OOTP Chapter Twenty-Seven: "The Centaur and the Sneak"

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

* First of all, sorry this is so late, I'm afraid I've been a bit busy preparing to go back to university.

* This is the chapter in which Hermione officially crosses the line from “occasionally strident and self-righteous but on the whole likeable and sympathetic character” to “dangerous sociopath”.

* “‘A gorgeous centaur...’ sighed Parvati.” I must say that, given the, erm, associations of centaurs in classical mythology, this sort of thing rather creeps me out. Is JKR aware of the implications of what she’s writing? Or did she just throw it in without bothering to think it through?

* Hermione’s dropping dark hints about what Umbridge is going to do, revealing the plot like any good author avatar would.

* So Harry can remember the names of centaurs he met once four years ago, but in DH he won’t be able to remember a face from a picture from one chapter to the next. *coughplotconveniencecough*

* Wow, centaurs sure are arrogant and condescending people. No wonder Dumbledore felt enough of an affinity with Firenze to hire him as a teacher. He recognises a kindred spirit when he sees one.

* If I were JKR, I’d be hesitant to dignify the wizarding conflicts with the term “war”. They’re more like gang wars than what most people would think of as warfare. Which is why epic fantasy doesn’t really mix with a “secret magical people in this world” plot. Epic fantasy generally centres around mighty empires, big wars and bloody battles, but these things are generally quite noticeable, and any wizards fighting in large-scale conflicts would be found out pretty quickly. So the wizarding war pretty much has to be low-key to make it plausible that Muggles wouldn’t know about it, and the end result is that we get a lot of build-up and very little payoff.

* Firenze spends the whole lesson teaching them something which he doesn’t expect them to do anyway, and which is anyway a bit uncertain and useless. So he’s about as good as the average Hogwarts teacher, then.

* “Indeed, Harry sometimes wondered how Umbridge was going to react when all the members of the DA received ‘Outstanding’ in their Defence Against the Dark Arts OWLs.” Only kidding, Harry will be the only one to get an “Outstanding” mark, because he’s a Mary Sue just the most awesome DADA student ever.

* Although everybody always goes on about how smart Hermione is, and from what we see of her she doesn’t seem noticeably worse in DADA than she does in other subjects, so if she only got an “E” in her Defence OWL, that’s probably because Harry’s not a very good teacher... :p

* Seamus’ Patronus “was definitely something hairy”. *mind goes into the gutter*

* Hermione’s Patronus is an otter, even though she’s one of the least otter-like people in the series. On a Doylist level, this is probably because JKR’s favourite animal is the otter, so her author avatar will have one as her Patronus, obviously. On a Watsonian level, perhaps Patronuses don’t represent what your personality is like, but what you need to guard you and keep you out of trouble. So Hermione’s is an otter because she needs fun-loving people around her to stop her getting too serious about everything, Ron’s is a weasel because he needs smart people to compensate for his mental inadequacy, and Harry’s is a stag because he needs a proper father-figure to help him, not an abusive one like Uncle Vernon or a scheming and manipulative one like Dumbledore. Patronuses which change when somebody falls in love show that their caster needs to be loved by their intended in order to feel happy and secure again.

* Dobby appears, wearing “his usual eight woollen hats”. I quite like the suggestion that it was this sight that made Hermione drop her SPEW activities, as she saw that her hats were all going to this one elf, and that they were therefore pretty useless from a freeing people standpoint. (Can anybody remember if SPEW is brought up again in this book?)

* Umbridge is here! I bet it’s times like this that the DA wish they had a second, secret entrance from the ROR. That way they could slip away while Umbridge and her cronies sat uselessly in front of the main entrance.

* Draco’s concealed “beneath an ugly dragon-shaped vase”, to match his ugly and monstrous soul.

* Umbridge has “an indecent excitement in her voice”. I wonder if this is how Hermione would sound to those on the receiving end of her little schemes.

* When I first read this scene, I didn’t really mind the “Sneak” curse, because I just sort of assumed that Madam Pomfrey managed to find a way of removing them after a couple of weeks. Then we found out that she still had the scars years later and... yikes.

