GOF Chapter 8: The Quidditch World Cup
Feb. 19th, 2011 09:46 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
oryx_leucoryx posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
deathtocapslockIf Arthur's numbers are correct then the QWC stadium is of the order of Wembley stadium (though not as big as the original Wembley). Since Harry's experience of sporting events so far came from TV and Hogwarts I can see why he is awestruck with the size of he place, though I doubt anything else about it was particularly amazing.
Am I to believe Wizarding Britain can afford to have 500 members of its workforce engaged in preparing the stadium for an entire year? Does this work with a population of 3000? Or even 10,000? Is that why there wasn't enough manpower available to catch Sirius Black? Or perhaps many of these were retirees looking for extra income?
Oh how fun it is to mess with the minds of Muggles (people like, say, Hermione's parents) to keep this event secret. Bless them, indeed. Meanwhile Hermione is taking notes on what magic is acceptable to use on Muggles.
Now that we see the size of the top box we realize that Arthur's party takes up about half of it. No little favor Ludo did him.
Wizarding commercial advertisements are just as lame as Muggle ones.
Is that Dobby? No? Shucks. But it's a house-elf at any rate, so Harry was only half-wrong. Doesn't it sound like Winky knew Dobby from before he was freed and started seeking a paying job? What would that mean? Were the Malfoys frequent dinner guests at the Crouch household way back before Mrs Crouch's death? Did Dobby and Winky grow up together? Did Dobby sneak away from Malfoy Manor to the Crouch residence to complain about his evil masters? Do house-elves have some kind of social gatherings? We'll never know now. Hmm, but if Winky knows of Dobby's search for a paying job and had the chance to hear Dobby speak of Harry 'all the time', doesn't this mean he came to the Crouch home (more than once) after being freed? And never noticed the invisible Barty Jr (in contrast with Bertha Jorkins)? Or perhaps he too was zapped with some memory charm (or several)? Might explain some things.
So ill-behaved elves and goblins are to face the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures. Is this the same department that dealt with Buckbeak? I doubt it is the same department that deals with ill-behaved wizards. I think the latter are dealt with by the Department for Magical Law Enforcement. I can see elves getting a different treatment - once one realizes they are a slave-class (though Winky expects the same to apply to a free elf), but goblins are free members of magical society, or so I thought. In any case, elves and goblins are classified as beings which is a category that includes those creatures that have the capacity to understand the laws and take part in forming them. Of course, this does not mean they are actually treated equally by those laws, nor does it mean they actually get to participate in law-making.
Winky is sitting in one of the seats and ostensibly reserving the seat next to hers for Barty Crouch, when in fact the other Barty Crouch is sitting in it, invisible. Which means Crouch Sr got a Top Box seat for his house-elf. I'm wondering how that came across to mainstream wizards. Oh, this is Harry's first meeting with the coming year's DADA teacher (though he doesn't even know anyone is there). And Barty's 1st opportunity to see Harry up close (and steal his wand). Now I'm wondering if Bagman was working for Tom after all.
Harry is indignant on Winky's behalf for her having to reserve her master's seat when she doesn't like heights. 2+ years from now Harry will force his own house-elf to go on spying missions for him against said house-elf's preference. IOIAGDI?
Percy can repair his shattered glasses. Meanwhile Muggles invented plastic lenses that are shatter-proof.
We see Fudge, and the Bulgarian Minister. But no Irish Minister in sight. Has the Wizarding World not caught up with the 1920s? Fudge is alone, BTW. In chapter 28 at some point Crouch will ramble about taking his wife and son to a concert with Mr and Mrs Fudge. I wonder what became of her.
