![[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: 2011-10-10 04:30 am (UTC)And what if this is the kind of society where you can be attacked by a werewolf and it's totally your fault and you have to keep quiet about it? Where you only reluctantly tell your friends what's happening in detention with Dolores? Where you have to man up and keep secrets, never crying or admitting weakness, no matter how badly abused you are?
I don't want to defend Marietta in many ways, because I would probably do worse than the Trio for DA-type enthusiasm (though I'd probably out-Zacharias Smith everyone, too), but I am willing to try to see a point of view in which Marietta isn't completely evil. It isn't that hard, actually. I'll concede weakness and fear and confusion and inability to communicate with her friend (shared by almost everyone in HP), but base cowardice and toadyism... not so much.
And as for her learning her lesson, did she? Her mind was wiped and who knows what she really learned? I learned that the future Minister of Magic is willing to wipe a minor's mind to protect what you call a study group.
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-10 04:40 am (UTC)Yes, we all seem to have spread out a bit from what's actually known.
I am willing to try to see a point of view in which Marietta isn't completely evil.
Same here. I hadn't thought much of her case and had assumed she was pretty much 100% sneak. There's been some good points raised here which have shown me that she "isn't completely evil".
But she's a long way off from complete innocent too, which I think some folk here have been trying to portray her as.
And as for her learning her lesson, did she? Her mind was wiped and who knows what she really learned?
I'm sure she would have asked Cho and others for information once she realised that she'd been obliviated. That's a pretty save assumption to make. Suddenly got acne that says 'sneak' and don't remember why? Or the past half-day? Of course you'd ask questions.
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-10 05:03 am (UTC)If they were compassionate or angry, who knows what they would have told her? Probably something like people here are saying: "You made a mistake, you were worried about your mother and about doing something illegal, and that um... sociopath, maybe? ... Hermione Granger made sure you'll pay for it for the rest of your life without even telling you in advance so you could find another way to ease your conscience. So, I think she's really the sneak in this situation."
I have been writing a story where Marietta was jealous of Cho's attention to Harry and not to her, and that was part of her motivation for telling on the DA. The precarious employment situation of her mother was another factor. Totally not supported by canon, but not ruled out, either. I have no emotional investment in the argument about Marietta. It's just hard for me to get behind a black-and-white reading.
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-10 06:16 am (UTC)Well, we know that Cho was compassionate, and still Marietta's friend, so she surely would have told her what she could as to why she was being shunned and had the word SNEAK on her forehead.
Totally not supported by canon, but not ruled out, either.
Hmmm. I'm not sure. That it's not ruled out.
After all, Cho can't come up with a reason for Marietta doing what she did when she tries to make peace with Harry later. And Cho appeared to be making an effort to make amends.
It's possible that there were reasons for Marietta to do what she did, but with that Cho scene we're given the opportunity for such to be supplied to Harry and the reader. And they're not.
So I see it as being more probably than not that Marietta's reasons for turning Judas were not as altruistic or significant as what we would have liked.
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-10 05:19 am (UTC)That isn't quite my position. I want to show that that reading is *possible* and *legitimate*. I think that there are also a bunch of other readings which are also possible and legitimate.
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-10 06:22 am (UTC)Well, I think a "Marietta is totally innocent and shares no blame" reading is very very improbable, arguing uphill and thus not legitimate. You've got to wave away even the slightest requirement for her to pay any attention at all to her DA promise, you've got to assume she was a Ravenclaw mushroom who knew nothing about Umbridge's detentions, you've got to make her out as a law-abiding goodie two-shoes with no allegiance to her peers at all, a girl who cheerfully betrayed her best friend with no regret, and then conjure up other 'possible' things, like pressure from mum, which were quite unlikely, given as how Cho has the chance to tell us all about such later on the express ... and doesn't.
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-10 06:47 am (UTC)you've got to make her out as a law-abiding goodie two-shoes with no allegiance to her peers at all
For Ravenclaw-types, it's often about the ideas, not the people. Trust me; I know whereof I speak.
a girl who cheerfully betrayed her best friend with no regret
Provide quotes for "cheerfully" and "without regret," please. Actually, also "best," since if Marietta had another, equal or better friend who wasn't willing to go to DA meetings, we'd never hear about her.
and then conjure up other 'possible' things, like pressure from mum
1. I personally don't believe that that's necessary.
2. Are you taking this quote into account?
She laughed. Her friend Marietta looked at them rather sourly and turned away.