* Not only is that extremely vindictive, but it doesn’t actually help the DA in any way. It didn’t stop them being betrayed in the first place, and it didn’t alert them to the fact that Umbridge was coming to get them. If this had been a one-off incident and the curse hadn’t been permanent, I’d be inclined to put it down to youthful lack of thought, but when you compare it to some of Hermione’s other actions (her treatment of Rita Skeeter, or sending those canaries after Ron), it seems like a rather worrying pattern is starting to emerge...

* Minerva gets all self-righteous about Willy Widdershins being let off. I wonder whether she feels the same about Mundungus Fletcher, or whether petty crooks are OK just as long as they’re on her side.

* Also, she’s not above a bit of petty corruption herself, since she lets Gryffindor Quidditch players off homework when a match is coming up.

* So Kingsley memory-wipes Marietta to stop her telling. You know, this is exactly the sort of mentality that leads DEs to Imperius people and get them to do their bidding: not caring about your victims’ autonomy, just violating their minds when it’s convenient to do so.

* Also, if they are going to mind-wipe Marietta, why not do it to Percy, Fudge and Umbridge too? That would get them out of trouble entirely.

* And really guys, Umbridge has a list of DA members and access to Veritaserum. Obliviating one witness shouldn’t be enough.

* I’m surprised Umbridge thought she could get away with manhandling students like that in front of Dumbledore. I mean, that man’s just so concerned about his students’ welfare.

* Hermione left the membership list pinned to the ROR wall. Well done, Hermione. Not that any DA members will point out this idiocy to her. Nor will they point out the fact that her defensive jinx was (a) vindictive and useless, and (b) not told about to them when they joined up. Maybe they’re all worried she’ll brand the word “COMPLAINER” across their forehead if they speak up.

* Dumbledore taking the rap is all very noble and everything, but I don’t see how it’s meant to help. Fudge can still charge the pupils with attending, even if they didn’t organise it, and now Dumbledore’s ensured that he’s going to be on the run and unable to give them any help.

* Face-scarring aside, I actually quite liked this chapter. It was quite well-paced, and I never really felt like I was wading through pages of filler. It will be interesting to see if the other chapters will be more like this now the book’s reaching its climax, or whether the quality will slip back down again.

Comments

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Madderbrad, I hope someone who actually still owns the books can give us a quote - but what I remember is that Marietta's mom's job WAS threatened.

In any case, if I were in Marietta's shoes, and had talked or written to her about a group at school which I'd been dragged to and which worried me, and if my Mom had told me to speak to someone in authority - I would have obeyed my Mom. I would have! And I rather resent the implication that would make me a bad person or a "traitor" who deserved to be scarred for life. It all depends on what you're loyal to. Marietta didn't even want to be in the group, and what Hermione did to her (and, especially, Harry's smirking pleasure at it) disgusted me.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[sunnyskywalker]

I found Cho saying, "You know, her mum works for the Ministry, it's really difficult for her -" and then Harry cuts her off by snapping that Ron's dad does too. So we don't know how she was going to finish that sentence. She also says Marietta's "a really lovely person who made a mistake" and that she never thought Marietta would tell. I didn't see anything later, but I only have paper copies and so am not guaranteeing I didn't miss anything.

So, it looks ambiguous to me. We don't know precisely why that makes things difficult for Marietta (or for her mother?). Could be psychological - she's worried that if they're caught, her mother will be in trouble - or there's an actual threat of "and if any of us hear anything bad from Umbridge about your kids, you're busted, because clearly you must be a disloyal person yourself to raise troublesome kids." Or something else. And we can't be sure that Cho is saying Marietta made a mistake because she thinks Marietta was totally unjustified, or because she's trying to placate Harry any way she can (maybe hoping if he softens up he'll be able to get Hermione to reverse the jinx...) and just doing a poor job of it.

But we can say that it's clear Umbridge is cracking down on everything, and that it doesn't seem too out of line to be worried that she will catch wind of a couple dozen kids holding secret meetings one way or another. Like by having eyes in the corridors somehow.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[dracasadiablo.livejournal.com]

'Don't be scared, dear, don't be frightened,' said Professor Umbridge softly, patting her on the back, 'it's quite all right, now. You have done the right thing. The Minister is very pleased with you. He'll be telling your mother what a good girl you've been.
Marietta's mother, Minister,' she added, looking up at Fudge, 'is Madam Edgecombe from the Department of Magical Transportation, Floo Network office – she's been helping us police the Hogwarts fires, you know.'
'Jolly good, jolly good!' said Fudge heartily. 'Like mother, like daughter, eh?