The Malfoys make their entrance. All three of them this time around. There have been many men by the name of Lucius in history and in literature, as the wikipedia disambiguation page shows (at the bottom there are links to additional lists of Luciuses), but I tend to think Lucius Malfoy was named after Lucius Tiberius from Arthurian legend, because it seems one of the main reasons for Lucius' existence in HP canon is to serve as Arthur's antagonist, to be compared to Arthur and be found wanting. (This looks even more true in light of
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
aasaylva 's 'Arthur cuckolded Lucius' theory.) In PS neither man is present, but we hear their opinions of each other quoted by their respective sons. In COS we get to meet each of them individually - Arthur being excited that the twins took the car without permission, Lucius expressing disappointment with Draco's grades - and then they meet and clash at the book store. In this book they are both in the Top Box and in OOTP they are both waiting outside the courtroom for the outcome of Harry's hearing (no, Lucius' ties did not go far enough to grant him entry to the Wizengamot). Their trajectories cross at the end of OOTP - Lucius goes to Azkaban, Arthur gets promoted - and leads searches of Lucius' home. DH shows one thing they have in common - love for their respective families.(Heh -Arthur and Lucius are like Albus and Gellert, though probably without the love affair - red-haired 'good' guy and a slightly younger blond 'bad' guy.)
Back to chapter 8:
Lucius donated to St Mungo's. He is so evil for (possibly) receiving 3 tickets as a perk in return! He should have done something more wholesome, like, say, help Fudge cover up illegal and harmful acts. Since I am in the biotech field I like to imagine that Lucius founded The Abraxas Malfoy Memorial Fund for Dragon Pox Research, though of course it could have been just a general donation to the hospital.
No Harry, the Malfoys don't consider anyone from Muggle descent second class (Bellatrix does, but she is still away in Azkaban). Narcissa's visit to Severus' home in HBP seems not to have been the first one. But they do consider Muggle-borns like Hermione to be second class. The way the Weasleys consider Muggles, such as Hermione's parents.
Arthur feels the need to polish his glasses upon spotting the Veela. To see them better? Or to avoid looking at them? This used to be evidence in support for Imperiurized!Arthur theories - or alternately theories about Weasleys being more susceptible than average to mind-control.
Harry notices the Veela - and his mind goes blank. Blanker than usual, that is. This is his first direct experience with mind-control, which will be very important in this book. (And to a lesser extent in later ones.) Meanwhile Ginny thinks, 'when I grow up, I want to be a Veela too!'
Leprechauns give the crowd a golden shower :^ I notice that many among the crowd were rummaging for gold - were they as ignorant as Ron, or were they hoping to find others just as ignorant? (BTW leprechaun gold is explained in Fantastic Beasts, a book Harry and his friends had to buy for 1st year. I wonder if the boys ever read it?)
Veela can be part of human society, can interbreed with humans and are considered 'beings' (don't appear in 'Fantastical Beasts and Where to Find Them'). Leprechauns are capable of speech in human language but are classified as beasts and have never requested reclassification as beings (I suppose because they don't want to be bound by human laws? Not that being a beast helped Buckbeak in any way). Anyone find their use as mascots just a bit icky?
Are all Veela female? Are all leprechauns male? Are they like Pratchett's dwarfs - the sexes are indistinguishable to humans? How do human heterosexual females respond to male Veela? Was Lockhart a male Veela?
Krum is thin, dark, sallow-skinned, crooked-nosed and is likened to a bird of prey. He looks like teen-Snape! And Hermione ends up liking him! Surely she'd find Severus attractive too, once she is a bit older? Alternately - remember those theories about Viktor and Severus being related? Perhaps they are - it doesn't really matter who Viktor is related to. How does a professional player of an outdoors sport get to be sallow-skinned at the end of summer, anyway?
The Irish team rides Firebolts, which automatically makes them worthy of victory. You can skip to the end of the game, we know who has the better brooms.
As an example of the lengths us fans went in attempt to decipher Rowling's supposed 'master plan' I offer you Quidditch World Cup, Shadows of the Future - An essay by a fan who disliked the Quidditch in the series so much he thought there had to be some meaning to them for Rowling to go into such detail about the games. It's still fun to do these things in retrospect: Is Harry's watching the game in slow-motion until he misses events symbolic of how he has no idea what is happening in the war because he is hiding in the tent reading about Dumbles' youth? Is Viktor's skill at flying a foreshadowing of Superman!Voldie? Is Harry watching Lynch's fall in slow motion a foreshadowing of him seeing the extremely long fall of Albus' body from the tower? Is Viktor's broken nose a foreshadowing of noseless!Voldie? And obviously, catching the Snitch while losing the game is what Voldie did with the Elder Wand. But also what Rowling did with Harry's story - she managed to get him to outlive Voldemort while completely denying him convincing growth. (This was not intended to mock SCollins. Most of us were doing this sort of stuff for a long while.)
