![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
for-diddled.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
deathtocapslock* 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’sa 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.
* 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
* 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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-01 04:20 pm (UTC)Is there anything in books that supports this?
Even when she is defending her Cho only says "She made a mistake". She doesn't try to to offer any mitigating circumstances, or attempts to share the blame "Harry, it's my fault too. I knew she was unhappy but I kept dragging her to DA."
Nothing. Just that she made a mistake. To me that sound like Cho had no idea about it before.
But even if she did, Marietta's a horrible friend. She could have warned Cho not to go on that meeting when she knew Umbridge will bust it.
As for Dolores pressuring her - it could have happened any time earlier. It could have been an on-going thing, if Umbridge caught on that Marietta is unhappy about her friend. And that night was when Marietta finally broke down.
I don't buy it. There would have been hints the size of a anvil about Umbridge pressuring Marietta everywhere.
And it doesn't work with the timeline.
The DA meetings were extremely erratic. There's no way Umbridge just happened to question Marietta just in time for that meeting.
And even if she wanted to it wouldn't have worked. If the meeting was shortly after dinner kids have had to go straight to RoR on the seventh floor of the Hogwarts castle.
Going from the great hall to the seventh floor, without attracting too much attention, takes time. Everybody was on a tight time schedule.
If Umbridge randomly decided to talk with her, Cho or somebody would have seen it.
So, Marietta had to ditch Cho shortly after dinner and go straight to Umbridge.
The way I see it it had to be done voluntary. Exactly the way Umbridge told it.
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-01 05:15 pm (UTC)Once I look at it this way I can sympathize, because I know how manipulative guilt can be. These techniques really work in the real world.
Cho explicitly says Marietta was there because *she* made her come (chapter 18) for the first practice session. I don't see why that would change. If Marietta had really been there to gain as much as possible she would have delayed outing the group a few months more.
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-01 06:50 pm (UTC)To me it's very clear that Marietta, out of her free will (and quit possibly guilt and fear), went to Umbridge.
I just can't see Umbridge pressuring or hounding her until she cracked.
Therefore, I see her as a bad friend. :)
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-03 10:21 pm (UTC)I find your arguments persuasive. Cho and Marietta were very good friends even after the betrayal; thus I find it difficult to believe that Marietta would have dobbed in the DA when she knew that her good friend was with them at the time! And I agree that Cho would have mentioned any extenuating circumstances - had there been any - when she spoke to Harry on the train. Clearly she wanted to be in Harry's good books, if there were any mitigating reasons for Marietta she would have mentioned them.
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-03 11:22 pm (UTC)Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-04 12:08 am (UTC)That's also open to interpretation.
To me it looked like she was quite willing to tallk with Harry as long as it takes to mollify him.
Up until he said that he's proud of Hermione. Then she started acting like a jealous girlfriend and it went downhill from there.
And sure, she doesn't know everything but Marietta was Obliviated not Cho. She still remembers any and all conversations about DA they had.
And she says that she never dreamed Marietta would betray them.
So, I can't see any mitigating circumstances aside of "her mom works for the ministry" and "she never wanted to be there in the first place".
And o.k. Ron's dad is a not a good example. But how about Amelia Bones? She's a high-ranking member of the Wizengamot and Susan Bones's aunt.
After that hearing at the begging of the book Umbridge would probably be ecstatic to have something to blemish her reputation.
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-04 01:04 am (UTC)Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-04 02:38 am (UTC)I see enough to at least give her the benefit of doubt. We know too little. See sunnyskywalker's response above.
And o.k. Ron's dad is a not a good example. But how about Amelia Bones? She's a high-ranking member of the Wizengamot and Susan Bones's aunt.
After that hearing at the begging of the book Umbridge would probably be ecstatic to have something to blemish her reputation.
Surely having an errant niece can't reflect half as badly on Amelia as having an errant daughter would on Mrs Edgecombe? This is the society where first cousins barely know each other. Also, considering that Amelia is DMLE head she outranks Dolores and probably has her own connections. She is more likely than Mrs Edgecombe to be capable of beating Dolores at this politics game.
Hey, I wonder if Amelia and Dolores were at school together. Maybe it's a very old rivalry.
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-04 12:17 am (UTC)If Marietta has been a good friend up until that point (and she did go to the meetings with Cho, so maybe Cho sees that as supportive), then it doesn't seem too hard to believe Cho would think that Marietta must have had good reasons for what she did, probably something at least indirectly connected to Ministry pressure, even if neither of them know the details. Certainly it doesn't seem like Cho thought Marietta coldly sold her out for a harsh punishment (suspension or expulsion or something) for personal gain. And Cho knows Marietta better than any of the other characters, so we can't totally discount her judgment. (I forget, did they ever pass on to the whole DA that Umbridge had had a spy in the Hog's Head? Maybe Cho thinks Umbridge did lean on Marietta in the days before the incident until Marietta cracked and went in to confess, which Cho sees as an understandable mistake. And although Cho doesn't know it, it isn't like Umbridge hasn't neglected to mention crucial details - like sending out Dementors - in the past, and in fact in that situation used omission to give the misleading impression that Harry just blasted of a Patronus for kicks which she knows isn't true, so she isn't the most trustworthy source for the whole truth about how things happened.)