So, Madam Edgecombe was working for Umbridge and Fudge. I doubt she was in danger of losing her job.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[sunnyskywalker]

Hm, so Umbridge thinks "you'll be in our good books" is an incentive, but we still only see it after the fact, not dangled as a carrot.

What is she policing the Hogwarts fires for, officially? I mean, the students aren't supposed to be using them pretty much ever, right? (Good thing they don't know Harry used the Gryffindor fire to contact an escaped con last year.) I'm not sure what the teachers are supposed to need monitoring for, except that Umbridge is investigating some fishy things the faculty seem to be doing - they've got a mysteriously missing and then mysteriously injured gameskeeper, a drunk Divination teacher, someone on record at the Ministry as being an ex-DE, and Dumbledore, who's been supporting an apparently disturbed juvenile delinquent (see: Aunt Marge and running away from home) who was the only witness to the death of a fellow student last year and is now claiming he saw Voldemort brought back from the dead. Plus last year they had a Ministry head disappear/die on the grounds and a disguised Death Eater teaching the kids Unforgivable Curses with Dumbledore's approval (for the curses) while an Auror was held captive in the castle. If she told Mrs. Edgecomb all that, without mentioning the bits about siccing Dementors on a kid and the blood quills, then it doesn't seem too hard to believe that Mrs. Edgecomb might believe she's really helping monitor a nest of possible criminals, with legitimate probable cause.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[sunnyskywalker]

And of course there was the werewolf teacher who almost ate students two years ago on the same night his former friend and Azkaban escapee disappeared from under Dumbledore's nose, and the teacher who mysteriously lost his memory three years ago, and the teacher who died of not-totally-explained causes four years ago. It's actually surprising they haven't started monitoring Hogwarts more closely before now.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[oryx_leucoryx]

So, Madam Edgecombe was working for Umbridge and Fudge. I doubt she was in danger of losing her job.

We see how she treated her underlings in DH. They were terrified of her.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

Admittedly, she was being probably being allowed more latitude under the new regime.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

"I found Cho saying, "You know, her mum works for the Ministry, it's really difficult for her -" and then Harry cuts her off by snapping that Ron's dad does too. So we don't know how she was going to finish that sentence."

IKR? That was also a problem with Snape in the seventh book, IIRC. Honestly, the fans will villify all these characters on Rowling's behalf, seemingly without realizing that we never get their side of the story in the first place- just the main characters' assumptions!

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[oryx_leucoryx]

Yes, I don't know why Harry doesn't see that Marietta's position is very different from Ron's. Ron knows his father is a member of an extra-government army, is willing to risk his job (and his life) for goals that are against the government's policies. If Arthur had lost his job over his kids' involvement with the DA it would have been a problem for the Weasleys, but the parents would have understood why their kids chose to act that way. Marietta might be willing (very reluctantly) to risk getting herself in trouble, but she really has no business taking a risk in her mother's name.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I'd skimmed the book before making my comment, finding the passages that both sunnyskywalker and dracasadiablo have now quoted to you. We see that Mrs. Edgecombe was already in Umbridge's good books even before Marietta's betrayal of the D.A.

I don't recall anything about Edgecombe's job being threatened; that's why I don't see Marietta as sympathetically as others here. Marietta made the deliberate choice to betray the DA without any pressure on her to do so. It was something she voluntarily did to improve her (and her mother's) standing with the Ministry.

In any case, if I were in Marietta's shoes, and had talked or written to her about a group at school which I'd been dragged to and which worried me -

The thing is, of course, Marietta would have had to have been very very vague about any such communication with her mother, otherwise the jinx would have kicked in at that stage. So she's left with some nebulous instructions from her mother versus the crystal clear agreement that she'd voluntarily signed with the D.A. -

"But I also think,ʹ she took a deep breath, ʹthat we all ought to agree not to shout about what weʹre doing. So if you sign, youʹre agreeing not to tell Umbridge or anybody else what weʹre up to.ʹ

...