Ginny hears Arthur telling Harry not to go for looks alone and promptly decides to adopt Veela personality once she can manage it. (BTW, this is the girl who has been flying secretly since she was 6. Notice we hear nothing about her reaction to the game. What does Ginny know about Quidditch?) Of course in Rowling's world all adult women are Veela. The pretty ones do it naturally, the less pretty ones can be Veela by choice, with the aid of a Love Potion.
Viktor throws the game for personal glory. Yet his team doesn't seem to mind - he is still an active player 3 years later. Hermione thinks he was brave. Since Durmstrang becomes a stand-in for Slytherin in this book we can speculate that he too was 'Sorted too soon', just like the grown wizard he resembles.
Fudge receives the Cup on behalf of Ireland. Looks like wizards have their own borders.
Bagman finds himself in debt to the twins, goblins and others. His manner of paying them marks the beginning of his real troubles. How did he hope to get away with it? Maybe he didn't read Fantastic Beasts in his student days either.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Hermione and muggles
Date: 2011-02-24 12:32 pm (UTC)“You’re the boss,” said Ron, sounding profoundly relieved. “But I’ve never down a Memory Charm.”
“Nor have I,” said Hermione, “but I know the theory.”
Therefore you must take it as fact that Hermione did *something else* to her parents. After all, (a) she replaced one set of memories with another, and (b) as part of the setup she planned to *restore* their memories at a later date!
So most of your reasoning - based on 'memory charms', which Hermione did *not* employ - are irrelevant. And Hermione remains pure, yay!
But this was a good one:
Given the above, Hermione was thoughtless at the least to do what she did and then, she gave the information to someone who has not been able to keep Voldemort out of his mind, in fact, someone who has been unwilling to even try to keep Voldemort out of his mind.
Brilliant! I've never seen that mentioned before ... it's another nice fresh DH error!
Or is it?
Hmmm. Actually, Harry hadn't started having his 'visions' at that point, had he? Certainly Hermione didn't know about them; it was at Grimmauld Place where he started having his news flashes from the Dark Lord Mental Broadcast Network, and when Hermione berated him for not even trying to resist.
So no, I don't think it is a DH error, we can't say that Hermione was silly in telling Harry what she had done. Other than the breaking the much more general rule of "need to know". But that sort of realistic common sense was broken ten ways from Sunday by Rowling's simplistic plot, it would never have held up under such realism.
It would have been excellent, though, if Hermione had shared your thoughts about this when she *did* discover that Harry was deliberately lurking in the dark lord's mind - "oh no! And I told him about mum and dad, he knows everything!".
Hmmm. Harry never mentions the Grangers ... maybe Hermione obliviated him? :-)
But that would be okay.
Re: Hermione and muggles
Date: 2011-02-24 02:25 pm (UTC)Um, forgive me but what the hell was going on in OOTP? Voldie had already been playing around in Harry's head a book ago in OOTP. He had already been having visions, Hermione knew Voldie had trespassed in Harry's mind.
Apparently the only thing that convienced everyone that Voldie would never go there again was Dumbledore, who said Voldie feared the "whatever love" Harry socked him with.
But the premise is flimsy to start with considering Voldie had already tresspassed many times into Harry's mind without coming into contact with "Whatever Love".
So technically Hermione already knows Voldie has had access to harry's brain since OOTP.
Re: Hermione and muggles
Date: 2011-02-25 01:57 am (UTC)Yes, you're right. I enjoyed reading your previous post with this 'new' DH error that I hadn't seen before so I raised it at an anti-DH forum I frequent. Another poster told me the same thing - Hermione should have known about the risks of telling Harry anything confidential starting from HBP, right after the events of OotP.
So, she said, it was a Rowling error that kicked off in HBP - people should have been wary of telling Harry anything from back then.
Of course, this is all too complex for Rowling, so she just turned off the Dark Lord Mental Broadcast Network in book 6 for the convenience of her plot.
And then she turned it back on again - only turning it upside-down - to prop up the story she wanted to write for book 7.
Yes, for both general 'need to know' reasons and also from her knowledge of what Harry had undergone in book 5 Hermione should never have told him about her parents. But, maybe, we can forgive her; it had been a year with the mental link turned off, she'd probably forgotten about it, just like us. So when it was suddenly turned on again it should have been an even bigger shock - OH NO, I TOLD HIM ABOUT MY PARENTS! HARRY, OBLIVIATE!
:-)
Re: Hermione and muggles
Date: 2011-02-25 02:01 am (UTC)Re: Hermione and muggles
Date: 2011-02-25 02:49 pm (UTC)LOL thats funny! I wonder what kinda music plays on the Dark Lord Mental Broadcast Network!
And after reading that, I got to thinking my usual silly thoughts for laughs.
Someone should do a one shot fit that Voldemort got fricking tired of being in Harry's head, not because of the love...but Voldie got frustrated and says; 'Damn, I thought I was the only self-centered person in this series. If Potter things about himself playing quidditch one more time I think I'll AK myself.'
Re: Hermione and muggles
Date: 2011-02-26 12:19 am (UTC)After all, if Voldemort is repulsed by 'love', then how could the Dark Lord Mental Broadcast Network be running live all throughout DH? If Harry truly felt love for Ginny.
Therefore Harry *didn't* love Ginny; it was simply teenage hormonal attraction/lust.
QED.
I love your one-shot idea!!
:-)
Re: Hermione and muggles
Date: 2011-02-24 11:01 pm (UTC)No, I don't. Anyone can say anything. Hermione can say she didn't know how to do memory charms, I can say I've never swum in a competition, you can say you have never written a spork. Words are a cheap commodity. The proof of those words, or the proof against them, is what we actually see. Or, in this case, there is no reason to doubt that the Grangers are missing and not being taken to some safe haven by the Order because of the reason Hermione gives - she took their memories, planted new ones, and turned them loose upon the world.
...she replaced one set of memories with another, and (b) as part of the setup she planned to *restore* their memories at a later date!
How is this not a memory charm? Or, is it a memory spell? It removes or submerses memories - since the method is never mentioned, we don't know which it is, only that the Grangers don't know of their existence so they cannot access them, wherever they may be. She 1) removed (or submersed) memories. This must have required a spell or a charm. The spell or charm would specifically be for the removal or submersion of memories. Therefore, a memory spell or charm. She 2) replaced one set of memories with another. Requiring a spell or charm specifically for the planting of memories which are not the original memories of the subject. Therefore, another memory spell or charm. She 3) planned to restore their memories at a later date. Which means using a spell or charm in order to restore their memories.
She would have to have stored their memories, making me think you're angling for the removal of memories as we've seen done in the various Pensieve scenes. However, the fact that Slughorn was able to produce a memory, alter it, and still have that memory to produce once again in its unaltered form so I do not buy the idea that Hermione might have used the removal of memories in this way. Now, we could debate this point, since the Snape evidence from the Occlumency lessons seems to support a simple removal of those gossamer threads as a way to "wipe" a memory without using charm or spell but, what on earth is that sort of removal if it isn't a spell or a charm? Certainly Muggles can't do it, we can't do it, and it requires a wand.
(Cont'd)
Re: Hermione and muggles continued
Date: 2011-02-24 11:02 pm (UTC)... it's another nice fresh DH error!
Or is it?
It is. As I mentioned above and as Karen mentioned below, Voldemort was getting into Harry's mind all through 5th year. That was why Harry had those Occlumency lessons with Snape. Hermione talked to Harry about those lessons. She told him he should practice. She was aware that he did not. She was a part of the DA group that went to the MoM and walked straight into a trap. Wasn't she injured in that outing? She's not so stupid as to forget, especially after an injury.
Your theory is that Hermione is very knowledgeable about all these things - memory charms, Gaunt, Bertha, etc -
Yes, and she's also knowledgeable about Voldemort and his followers. She knows about the Longbottoms and their torture. She saw them at St. Mungo's in GoF. She knows their story. She knows about Bertha Jorkins. We don't know if she knows about Morphin Gaunt - the only way she could know about that is if Harry told her about it at some point after seeing the Riddle memory and hearing DD's explanation. We do know, since we saw her meet them, that she knows about the Longbottoms and we know she knows about Bertha Jorkins because it was a big plot point involving Wormtail and Albania and Voldy's out-of-body existence.
She knows that these people will torture someone to insanity whether they actually know anything or not. She knows that they will not stop trawling through someone's brain for snatches of submersed memories until they kill that person. Therefore, she is able to reason that merely removing their memories will not protect them from Death Eaters or Voldemort if they get it into their minds that the Grangers know something. It will also not protect her parents from a retribution attack against them merely because they're Hermione's parents, whether they remember her or not. She isn't stupid, she isn't ignorant. She knows what she's dealing with in the Death Eaters. She knows that Harry's got a connection to Voldemort that Voldemort has used before to get sensitive information (Harry's feelings for Sirius) and she knows Harry hasn't learned how to cut that access.
Of course, in the actual world of authors and readers, these are all Rowling's mistakes, not Hermione's. I know you like Hermione as a character. She could have been everything you see in her but for Rowling. This is just another egregious example of Hermine acting OOC for the sake of the plot.
And, yeah, if Hermione Obliviated Harry that would at least explain why he can't do third-year magic that we've seen him do in previous books. And, since she's still a novice at those types of spells/charms, it would also explain why Harry got so stupid. Maybe the Obliviation happened in 5th year...
Re: Hermione and muggles continued
Date: 2011-02-25 02:12 am (UTC)So we believe Hermione - what's that? OF COURSE we believe Hermione! - and thus have a loophole that her mind-wiping her parents did provide some safety for her and Harry. As you say, the 'method is never mentioned', so how do we know whether or not Voldemort could break it?
(I know, I know; we're both thinking much more about this than Rowling ever did. Or didn't.)
I've posted a response to Karen; as you say, Hermione's - everyone's - error in telling Harry matters of confidence starts from HBP, it's not a DH error, it's a two-book HP series error. :-) Something else that Rowling just didn't want to think about. Cutting Harry out of the loop would have made the story much more difficult to write, of course.
Can you imagine how the book would read if Hermione and Ron had to protect themselves from Harry? If the 'hero' actually had to be reminded, even in this small way, of the responsibilities he was betraying in willingly succumbing to the Voldie-visions?
Maybe scenes like this:
"Where are we?" he asked, peering around at the fresh mass of trees as Hermione opened the beaded bag and began tugging out the tent poles.
"The Forest of -- HARRY!" Hermione stood ramrod straight and levelled a tent pole at her unthinking friend. "You KNOW we can't tell you ANYTHING that could betray us to Volde--"
"Don't say the name!" bleated Ron.
Or this -
"Where are we?" he asked, peering around at the fresh mass of trees as Hermione opened the beaded bag and began tugging out the tent poles.
"The Forest of Dean," she said, "I came camping here once with my mum and dad."
"OH!" she suddenly exclaimed, "I shouldn't have said that!! Half a mo, Harry -- obliviate!"
Still, Harry was oblivious to most of what was happening in the book, being carried everywhere by Dumbldore's machinations or other events ... he wouldn't have cared about his friends keeping him even more in the dark. And it wouldn't have made Harry any more stupid, really ...
