#192 of 229)
Well, I know this theory has some major faults in it, but JKR could still be using it as a very fundamental basis, though she let's it slip to add to the plot:

She could be using Hermione as the little angel on the right shoulder and Ron as the devil (when I say devil, I don't mean evil, I just mean the more rebellious, natural-for-a-teen side) on the left shoulder. Hermione is oftentimes (not always) a source of good advice. Ron likes to procrastinate, etc. OK, I know that Hermione isn't perfect and Ron has his good points, but just a thought.



S.E. Jones - Oct 28, 2003 6:34 pm (#193 of 229)
So, sorta like the Id (Ron) and the Superego (Hermione)? Yeah, I can kinda see that... I agree that Hermione gets a lot of what is going on around her, but what she doesn't always get is what's going on when it comes to her own motivations and actions. Like with the House-elves, she's becoming as domineering as their masters in trying to make them conform to her way of thinking (sorry about bringing this up again, folks, but it's just the perfect example). I think she really needs to calm down a few more notches, learn how to, well, just be, the way Luna does. Maybe she'll learn something from Luna....



::StinkerBell:: - Oct 28, 2003 8:09 pm (#194 of 229)
Sorry, this is off topic..... How did Hermione know how to get onto Platform 9 3/4? Harry never knew.....



Susurro Notities - Oct 28, 2003 8:44 pm (#195 of 229)
All Muggles must get more instructions once they accept the invitation to Hogwarts including how to get on to the train, how to get into Diagon Alley, how to exchange Muggle money for wizard money... Possibly Harry didn't get the instructions as he never accepted the invitation and thus he had Hagrid to guide him. Hagrid just forgot that Harry wouldn't know how to get on the train.



Madame Librarian - Oct 29, 2003 4:47 am (#196 of 229)
Sounds plausible, Susurro. In general, I don't think Harry's experience of being introduced to the WW can be taken as typical. He's a special case all along.

Ciao. Barb



mollis - Oct 29, 2003 6:06 am (#197 of 229)
I wonder if maybe, during "normal" cases if there is a kind of mentor program to introduce muggles families to the WW. I would have been nice if the Grangers had been introduced to a wizard or a wizard family to show them around and explain how things are done. I think that would make the transition much easier for the families. And would have given the Grangers some peace-of-mind.

Maybe that is why they never seem to show up when Hermione has been hurt (or petrified for months!), maybe their mentor family explained to them that DD is the greatest wizard of the age and that their daughter couldn't be in a better or more safe location. Because I, for one, have always thought it was fishy that her parents have never shown up when she's been injured.



Sinister Kittens - Oct 29, 2003 7:11 am (#198 of 229)
I'm sure this was discussed over on the EZBoard, but darn, my memory fails me once again (Wants a mimbulus mimbletonia!). I thought that it could possibly be one of the jobs of the Prefects, or possibly NEWT level students living in the surrounding area. But I like the idea of a sort of 'sponsor' family.



Catherine - Oct 29, 2003 9:41 am (#199 of 229)
Yes, Mollis, the absence of Hermione's parents during her petrification seemed odd. I wonder if Muggle parents, due to the charms and protection on Hogwarts, are never invited or never come? That would be very harsh, though. Somehow I think if they can enter Diagon Alley then they could come to Hogwarts.



Grant the Great - Sep 25, 2004 4:28 am (#200 of 229)
Well, Muggles see Hogwarts as old ruins, right? Then, could they even get to the Hospital Wing? Just a thought. I don't think this counts with Squibs (hence, Filch).



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


Last edited by Mona on Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:44 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

Hermione Granger - Page 3 Empty Posts 201 to 229

Post  Mona Tue Jul 12, 2011 4:14 am


Blast - Nov 1, 2003 6:55 pm (#201 of 229)
Well Hermiome did read Hogwarts A History and probably found out how to get on platform nine and three quarters there. If Ron and Hermiome are the id and superego, who is the unconcience?



S.E. Jones - Nov 1, 2003 9:36 pm (#202 of 229)
You mean, who is the Ego? I'd say that's Harry....



Rich - Nov 3, 2003 12:35 am (#203 of 229)
Hermione would have to go to Diagon Alley to get Hogwarts: A History so she'd need to know how to get in.

Let's face it, Wizards are pretty ignorant. I don't think they'd realise that newcomers need help, but DD might.



S.E. Jones - Nov 3, 2003 2:34 pm (#204 of 229)
I wouldn't say wizards are ignorant, exactly. Admittedly, they don't use the same thought/reasoning processes as Muggles in the same area, but that doesn't mean they're mindless of such things. There was a theory once that maybe a school representative was sent to the homes of Muggle-borns to explain things to their parents and prove the letter wasn't a hoax. Another idea was that an extra letter was included explaining things to the parents... Either way, I definately think they'd need extra help. Maybe we'll get to see how the process works if Mark Evans gets accepted to Hogwarts..?