Nobody raised objections after Ernie, though Harry saw Choʹs friend give her a rather reproachful look before adding her own name.

Marietta wasn't under any coercion when she voluntarily agreed to keep the secret of the D.A. She likewise wasn't any under any (significant) pressure from her mother or the Ministry to crack.

I appreciate what you're saying ... Marietta might have wanted to get out ... she might have asked her mother for general advice, her mother saying "speak to a teacher" ... but still, Marietta was going back on her word, her agreement to keep the secret. And certainly there were other avenues she could have explored - simply stop going to the D.A., ask to be excluded, etc. She never explored any of these options, never showed any good faith to her peers - she betrayed them all and went back on her word, betraying their trust.

Marietta certainly isn't a 'sociopath' :-) but she's far from innocent in this scenario. Lump in the fact that she was betraying 20+ of her peers under no real inducement to do so other than her wanting her family to remain 'in' with the authorities and I think she's certainly the worst of the actors in this particular play.

(I just wish Hermione had had the good sense to take steps to *prevent* someone like Marietta from weaselling them out, rather than only punish the offender after the act. But poor Hermione was crippled by Rowling's sorry storytelling skills.)

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

Marietta wasn't under any coercion when she voluntarily agreed to keep the secret of the D.A.

It also wasn't an illegal organization at that time, to be fair.

I really don't think we've seen anything that supports the claim that her goal was "wanting her family to remain 'in' with the authorities," either. Keep in mind that:

Madam Edgecombe from the Department of Magical Transportation, Floo Network office – she's been helping us police the Hogwarts fires, you know

...does not necessarily imply that Madam Edgecombe is "in" with the Minister in any significant way. She's a ministry employee; she works in the office the regulates the Floo network. I don't see why the Minister would need for ministry employees to consider it a "favor" to him to do as he instructs.

I mean, just the fact that Sirius was still believed to be a dangerous mass-murderer and free, that they were trying to find him, and that he had in fact gone to Hogwarts two years before provides plenty of perfectly sound reasons to have someone keeping an eye on the Hogwarts Floos, to keep him from getting at the children!

(And even if that isn't Fudge's only reason for wanting the Hogwarts Floos to be monitored, it's enough in the way of legitimate reasons that he doesn't need to consider it anything out of the ordinary to expect ministry employees to do it.)

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

It also wasn't an illegal organization at that time, to be fair.

Good point. So there would have been cause - something changed, post-signing - for Marietta to be worried, to want to get out.

But instead of trying to get out via any means that wouldn't involve breaking her word and getting her schoolmates in trouble - exploring options, speaking up - she just dobbed them all in.

...does not necessarily imply that Madam Edgecombe is "in" with the Minister in any significant way.

Fair enough. In the Ministry's eyes Marietta's mum is just a good employee. Certainly not under threat to pressure her daughter to betray the DA, though (which I've seen in the fanon).

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[sunnyskywalker]

It really all depends on exactly why Marietta thought turning them in was the best option, and we never heard that from her own mouth - and she's been memory-wiped now and might not even remember herself. So:

- She might have wanted to get brownie points. We have no evidence for this, unless you count Umbridge after the fact saying that she'd get them, but that could just be what Umbridge expects everyone would want.

- She might have thought her mom would be in trouble if they were caught, and that they were going to get caught soon with Umbridge ramping up her regime. We have no proof that this would be a reasonable belief, but as Oryx points out, unless Umbridge changed her treatment of underlings radically in DH, there might be reason to suspect that the consequences wouldn't be pretty even if Madame Edgecomb was in Umbridge's good books (which again, we don't know - she could just be known as a good employee generally). This doesn't require a letter from her mom saying "If you happen to be involved in any illegal organizations for God's sake turn them in," just Marietta's belief that they're going to get caught regardless, and that would be bad for her and her mother.

