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

[mmmarcusz.livejournal.com]

dictionary.com tells me that a 'sociopath' is someone who 'lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience'. That is *not* Hermione Granger. She's the one out of all the characters who worries the most about the plight of the other magical races, the muggle-born and so forth. Who fights - like the rest of the good guys - Voldemort and the Death Eaters. She's not a sociopath, nowhere close.

I also find "a lack of empathy and remorse, shallow emotions, egocentricity, and deceptiveness" or "a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others."

Hermione's also the only character who keeps people imprisoned in jars or engages in relationship violence. And her method of "saving" the house-elves did not involve engaging with them, studying them, learning about them, just trying to set them "free" with the assumption that they'd be fine afterwards.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Like Madderbrad, I used to love Hermione, and I was a Harry/Hermione shipper. But Hermione, like Harry, becomes a thoroughly unpleasant person in the last couple of books. However-

She is not the only person who indulges in relationship violence. James Potter does, too. His actions toward young Severus, in SWM, are also abusive to Lily because they are an attempt to control her by harming someone she cares for. Don't forget that James also threatens Lily physically.

As I've said elsewhere, Rowling does not model healthy relationships in these books.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

Don't forget that James claims to have reformed while still cursing Snape behind her back (although it's dubious how much she'd have cared post-SWM).

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Like Madderbrad, I used to love Hermione, and I was a Harry/Hermione shipper.

You were? Good show!

I admit I cooled off a lot with the canon character too, from the publication of book 6. But it's just yet another indictment of Rowling's poor writing and characterisation in the last two books ... in order to make her poor R/Hr work she had to desperately drag poor Hermione *down* to Ron's level. Killer canaries, confunding a fellow student for Quidditch - QUIDDITCH! - abandoning Harry and so forth.

Poor Hermione. :-(

Thank goodness for fan fiction, which has allowed me to remain a H/Hr shipper.

His actions toward young Severus, in SWM, are also abusive to Lily because they are an attempt to control her by harming someone she cares for.

True. What's the word for that, I'm blanking on it at the moment. Not 'blackmail', but using Snape as a 'hostage' for Lily's favours I guess. Not really a long-term ploy but still nasty.

Don't forget that James also threatens Lily physically.

I've forgotten that one; where does it happen?

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Also in SWM. "Ah, Evans, don't make me hex you." We are clearly meant to think that Lily is James' equal in a fight; he's looking warily at her wand, - but, "don't make me hex you." As if a girl defending her friend was responsible for the acts of the attacking boy! Classic, classic abusive behavior; blaming the victim.

And it really worries me that so many Marauders fans absolutely do not see this.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Ah, thanks. Clearly not one of James's finer moments, although we're told he got better in his senior year(s) I think.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Only when Lily was looking. He still hexed Severus when she wasn't around.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

We're told a lot of things.

We are told

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

We are told specifically by Sirius and Remus that James got better.

Not precisely impartial witnesses.

And "we are told" this after Harry explictly rejected Sirius's claim that what Harry had actually witnessed James (and Sirius, Remus, and Peter) doing should not be considered as reflecting too badly on them.

(Harry, everyone's an idiot when they're fifteen, so you can't hold it against your father that he acted badly then--I'M FIFTEEN NOW, so I CAN.)

And with the caveat, not volunteered but extorted by Harry, that any supposed "improvement" never extended to James's treatment of Snape.

But with fresh excuses why it should not have.


At Marionros's urging and after a discussion on Snapedom of the signals James sent as a potential girlfriend/spouse abuser, I tried my hand at writing a fiction portraying James as such.

For this, I channeled the personality of the real-life abuser of a friend of mine, a former housemate (the former-ness part of his successful campaign to isolate her from friends, family, and support before he descended from emotional to physical and sexual abuse). I was authentically quite shocked at how easily canon!James's activities and characteristics slid into my friend's abuser's profile.

If you want to read that story, it's here:

http://terri-testing.livejournal.com/7569.html

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

You're trying to push a very heavy wheelbarrow uphill. :-) While Hermione has her faults (although mainly in book 6, where all the kids suffered from Rowling's pushing the obnoxious Ginny into the limelight so blatantly and badly) they fall way short of any definition of 'sociopath'.