!!!!!LauraAngel - Nov 4, 2003 1:15 pm (#205 of 229)
Uh, I hope he does... That might clear up a lot of things.



Danielle Menzo - Nov 9, 2003 4:50 pm (#206 of 229)
Hermione's True Age

have been wondering about this time line also and I have found some "proof" ,if you would like to call it that, that Hermione Granger really is a year older than the rest of the trio and many other students. I am quoting this from Book Five Goblet Of Fire:

People were cheering out in the entrance hall. A tall black girl who played Chaser on the Gryffindor Quidditch team, Angelina came over to them, sat down, and said, "Well, I've done it! Just put my name in!" "You're kidding!" said Ron, looking impressed. "Are you seventeen then?" asked Harry "'Course she is, can't see a beard, can you?" said Ron...... [p.261] Well, if this statement is truely correct ( found on page 261 American edition) then and Angelina is in the same year as Fred and George who would be sixteenin the up coming spring. Angelina put her name into the Goblet of Fire on October 31 of her sixth year, and her birthday came about a week before Halloween. So that would mean that Angelina actually enter Hogwarts a month before her Twelveth birthday which means that Hermione had to be eleven to enter Hogwarts school. Since she was born on September 19 then she must have been born in 1979!!!



Ihavebothbuttocks - Oct 30, 2003 9:38 pm (#207 of 229)
Danielle Menzo,

The following quotes are taken directly from the Lexicon:

"The "Official Timeline of Hogwarts" appeared on the DVD of Chamber of Secrets. Warner Bros. Home Video has confirmed that Rowling did personally review, make notes on, and ultimate(ly) approve this timeline, so it is now considered canon."

"The DVD timeline also states clearly that Hermione is younger than Harry and Ron, which also supports what is given in the Lexicon. She was ten when she started Hogwarts."



Denise P. - Oct 30, 2003 9:59 pm (#208 of 229)
Danielle, good dectective work in finding that!

Even though we have to accept Hermione's date of birth of 1980 as canon, I think the evidence of Anglina points to it being more likely that she would have been 11 and not 10 when she started.



S.E. Jones - Oct 30, 2003 10:29 pm (#209 of 229)
(Could Angelina have repeated a year (like Marcus Flint supposedly did)? Or maybe the cutoff date is somewhere at the end of Sept. or the beginning of October?



Maollelujah - Oct 30, 2003 11:41 pm (#210 of 229)
Where I live the cut off date is Sept. 30th.

My Birthday is Septemeber 19, so I went to school a year early like Hermione, while my brother's birthday is October 14th, and he went a year late.

<|Surprised)

popkin - Oct 31, 2003 12:04 am (#211 of 229)
I'm guessing that Hermione was started a year earlier than her peers because she is exceptionally gifted magically speaking, is mature for her age, and is highly motivated to succeed. She was probably ahead of her class in muggle school as well. In other words, she skipped a year in school.



Neville Longbottom - Oct 31, 2003 1:26 am (#212 of 229)
Another question: If Hermione started at Hogwarts with ten, when did she get the Hogwarts owl? It can't have been on her eleventh birthday, because she was already at Hogwarts.

But if she entered Hogwarts with nearly 12, she could have gotten the owl at her 11th birthday. And then she had nearly a year time to read everything about Hogwarts.



Lumos* - Oct 31, 2003 2:06 am (#213 of 229)
This is a really perturbing topic isn't it?! Hermione's case is definitely not the first one of this kind so I wonder what happens to others?



S.E. Jones - Oct 31, 2003 7:24 am (#214 of 229)
I don't think you get the Hogwarts letter on your birthday. Harry initial letter came long before his birthday, and that's probably around the time they're sent out, but he wasn't allowed to actually read his letter til Hagrid showed up on his birthday (which I think is the reason Hagrid actually picked that day to do it)..... All JKR said about it was: (from the 1st Scholastic Interview) "In Hogwarts there's a magical quill which detects the birth of a magical child, and writes his or her name down in a large parchment book. Every year Professor McGonagall checks the book, and sends owls to the people who are turning 11." She doesn't state that McGonagall sends letters to those who are 11, just those turning 11 that year. I'd previously thought that the cutoff date had to be something like Dec. 31, but I think the Sept. 30 date that Maollelujah suggested makes the most sense with the information we have....



Madame Librarian - Oct 31, 2003 9:36 am (#215 of 229)
Does anyone think that maybe we're too worried about the age thing for Hermione (and for other characters for that matter)? Given that we know there are some inconsistencies with text and interviews, and that JKR does not seem too concerned about them, is it just possible that the age thing, the year Riddle starts Hogwarts, how old Snape is in 1995, etc., etc. are not factors that are going to be linchpins in the unraveling of the plot?

Ciao. Barb



Neville Longbottom - Oct 31, 2003 10:27 am (#216 of 229)
S.E. Jones: Of course you are right. I totally forgot that the letters came before Harry's birthday. On the other hand, it still seems an awfully short time, even for Hermione, to read all this stuff about Hogwarts. Of course she might have gotten the letter a lot sooner than Harry.