- She might have genuinely feel that the DA was doing something wrong and needed to be stopped. She joined and promised not to tell when it was just a study group (and even then only under pressure from her friend). Once it became illegal, and she spent more time with other members and realized some of them were possibly serious about their anti-Ministry leaders stance and this "Dumbledore's Army" thing and were learning spells to counteract the official government prison guards, she might have thought that at least some of them (Fred and George, eg) were actually trying to turn this into a terrorist organization and were luring the other students in slowly so as not to scare them off. At this point she might have started wondering too whether there was anything fishy about Harry just happening to be around when Quirrell died (everyone knew he ended up in the hospital wing) and Cedric died (and interview or not, she still only has his word that Voldemort had anything to do with it).

- Or, for all we know, she didn't just "stop by" Umbridge's office to tell on the DA on her own initiative. We only have Umbridge's word that it happened that way, and do you trust Umbridge? (Cho wasn't there with her. She wouldn't know.) Umbridge could have heard gossip about Harry/Cho somehow, and called Cho's friend in for a "little chat" to see if she could get any dirt on Harry. And got more than she had dared to hope. We have no indication that Hermione's jinx distinguished between voluntary and coerced confessions. Then she put on her sugary facade once Fudge et al. were around. Granted this sounds a little too clever and subtle for Umbridge.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

Or, for all we know, she didn't just "stop by" Umbridge's office to tell on the DA on her own initiative. We only have Umbridge's word that it happened that way, and do you trust Umbridge? (Cho wasn't there with her. She wouldn't know.) Umbridge could have heard gossip about Harry/Cho somehow, and called Cho's friend in for a "little chat" to see if she could get any dirt on Harry. And got more than she had dared to hope. We have no indication that Hermione's jinx distinguished between voluntary and coerced confessions. Then she put on her sugary facade once Fudge et al. were around. Granted this sounds a little too clever and subtle for Umbridge.

Would she have any reason to lie about this?

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[dracasadiablo.livejournal.com]

I don't think Umbridge was allowed to treat underlings the same way as in DH. Harry was told about her by Arthur, Sirius and (possibly) Remus before she become a professor. If there was even a rumor about mistreatment of ministry workers we would have heard about it.

Or, for all we know, she didn't just "stop by" Umbridge's office to tell on the DA on her own initiative. We only have Umbridge's word that it happened that way, and do you trust Umbridge? (Cho wasn't there with her. She wouldn't know.) Umbridge could have heard gossip about Harry/Cho somehow, and called Cho's friend in for a "little chat" to see if she could get any dirt on Harry. And got more than she had dared to hope. We have no indication that Hermione's jinx distinguished between voluntary and coerced confessions. Then she put on her sugary facade once Fudge et al. were around. Granted this sounds a little too clever and subtle for Umbridge.

Would she have any reason to lie about this?</i? I doubt that she lied. On the contrary, if she in any way "forced" the confession I would expect her to ham it up. To get more kudos from Fudge.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Those are some nice "might have happened" scenarios but it's all speculation, slanted to ease the burden of guilt on Marietta for breaking her word and betraying her peers. With none of these situations do you have Marietta being *forced* to break her promise. No. In each one you've given her some reasons to betray the D.A. ... just like she had a very good reason not to. Marietta had signed the agreement of her own free will, her best friend was one of the members she'd be placing in jeopardy.

I think it's difficult to argue that there was a *strong* reason for Marietta to inform on the D.A. ... because she didn't go through with it after the pimples materialised. If she'd truly thought that "the DA was doing something wrong and needed to be stopped" she wouldn't had dissolved into tears and clammed up merely because she'd looked into a mirror! No, if Marietta was *really* worried - about the D.A., about her mother being affected - she would have actually followed through with her betrayal.

Also I note that even her best friend gave no reason for Marietta's actions. "She's a lovely person who made a mistake" says Cho ... but that's where the rationalisation stops. Harry challenges Cho on this ... and Cho does *not* come back and give us any good reason for what Marietta had done. We're never given the reason; it's probable there isn't (a good) one. Harry and Ron's judgement stands - she's a no-good sneak.

Marietta may have been in an awkward position but she was far from innocent, and thus certainly cannot be used as primary proof for calling Hermione a 'sociopath'.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

Some of this comes down to Lawful vs. Neutral/Chaotic. The law in question was stupid, but Marietta clearly didn't consider the club to be particularly important or worthwhile, either. Given that evaluation of the club, if she's a Lawful type, she's going to be tempted to follow the law.