ʹDonʹt mind her,ʹ Cho muttered. ʹShe doesnʹt really want to be here but I made her come with me. Her parents have forbidden her to do anything that might upset Umbridge. You see ‐ her mum works for the Ministry.ʹ
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-10 10:43 am (UTC)Okay. So Marietta is a Ravenclaw law-abiding goodie two-shoes with no allegiance to her peers at all.
Provide quotes for "cheerfully" and "without regret," please. Actually, also "best" --
I'll retract the "cheerfully" and "without regret" and say that Marietta is a girl who cold-bloodedly, deliberately, with consideration, chose to betray her best friend.
Regarding the 'best friend', we can infer that at least that's the case from Cho's side, even if it's asymmetric.
Regarding the pressure from mum, yes; mum was in London, Marietta at Hogwarts, mum didn't know about the D.A. No active pressure. Just a standing order to not upset Umbridge. Which Marietta knew all about when she signed up.
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-10 11:19 am (UTC)Not necessarily. Probably not, even. When do you think Marietta received that standing order? When Umbridge became a professor? When she was put in charge of evaluating the professors? Or when she started coming out with all of the other educational decrees?
Because when Umbridge became the Hogwarts High Inquisitor, all she got were the "powers to inspect her fellow educators and make sure that they are coming up to scratch." Not any new powers over the students, and there weren't any signs that she was looking at *student* behavior, at all. I don't know why parents would be warning their kids not to step out of line because of *that* decree.
It isn't until the day *after* the first meeting of the DA that the first of the educational decrees concerning the students came out, banning student organizations that haven't been approved.
Also, the decree after that, Umbridge arranges for a decree giving herself "supreme authority over all punishments, sanctions and removal of privileges pertaining to the students of Hogwarts." These two decrees sound much more like the kind of things that would prompt parents to tell their kids not to upset Umbridge.
So no, now that you mention it, I don't believe that Marietta had any such standing order when she signed up.
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-10 05:00 pm (UTC)It is not an unreasonable position to value the law above people she barely knows. Especially if she arrives at the conclusion the law actually makes more sense than what those people were demanding of her. As for Cho, maybe Marietta thought she was doing her a favor, rescuing her from those rebellious Gryffindors. Syre, she might get her friend expelled (which was a lesser deal for a post-OWL, of-age student) but she might save her from getting killed as a rebel (if that's what she thought the DA might lead to, we'll never know).
Why Cho doesn't bring up more defenses besides 'her mother is in the Ministry'? Probably because whatever she knew was not something Harry would want to hear, or because it was something she'd be embarrassed to admit to. Like Marietta believing the DA was a dangerous organization. Or that the reason Marietta came at her urging was because Cho was too embarrassed to be around Harry alone and wanted Marietta's presence for support (see her confusion when they practiced disarming).
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-10 08:39 pm (UTC)Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-11 07:21 pm (UTC)So, you'd think more highly of her if she did it impulsively, or without thought? Where are you going with this?
chose to betray her best friend.
Look... I don't know whether Marietta *is* Lawful the way I'm extrapolating, but for the moment, let's work with that reading. If Marietta has a fairly Lawful personality, then Cho betrayed their friendship *first* -- by dragging Marietta along to illegal meetings of an illegal organization.
In fairness to Cho, I can't imagine that *she* saw it that way. However, while I doubt that I'd actually do what Marietta did, in her place, at least not without pressure on other people I cared about, I would feel betrayed by a friend who pressured me like Cho did.
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-11 08:13 pm (UTC)Was Marietta's change of heart because the spells the group was learning were getting too suspicious - whether by their potential use or by being outside the scope of age-appropriate curriculum? Because of the relative cooling off between Cho and Harry after Valentine's Day? Because of something she heard from her mother or Umbridge at some point (probably after the Quibbler interview got published)? Hmm, maybe Umbridge put more pressure on Ministry workers involved in surveillance because Harry somehow contacted a journalist.
Whatever it was, people act on motivations. If Rowling can't give a coherent motivation to her villains I can't accept they deserved their punishment. Case in point - Peter. At least in POA-GOF. I think most of Rowling's villains can get off with an insanity defense.
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-10 06:10 am (UTC)She forgot all the DA meetings but the first one at the pub. And who knows what else.
Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-10 06:12 am (UTC)Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-10 06:19 am (UTC)Re: Marietta's real crime?
Date: 2011-10-10 06:18 am (UTC)She is a person who changed her mind, and now has no ability to say why. (IMO keeping her punished after she lost memory of her actions through no choice of her own is the worst part of the whole thing - it completely makes a mockery of the concept of responsibility.) But Hermione is a criminal, guilty of assault.