'Shallow emotions' - the girl who toiled for weeks trying to mount a defence for Buckbeak. Who went it alone on her (misguided, but sincere) quest to free the house elves from Slavery. Sorry, no.

'A lack of empathy' - the girl who sticks with Harry when he's faced with betrayal by his best mate, who accompanies him to the grave of his parents, who's the one out of the Trio who is able to put herself in Kreacher's shoes when he gives his tale about Regulus. Sorry, no.

'Deceptiveness' - the girl who, out of the three, insists that they NOT lie to Griphook about the disposition of Gryffindor's sword. Sorry, no.

'A pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others' - well, that doesn't apply to her putting up her jinxed agreement for the D.A. to *voluntarily* sign. Accepting their 'right' to sign or walk away. Nor her catching Rita Skeeter in a criminal act and *temporarily* incarcerating her in a jar. Sorry, no.

Hermione's also the only character who keeps people imprisoned in jars -

After capturing her (not 'people', just one person) in the act of a crime. And keeping her in a jar for only a few days. Following which she voluntarily releases that person.

Just one person, for a few days, after catching her in the act of a crime. No 'pervasive pattern' of the sociopath here!

... or engages in relationship violence.

Again, just the one time with the killer canaries. And as others have noted, she's sadly not the only person pushed to nastiness with her supposed 'soul mate'. Blame Rowling (who seemed only able to paint her 'romances' using negatives, like violence and jealousy), not Hermione. :-)

And her method of "saving" the house-elves did not involve engaging with them, studying them, learning about them, just trying to set them "free" with the assumption that they'd be fine afterwards.

All of which means that Hermione is misguided in her altruistic attempts to improve their lot in life. Which is still way on the other side of the fence from being a 'sociopath'.

[oryx_leucoryx]

But Hermione does often show lack of empathy. Her argument with Lavender about the rabbit, her reaction to Ron's fear for Scabbers, her idiotic remarks about Fleur in GOF.

After capturing her (not 'people', just one person) in the act of a crime. And keeping her in a jar for only a few days. Following which she voluntarily releases that person.

Only because she has something with which to blackmail her (and thus to in fact become an accomplice to the original crime). If you want to claim Hermione performed a citizen's arrest she should have brought Rita to the authorities. Since she did not she had no business capturing Rita.

[sunnyskywalker]

She didn't even turn Rita in to Dumbledore. Hermione was still clever in GoF, so I just don't buy that it didn't occur to her that Dumbledore might want to know that a journalist who is apparently tight with the Malfoys had just overheard all their plans about sheltering an escaped con and starting some sort of extra-governmental resistance group. Why withhold information potentially damaging to one of the authority figures she trusts most and potentially to herself (if Rita causes trouble some way other than publishing which can't be traced back to her)? Unless blackmail really was her top priority.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

She sometimes shows empathy, sometimes doesn't. A 'sociopath' doesn't have a social conscience full stop, right? Hermione is just a normal girl (okay, she's an amazing wonderful girl and the heroine of the series; refer to icon :)) who is sometimes rude/uncaring. If that intermittent behaviour is proof that one is a sociopath then I think most of the planet would be in that category.

(For what it's worth I'm on Hermione's side when it comes to Lavender's bunny. Oh, I'm not a sociopath, I should mention. :-))

[oryx_leucoryx]

Whether Hermione was right or wrong about the value of Sybil's prediction, she was inconsiderate of Lavender's feelings in the way she cared more about who was right about the prediction than about the fact that a classmate was mourning her pet.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Sure, technically Hermione wasn't considerate of Lavender's feelings. But she also was irate at the girl's lack of logic, and didn't want Lavender to be brainwashed by Trelawny. Inconsiderate on the one hand, trying to help on the other. Not even Hermione is perfect, I suppose. But she's not a sociopath either.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

As far as the lack of empathy thing, you forgot what she did to her parents in book 7. Unforgivable.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

What she did, not that you forgot it. lol...