I also have to say that if I gave my word not to tell anyone about a club, and then the club became illegal... you'd better have me swear again, because the original promise didn't include swearing to be silent about an illegal organization.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Brad, the "breaking her word and betraying her peers bit" - I see it as a girl forced to choose between her peers and her mother. And I don't blame her at all for choosing her mother. I think Hermione's punishment was way over the top.

As I said, I used to like Hermione, too. I don't any more. DH and HBP killed a lot of things for me.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[sunnyskywalker]

...or she worried that if she kept talking, something worse than pimples would happen. We really just do not know, which is my point. You can't say that Marietta definitely had a good reason - but you can't say that she's definitely a no-good sneak either.

Cho might not know the real reason either, depending on how much of Marietta's memory got wiped. She might have a feeling that there is a good reason, based on her knowing Marietta, but not be able to justify it, and tries to split the difference with lovely person/mistake.

I'm trying to translate this into Muggle terms: say you joined a semi-clandestine martial arts club at school because the PE teacher isn't teaching the subject very well, and promise not to tell about it. Would you take this as a super-serious oath, or possibly rank it as low as having a secret handshake? You're a bit nervous to start, especially since the student leader says you really have to know this stuff because he saw Osama bin Laden rise from the dead last summer with help from Daniel Pearl, who was actually a secret Taliban agent all along and is not dead. (You have no proof but his word on this.) The government officials are incompetent/in denial/in cahoots, so you have to take matters into your own hands, basically. Also two of his older friends threaten people with bodily harm. Then the club becomes illegal. Then your club leader starts teaching you how to resist arrest. And then when you tell an authority about this, one of the club members splashes your face with acid so the scars spell out "sneak" for (at minimum) months. It turns out this punishment was planned since the very first meeting, when you thought you were still joining a study club.

Would you call that acid-tosser not so bad really since you were far from innocent?

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Coming way late to the discussion, I know, but reading this comment I'm really tempted to write a fic comparing Marietta and young Severus, with it not being clear until the end that that's what I'm doing/who's who....

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[sunnyskywalker]

That sounds interesting! Because after all, isn't being a "sneak" tattling on the DEs one of the main things that's supposed to make Snape a good guy? And there is the question of exactly what he thought he signed up for (we can guess, but exactly what the recruiting pitch was in the '70s isn't entirely clear - was it always presented as "murder and mayhem, whee!" right off the bat?). So there could be some very interesting compare/contrast.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

"Marietta wasn't under any coercion when she voluntarily agreed to keep the secret of the D.A."

Well, the Twins were quite threatening towards Zach Smith when he questioned Harry's DADA ability, so she probably felt that they'd turn on her next if she refused to sign, especially given their behaviour towards people they don't like.

As for the wider sociopath issue... Looking back on it, I think "sociopath" is probably too strong a term for Hermione. She is able to see other people's perspectives (e.g., when she explains what Cho Chang is feeling after she kisses Harry). However, I'd also say that she's naturally a rather cold and callous (and possibly even sadistic) person, and that empathy doesn't come easily to her. (This problem, like most problems with the characters' personalities, gets worse after GOF.) So yeah, not a sociopath, just very callous and unfeeling.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[sunnyskywalker]

That's about where I fall. Tom Riddle's a sociopath. Hermione is just much worse at this empathy thing than the average person, and I think gets a lot of it trained out of her at Hogwarts. (At least, I think she was a little better in earlier books... but I'm not sure I trust my memory on that because I still liked her then and was probably prone to making excuses for her.)

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

This is about where I stand, too.

Re: Marietta's real crime?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

However, I'd also say that she's naturally a rather cold and callous (and possibly even sadistic) person, and that empathy doesn't come easily to her.

And I can't see it. Particularly the 'sadistic' part. Please show us where Hermione takes pleasure in the torment of others.

Hermione's the most 'feeling' person in the Trio. Way more empathy than the boy with the 'emotional range of a teaspoon' (who isn't a sociopath either. :-)).