S.E. Jones - Oct 31, 2003 1:30 pm (#217 of 229)
Well if she got her letter when Harry should've first got his. Let's see that was around Dudley's birthday, which is at the end of June, they didn't get onto the train till the end of August. That leaves two months for her to read the two or three history books she mentioned, plus her school books. Knowing Hermione's personality, she probably was so excited to have gotten into Hogwarts and to find something she knows nothing about that she made her parents take her straight to Diagon Alley to buy all the books she could so as to know as much as possible before the term started.

Barb, yeah, you're probably right, but what fun is that?



Hermionefan(#1) - Oct 31, 2003 3:32 pm (#218 of 229)
Maybe it's just a mistake? After all, and I mean this in the best possible way, JK makes a few mistakes in her time line...



S.E. Jones - Oct 31, 2003 3:59 pm (#219 of 229)
Yeah, but they're usually little things, like the days of the week (and the fact that Sept. 1, is always on a Monday), not big things like entire years..... Well, I guess there is that 1000 students thing, 1000 heads to count is pretty big..... Hm.......



::StinkerBell:: - Oct 31, 2003 4:01 pm (#220 of 229)
I like to just pretend shes what ever age the book says at the time....



schoff - Nov 1, 2003 1:04 pm (#221 of 229)
Edited by Nov 1, 2003 1:06 pm

Barb: Bite your tongue! Haven't you read The Very Secret Diary thread?

SE Jones: Hush, now! Please don't open that can of worms again!



Choices - Nov 2, 2003 4:57 pm (#222 of 229)
I agree with you Madame Librarian, some folks seem to want to do more nit-picking instead of just enjoying these remarkable books. Who cares how old Hermione is? She's a wonderful character and a perfect accomplise for Harry and Ron. Her age is immaterial to me.

LOL I do have a question though - Since Hermione's parents are Muggles, how did they know where to go to buy the supplies and books that Hermione needs for school and how did they know how to find and gain entrance to Diagon Alley? And to answer my own question based on my first comment about Hermione's age, I'll say they obviously did find it and how doesn't matter. LOL



Hermionefan(#1) - Nov 3, 2003 2:45 pm (#223 of 229)
I do kind of agree with Choices. I don't much pay attention to the ages and things of all the characters until I start reading these threads. I don't think it really matters how old Hermione is- it's not like we're going to die because she's 3 different ages at once. I just think as long she's there, let's "arg" our brains about her Time-Turner instead of her age.



S.E. Jones - Nov 4, 2003 5:44 pm (#224 of 229)
There is some good in arguing about characters' specifics at times, though. For instance, while arguing about Hermy's age, both on this thread as well as others, the topics of when children get their Hogwarts letters, whether Muggle-borns get extra instructions in their letters, the book in Hogwarts in which the names of magical children are recorded, and how closely the MoM watches Muggle-borns vs. other magical children were all brought up. Remember, there is always a chance that one discussion can lead you to another.... That's what makes the posts on this forum so interesting to read. They can either point to an answer or another question....



siobhan - Nov 7, 2003 9:46 am (#225 of 229)
In Ireland there is no cut off age. I started school at four and i know some who were three going on four when they started school. Here and I'd say in most of Britain too because its the same in northern Ireland they only recommend an age of five but do not have a cutoff age. What happens to people who are just a day over the limit?? Just curious



S.E. Jones - Nov 7, 2003 4:29 pm (#226 of 229)
They go the next year, usually.... My brothers had that happen. One was the oldest in his classes because his birthday was just past the cutoff date (he started school the next year, instead of that year because of it). The other was one of the youngest in his classes because his birthday came just before the cutoff date....



Denise P. - Nov 7, 2003 5:35 pm (#227 of 229)
If someone is a day over the cut off, they just sit out a year and start the following year. This makes them one of the oldest in the class. If you make the cut off by a day, you are generally the youngest in the class.



Carina - Nov 7, 2003 5:37 pm (#228 of 229)
Angelina's age really has little to do with Hermione's age. At my school, the cutoff date is October 1st, but I've had kids in my class who have turned the "right age" up to 8 months later. Special circumstances can, have and will be made depending on the individual child.

Dumbledore strikes me as the kind of school administrator who would look at every individual child's case and base a decision on that. Hermione may have been ready to enter school at the age of ten. Angelina might not have been for whatever reason. It does not diminish Angelina's capacity as a student just because she waited the extra year.



Hem Hem - Nov 9, 2003 4:50 pm (#229 of 229)
My kindergarten's cutoff date was September, and my birthday's in October, but I entered at age four regrdless. I agree that Dumbledore probably has a rough cutoff date, but is willing to allow exceptions based on circumstances.... Face it, if Hermione were the oldest in the class below her, she'd probably be ready to skip a grade anyways and end up in Harry's class.



INDEX
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

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

Back to top Go down

Hermione Granger - Page 3 Empty Re: Hermione Granger

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum