deathtocapslock | GOF Chapter 8: The Quidditch World Cup

If 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

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

madderbrad.livejournal.com

Well, Hermione's flat out saying, in black and white, that she's never done a 'memory charm' means that what she did to her parents *wasn't* a memory charm. And it was a memory charm that Riddle broke on Bertha.

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 ...

From:

karentheunicorn.livejournal.com

Hay guys, I'm still trying to figure out. When/what book chapter does she say she's never done a memory charm? Is this in DH? I'm guessing yes since thats the point all this discussion is around - but I'm not sure where the comment is so can someone clue me in.

From:

oryx_leucoryx

In DH, in the cafe scene, just before she Obliviates the 2 DEs.

From:

karentheunicorn.livejournal.com

Thats got to be a mistake by the editors and JKR.

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.

From:

danajsparks.livejournal.com

Is it at all plausible that she confounded her parents instead? I think that's somewhat different from a memory charm.

From:

madderbrad.livejournal.com

Thats got to be a mistake by the editors and JKR.

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.)

From:

oryx_leucoryx

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.

Because Hermione never lies?

From:

madderbrad.livejournal.com

Shush, you. :-)

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.

From:

oryx_leucoryx

Doylistically, I agree this is an editing mistake. But the funnest fanwanks are around editing mistakes.

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!

From:

danajsparks.livejournal.com

oh! What about if she actually did remember that Voldemort could be listening when she told Harry about what she did with her parents and that was the lie? In reality, she never did perform a memory charm on them and she sent them to, say, Canada, but she told Harry she'd wiped their memories and sent them to Australia in order to protect them. :)

From:

madderbrad.livejournal.com

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!

Ha ha ha!!! Nice one! Very clever (and amusing).

That explains the extra lines that are in my copy of DH:

"Oh, Harry, and what I said earlier about my parents?" said Hermione, tugging at Harry's sleeve, "they're not *really* in Australia. No, that would be cruel. They're in - uhm - NEW ZEALAND, right. And their names are John and Janice Adams!

"Oh, and Harry?" Hermione continued, with a slightly manic look on her face, "I really don't think Death Eaters are all *that* bad, you know? Everyone has their bad side. Even Voldemort, well, I can see his point, you know?" She stepped forward and looked directly into the stunned boy's eyes. "Yes, I think Voldemort might very well have a point in his battle against the corrupt Ministry! A matter on which he and I might be in full agreement! In certain ways Voldemort and I are on the same side!"

Well, I tried.

From:

karentheunicorn.livejournal.com

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.

Ou, Ou, Ou (raises Hand) Can I pick Snape, Professor Oryx?

That actually would have been cool if it was someone else that did it and Hermione was protecting that person (whoever it would have been); to bad JKR didn't come up with that because it would have put the whole situation in a way better light and I could have respected the 'good' guy characters a little bit more.

If that was her plan, if that is at all possible I think JKR would have pointed out who it was at some point. I think JKR was just lazy and either it never crossed her mind or just didn't give a damn about the Grangers. They were in the way at that point and just needed to be 'taken care of' so as not to cause any issues in the story. So, she drop kicked them to austrailia.

Hell, even Lupin and Tonks got drop kicked so she could have an orphan at the end; and she basicly explained in an interview something to that effect. I'm saying it a bit harsly but thats what I got from the comment about the Lupin Family, their death and their sons appearance in the epilogue.

Not say that that might have not been important, to see some kinda parallel between Harry the orphan and Teddy the Orphan (or whatever that kids name was, because it escapes me right now), but I personally didn't see enough of the kid to get any super orphan connection feeling or get enough of a parallel between the two to make me feel good about the situation.

Anyway, Maybe Snape fixed up Hermione's parents and she was protecting him the whole time - maybe thats why she looked back at him when they were all leaving the shack after he was murdered.

From:

karentheunicorn.livejournal.com

Ohh yea, and I would say

Doylistically = a realist would say it's an editing screw up.

Watsonianistically = a writer with a good imagination would say...

Incidently, another possible editing mistake is in Kings Cross = where Dumbledore agrees that his intention is that Snape would end up with the elder wand. Yet we have other places that suggest he wants the power to die with him. I reread that part again last night:

(Dumbledore talking) For him the Elder wand had become an obsession to rival his obsession with you. He believed that the Elder Wand removes his last weakness and makes him truly invincible. Poor Severus..."

"If you planned your death with Snape, you meant him to end up wiht the Elder wand, didn't you?"

"I admit that was my intention," said Dumbledore, "but it did not work as I intended, did it?"

"No,"said Harry, "That bit didnt' work out."

So, we have this dialogue where they're both talking about the Elder wand and talking about Dumbledore's murder being planned.

So, how was Severus going to get the Elder Wand? To what purpose would he take the wand or know to take it, or know if it was important to take?

It makes you question, did Severus know; it's hard to believe Dumbledore told him anything about the wand because we don't see Severus using the wand.

And at the end Harry is telling Voldemort that dumbledore planned his death with Severus so, Dumbledore was going to die the true master of the wand, because he wasn't really defeated, because the death was planned.

So, in one instance we've got Dumbledore agreeing with Harry that he intended Snape to have the wand. Then at the end we've got Harry saying Snape wouldn't have had the wand because the death was planned.

So, which is it really?

From:

oryx_leucoryx

Well, at the very end I think portriat!Albus agrees with Harry that if he dies undefeated the power of the Elder Wand will die. So either Albus planned for Severus to get a useless Elder Wand or he only realized after his death how that would turn out.

Re: Editing Mistakes and such

From:

karentheunicorn.livejournal.com - Date: 2011-02-27 04:05 am (UTC) - Expand

From:

karentheunicorn.livejournal.com

LOL, OMG, the greatest witch of our time lies...heaven forbid.

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.

From:

karentheunicorn.livejournal.com

I don't remember bringing up Bertha in any of my comments; maybe you're replying to someone else.

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.

From:

madderbrad.livejournal.com

Oh, sorry, it must have been someone else. It was pointed out that Voldemort had circumvented the memory charm that Crouch Sr. had put on Bertha Jorkins. And thus Hermione's putting a memory charm on her parents served no useful purpose in protecting Harry & Hermione ... and so she'd done it simply to force them to emigrate, etc.

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!

From:

seductivedark.livejournal.com

I don't remember bringing up Bertha in any of my comments; maybe you're replying to someone else.

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.

From:

karentheunicorn.livejournal.com

Yea, I knew someone else had made the comparisons, but I didn't want to take credit for something I didn't write or come up with myself.

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.

From:

karentheunicorn.livejournal.com

I went and looked at the text when Hermione is explaining what she did.

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.

From:

madderbrad.livejournal.com

"You're the boss," said Ron, sounding profoundly relieved. "But I've never done a Memory Charm."

"Nor have I," said Hermione, "but I know the theory."

From:

karentheunicorn.livejournal.com

Yes, I get that she said, "Nor have I,"

But the fact that she says she thinks she did a good enough charm earlier in the book seems to suggest otherwise. Considering this charm she did on her parents involved altering 'memories', she says memories in reference to what the charm affected.

I still say it's something that slipped through that shouldn't have been there because it doesn't quite make sense that she did some sort of memory charm on her parents, but later is saying she doesn't know how to do them and only knows the 'theory'.

I think that is just a prime example of a editing mistake because Hermione can't say she's has no experience with that kind of charm and be capable of doing such an alteration on her parents. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

From:

madderbrad.livejournal.com

Yep, we're both stuck in a Rowling singularity. One of many.

But as long as that 'nor have I' sentence is there neither of us can prove that the other is 100% correct. Who's to say that Hermione calling her work a 'charm' wasn't the Rowling error?

(Face it; if Rowling was tasked with fixing this error, do you think she'd remove that word 'charm' from your quote, or instead elide the 'nor have I' thing ... which would then kick in the whole topic we're talking about, that Hermione's wiping her parents served no real purpose anyway? Okay, the repercussions would have to be pointed out to Rowling, she wouldn't see it herself, but once it was explained to her I think I know which way she'd go ...)

From:

oryx_leucoryx

I'm not sure why it matters. Either Hermione altered her parents' memories or she didn't, and if she did then either they consented or not.

So scenario 1: Hermione never altered her parents' memories, the whole story was a ruse for the sake of Voldie. I'm mostly OK with such behavior, the only iffy thing is mentioning the fake-fake identities she claims to have given them, because if there happens to be an Australian couple with those names they are at risk of being tortured and killed. I agree the odds are extremely slim.

Scenario 2: Hermione modified her parents' memories with their consent. Why would they agree? We agreed that memory modification does not protect the parents. So perhaps they agreed thinking the modification prevents the DEs from using them to find Hermione and/or Harry. Are they justified in believing that? More importantly, is Hermione justified in believing that? Voldemort is the strongest living British wizard in the area of mind-related magic. What makes Hermione think he couldn't see and break through her spell? And of course, the memory modification doesn't prevent the DEs from using her parents (or anyone they suspect as being her parents) as bait to lure her or her friends into a trap. So the memory modification is only useful if DEs suspect the identity of her parents, they are captured, the DEs interrogate them but upon failing refrain from both bringing the parents to Voldemort himself and from using them as bait. In all other scenarios there is no difference between the outcome with or without memory modification on top of a non-magical fake identity.

Scenario 3: Hermione modified her parents' memories without their consent. This scenario has all the problems of scenario 2 with the additional problems of non-consent.