Re: Hermione and muggles continued
Date: 2011-02-25 02:53 pm (UTC)Re: Hermione and muggles continued
Date: 2011-02-25 04:22 pm (UTC)Re: Hermione and muggles continued
Date: 2011-02-25 06:45 pm (UTC)What Hermione would have done to her parents would be some kinda 'memory' spell - so for Hermione to say she's never done a memory charm/spell whatever at that point in the story seems entirely bogus to me.
I think it's bad editing or an example of JKR writing something and not going back to reread and check to realize the dialogue is bogus.
I just can't see Hermione stating she never done a memory charm, but a little while earlier in the same book she's spouting off about how she altered her parents memory so they didn't know who the hell they were or who the hell she was.
I can major mistake there in the dialogue; a fricking memory charm sounds simpler than what she did to her parents. So I have to say we should list that as bogus dialogue the editor should have taken out.
Re: Hermione and muggles continued
Date: 2011-02-25 09:59 pm (UTC)Re: Hermione and muggles continued
Date: 2011-02-26 12:09 am (UTC)That's the frustrating problem with analysing HP; sooner or later you'll come across a contradiction due to a Rowling error. Sooner, if you're looking at DH. :-)
But as it stands, that line of dialogue means that Hermione did something different to a memory charm, and thus provides a nice little loophole to use to escape your neat logic about Bertha and the rest.
Sorry. :-)
(Blame Rowing.)
Re: Hermione and muggles continued
Date: 2011-02-26 12:38 am (UTC)Because Hermione never lies?
Re: Hermione and muggles continued
Date: 2011-02-26 12:53 am (UTC)Seriously, though:
a. When *has* Hermione lied before - to Harry - anyway?
b. Why would she lie in this case? Other than to support a theory of oryx_leucoryx's?
If there's no reason for her to lie, and nothing comes of it in the series, then she didn't lie.
Re: Hermione and muggles continued
Date: 2011-02-26 01:19 am (UTC)Watsonianistically, Hermione lies either to protect someone or to get something. So either someone else enchanted her parents for her and she is protecting this someone else or she really wants Harry, Ron or someone else who might be listening (Voldemort?) to believe she never did that spell before.
But really, the idea that because she performed some other spell on her parents that spell should withstand Voldemort's Legilimency and therefore be an effective additional protection to Hermione and/or Harry does not make sense. How would she know the limits of Voldemort's power as Legilimens?
So maybe she realized Voldemort started listening to Harry (she was aware of Voldemort's intrusion immediately after the 7P battle) and she told Harry things she didn't want Voldemort to know (about enchanting her parents) and this is her backtracking - no I never did that spell, forget what I said!
Re: Hermione and muggles continued
From:Re: Hermione and muggles continued
From:Re: Hermione and muggles continued
From:Re: Editing Mistakes and such
From:Re: Editing Mistakes and such
From:Re: Editing Mistakes and such
From:Re: Hermione and muggles continued
Date: 2011-02-26 12:54 am (UTC)I just posted but I still don't get what loophole it makes, am confused. Whatever was done to her parents, I thought the main argument/discussion was that they didn't know. OR at least thats mostly what I was refering to in some of my posts.
I dont' know if I myself was in as much of a conundrum over what magic Hermione decided she's never done before. Whatever spell was used on them doesn't change the fact if they knew or not. And the name of the spell doesn't seem to change the fact that it did involve memory.
And the only other points I can remember making right now without looking back is I think I was discussing Hermione knowing that Voldiemort was getting into Harry's mind in OOTP and that Harry and Voldemort knew that Voldemort was getting into Harry's mind in OOTP. Hell, I don't even know if that just made sense, but it sounded cool.
Because Hermione never lies?
I think it's just a dumbass mistake left in because the damn spell Hermione used on her parents could be called, Flippidtydoo Magic-a-Roo.
The fact is in canon we know, Hermione yells at Harry that she 'enchanted' her parents to forget who they are and who she is.
If thats not memory spell magic I don't know what is.
Hermione saying she's never done a memory charm is like Snape saying he doesn't wear black robes.
Re: Hermione and muggles continued
Date: 2011-02-26 12:44 am (UTC)I don't think the type of spell used makes or provides a loophole for anything I was talking about. All I know is she altered their memory - in a general sense, whatever she did to them involved their memory. So the magic woudl be associated with the mind and their memory.