Harry cut off Cho mid-sentence when she was talking about Marietta's mom, so we have no idea what else she might have said, or whether it would have helped or hurt Marietta's case.
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-01 05:34 pm (UTC)ʹOh, no,ʹ said Cho hurriedly. ʹNo, it was only… well, I just wanted to say… Harry, I never dreamed Marietta would tell…ʹ
ʹYeah, well,ʹ said Harry moodily. He did feel Cho might have chosen her friends a bit more carefully [...]
ʹSheʹs a lovely person really,ʹ said Cho. ʹShe just made a mistake ‐ʹ
Harry looked at her incredulously.
ʹA lovely person who made a mistake? She sold us all out, including you!ʹ
ʹWell… we all got away, didnʹt we?ʹ said Cho pleadingly. ʹYou know, her mum works for the Ministry, itʹs really difficult for her ‐ʹ
ʹRonʹs dad works for the Ministry too!ʹ Harry said furiously. ʹAnd in case you hadnʹt noticed, he hasnʹt got sneak written across his face ‐ʹ
That was a really horrible trick of Hermione Grangerʹs,ʹ said Cho fiercely. ʹShe should have told us sheʹd jinxed that list ‐ʹ
Cho frankly seems more upset at Hermione than at Marietta. Granted, some of that may be that she thinks Harry is interested in her, but even if that's *all* it is, it means she doesn't see what Marietta did as worse than happening to be someone her boyfriend is interested in. So, not especially terrible.
Also, "Harry, I never dreamed Marietta would tell" doesn't necessarily mean that Marietta never expressed doubts, just that Cho didn't think she would act on them like that. Heck, Cho would be more likely to say something like that if she felt that she should have known Marietta might tell... perhaps because Marietta *had* expressed doubts.
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-01 06:57 pm (UTC)To me "I never dreamed Marietta would tell" means exactly that.
That Cho had never seen any indication that Marietta would do something like that. She's surprised by it, and thinks Marietta made a mistake but she's still defending her friend.
I also think that Cho is unrealistic. "Well… we all got away, didnʹt we?" means nothing.
They could have all been caught, had their wands snapped and been expelled.
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-02 03:10 am (UTC)Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-03 10:23 pm (UTC)Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-03 11:33 pm (UTC)So either Charlie left after OWLs directly to Romania in 1990, at the same time that Bill finished 7th year or he left in the middle of his 6th year after he came of age in December.
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-04 12:16 am (UTC)Umbridge probably had dreams of doing it for a year.
About Charlie, it could be one more example of "Oh, math".
Molly said : "I don't believe it! I don't believe it! Oh, Ron, how wonderful! A prefect! That's everyone in the family!" So, Charlie probably was a prefect too.
And if he was then he probably also was a good student. He also was a Captain of the Gryffindor Quidditch team, so I don't think he left early.
I think JKR just messed up the number again.
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-04 02:29 am (UTC)(Of course it's an 'o-maths' moment, but it still works.)
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-06 12:01 pm (UTC)I understand the first bit of proof - using Bill's Hogwarts history - I don't get the Ginny bit though, sorry for being dense. I don't remember her quote either. Did she say that she'd wanted to go ever since Bill *started* going ... and you deem her to be too young at age one to have remembered that?
Thanks for the info, it's great stuff! You amaze me with your canon knowledge.
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-06 01:53 pm (UTC)'I'm going to be expelled!' Ginny wept as Harry helped her awkwardly to her feet. 'I've looked forward to coming to Hogwarts ever since B-Bill came and n-now I'll have to leave and -- w-what'll Mum and Dad say? '
(The trick isn't to know canon by heart, it is to have read all these things on the web and know where or how to find them.)
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-07 09:46 am (UTC)Empathy deprivation
Date: 2011-10-07 03:47 pm (UTC)(Though, as with high-functioning autistic people, the very brightest can use their brains to figure out what they THINK others should be thinking and feeling.)
Re: Empathy deprivation
Date: 2011-10-08 12:29 am (UTC)Then, once the kids have been "softened up" by the drugs, they get rewarded socially for having the right hateful attitude, which gives them more confidence, thus enhancing their power. Alternatively, they could be fed a power-enhancing potion as a reward for becoming the people their society wants them to be.
Of course, drugs aren't necessary for this scenario. The brainwashing that takes place in a hermetically sealed social system would work the same way. I can't think of a single canonical example of someone being rewarded or praised for being empathetic, concerned about non-magical people or other species, or associating with someone of another House. Seven years of having the virtues of selfishness and callousness pounded into your head would warp the personality of just about anyone.
Hermeticaly sealed; drugs not necessary for brainwashing
Date: 2011-10-08 07:01 am (UTC)Would their appalled relatives prefer the children were safely dead and uncorrupted, or living and cherished, but taught values their parents would have despised? ...
Brainwashing is brainwashing.