Though I don't know what loophole you're saying the kind of spell makes?
I think the thing I was originally talking about was that her parents didn't know what was going on. I don't know that it makes a difference what kind of spell was used on them in that situation, if they still didn't know. So her saying she doesn't know how to do a memory spell doesn't change that it doesn't look to me like her parents knew they were being zapped.
And If I remember rightly I believe Hermione says she used a enchantment on her parents. I don't have my books in front of me as I'm still at work. I'll have to look when I get home to what exactly kind of words she uses to describe the spell she did on them.
Re: Hermione and muggles continued
Date: 2011-02-26 12:51 am (UTC)But since we know that it *wasn't* a 'memory charm' that Hermione used the argument fails and my girl's intent and motives are still as pure as the driven snow. Whew!
Re: Hermione and muggles continued
Date: 2011-02-26 03:44 am (UTC)I mentioned that Hermione knew what had happened to Bertha Jorkins, and to the Longbottoms as well. The victim not knowing or not consciously remembering something doesn't deter Voldy and crew from torturing the victim or killing him or her. Wiping their memories would have no effect if the DEs came calling except to make poor Monica and Wendell wonder what they'd done to deserve this.
Re: Hermione and muggles continued
Date: 2011-02-26 01:45 pm (UTC)Didn't Voldemort tell Harry what he did to Bertha, in the graveyard he spouted off about it didn't he? Or somewhere I thought Voldie was explaining what he did to her. Or maybe it was to his DE, but at that point I think Harry was there.
So, I would think at some point Harry would have told Hermione OR at the very least Harry told someone what happened and thus I'm pretty sure Hermione knew that bit of information already about Bertha.
The suggestion seems to be that, well Hermione didn't know Voldie could do this magic, or she didn't use a memory charm becuase Voldie can break memory charms.
That just makes Hermione look more stupid IF she's choosing another spell that still looks pretty much to me like 'memory/mind magic' - because we've been show that Voldie is pretty damn good at breaking into people's mind and finding hidden information. So if Hermione purposefully chose another spell with the same general aspects to hide her parents then see seems to be vastly underestimating and at the same time overestimating the DE and Voldemort.
Your point is a good one, seductivedark. I personally don't care what Hermione calls the spell she did on her parents. It's still involved in altering people's memory. Thats some kinda memory magic and we know that Voldie doesn't seem to have any issue with breaking into people's minds, enough to kill them.
Hermione's reason seems to be hide her parents and supposedly protect them from Voldemort breaking into their mind and getting information.
Yet, Voldie would take no pause in breaking into their mind, whatever spell she used. He'd probably just do it for fun. It would not stop him from trying, and/or killing them to get what he wanted.
Thats the part Hermione is underestimating.
Hermione would have been better off going and doing some damn dark magic and put a curse on her parents. That if DE or Voldemort try to hurt them, something bad would happen to whoever hurt them.
Oh snap, did I suggest a good character do bad magic?
Dark spells and magic, I think JKR overrates them. There are pleanty of curses that have done some good things.
Look at Beauty and the Beast for instance, The beast would still be a selfish bastard and a beast if it wasn't for the witch putting a curse on him.
But in JKR's world, curses are done by bad characters - apparently 'enchantments' are done by good characters.
Hermione's Memory Charm?
Date: 2011-02-26 02:03 pm (UTC)She says, "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.
Assuming I survive our hunt for the Horcuxes, 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 kepe them safe and Happy. Wendell and Monica Wilkins don't know that they've got a daughter, you see."
She says she modified their memory, calls it a enchatment but also uses the term CHARM.
So she's never done a memory charm????? She said charm in the description to Harry on page 97 of my DH book.
Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
Date: 2011-02-26 09:47 pm (UTC)"Nor have I," said Hermione, "but I know the theory."
Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione's Memory Charm?
From:Re: Hermione and muggles continued
Date: 2011-02-25 10:05 pm (UTC)