Oh, TV Tropes...!

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

Quite honestly, the Harry Potter stuff on that site has gotten to the point where I can't read it because just about everything is fawning over how great and super-special-awesome the series is, oh, and how Snape is an evil douchebag who wanted to get Harry and James killed so he could keep Lily. But this... this makes me want to scream:

"Hermione... [is] one of the smartest and more pro-active females in the whole Harry Potter canon and English literature in general"

WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!

How could they make such a claim?! Hermione is a better heroine than, say, Tiffany Aching?! How about Eliza Doolittle?! And I'm sure you could come up with other examples.

No, no, in Harry Potter it seems fairly obvious that the most powerful women in the series are antagonists. Sure, Hermione's perfectly independent and capable, but in the last several books it's like she becomes Harry's servant because he's too lazy to do anything himself!

God damn it, Harry Potter wouldn't bother me so much if everyone didn't insist it was the greatest thing since sliced bread!

Comments

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Hey, most of the 'Hermione is a sociopath' folk on the other blog post have backed off on that assertion (okay, 2-3 of them, including the author of the entry) so I figure I'm fighting the good fight on her behalf and making progress. :-) Hermione cut some corners to get things done but one has to turn a blind eye to a LOT of her canon traits to get within a whiff of 'psychopath'!!

A single instance of name-calling during extreme duress is NOT the most damning thing one can do.

Maybe I wasn't very clear in my earlier comment. I agree with you on this.

Let's just say that he only worthwhile thing that little narcissistic bint ever did was dying for her child.

That was basically her sole job in the books after all. A pity it was done so badly, with Rowling's wave-the-hands-please-look-away-OH-WOW-OLD-MAGIC-PROTECTION deus ex machina.

A bit like Snape, dying in order to protect a child who hates him.

True. But don't forget that the child hated him ... because of the way Snape treated him. Something of a circle there.

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

Hey, most of the 'Hermione is a sociopath' folk on the other blog post have backed off on that assertion (okay, 2-3 of them, including the author of the entry) so I figure I'm fighting the good fight on her behalf and making progress. :-)

Er...

For what it's worth, I am simply not invested in whether she's a sociopath or not. I clarified my position because other people were, and I deliberately chose not to clarify my position *earlier* because you took a similar statement from someone else as a concession. As you're kind of doing here. Permit me to state: Boo.

I've seen enough evidence to think she has serious empathy issues. Exactly how far they go, I'm not sure. I'm still considering the evidence there. You aren't seriously considering the evidence, though, from what I can see, and that's kind of frustrating.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Wow, good points here. It is pretty frustrating that Snape is demonized in the text for merely being a strict, if snarky teacher. I mean, if that's all it takes, then I am pretty sure quite a few of my former teachers are totally depraved, heartless individuals who are still out to get their former students years after the fact.

One wonders how Harry was treated in the muggle school system to have developed such bizarre ideas about his teachers' unfairness in actually requiring him to be well-behaved and prepared.

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

The Muggle school system probably treated him roughly the same way as Snape (this assuming he even went to school). Harry thinks that if he's in the Muggle world, he's guaranteed to get treated very badly, and so he expects the Wizarding World to be different and gets angry if it's not.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

You had me thinking with this, because sure, Snape did, like, save Harry's life there once or twice.

In the end I guess it's more reason to dislike Harry. For example, he ended up hating Snape with a passon at the end of book #5, yet we're told that the potions master had done all he could to notify the Order about where Sirius was. Harry was an idiot on that one; I remember thinking that when I read it.

Yet Snape also was part of the overall problem in that book. A grown man allowing his enmity for the boy's father to colour his 'teaching' the lad legilimency, thus allowing the whole mental attack thing to succeed.

And he was a nasty git overall. Wouldn't it have been nice if Snape had been a man big enough to step beyond his petty hate of Harry's father? Was there a solid canon reason for that? It's not like he had to 'pretend' the hatred as an act for Voldemort or anything.

I agree that Harry wasn't totally balanced/correct on his hatred of Snape, but there *were* grounds to dislike the man too.

I found the Malfoys the most sympathetic characters (after Snape and Percy) of the series, if only because the 'heroes' are so bloody awful!!

The 'heroes' weren't perfect but I think leaving them for the (evil) Malfoys is something of an extreme reaction. I mean, the 'heroes' included HERMIONE GRANGER, how could anyone leave her??!????!?!?!? :-)

[sunnyskywalker]

The Occlumency lessons puzzled me. Is "clear your mind" actually the best, most practical instruction you can get? In that case, the effort was pretty much doomed no matter what, wasn't it? But even then Snape did give Harry a backhanded compliment or two, iirc - something like "it wasn't as bad as it could have been for a first attempt." So it seems like initially it was kinda sorta almost working, if unpleasant. Some of the comments Snape makes during the lessons are hard to interpret (like, "who did the dog belong to?" was not described as a taunt, iirc, and for all I know might have been a glimmer of sympathy from Snape, or at least not antagonistic). But it's hard to say, overall, how the lessons were on the balance, especially since we have no basis for comparison on what the usual teaching methods are or how Harry's doing (it isn't like we ever see McGonagall or Lupin trying to teach Occlumency, or Bellatrix teaching Draco).

Kicking Harry out after Harry started prying in Snape's memories in the Pensive, though, I can understand. It isn't just about emotion (although I'm sure that's a factor too): depending on what else Snape put in there, Harry might stumble on something that reveals Snape's true loyalties, which would endanger Snape's life, since Voldemort is peeking into Harry's mind. If Harry can't be trusted, then what are they supposed to do - sacrifice the only agent in Voldemort's circle for lessons which are only partly successful at best, to no other purpose? It's a tough spot they're in.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

"Clear your mind" and "it's similar to resisting Imperius" are better than "I'll cast Imperius on you until you get it right" and Harry learned pretty well there.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Considering that Harry had a Voldievision right there, in his first lesson, I doubt Severus could have afforded to do anything more overt.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

It's also worth noting that we don't actually know how effective such advice is because Harry *doesn't regularly practice it.* He tries once, IIRC, and then gives up. He doesn't seek out more detailed advice - from Snape, from Dumbledore, or from the library - he just gives up.

I, however, am personally of the same opinion as Jodel RE the lessons as a whole: to wit, that there was something else going on that year (Watsonian view - Doyalist is clearly that JKR's a hack who didn't think it through). Because the way it's set up, the very un-Slytherin emphasis on the contents of the Pensieve (Snape couldn't do it ahead of time and hide the blasted thing?), the *impossibility* of Snape being seen to have *effectively* taught Harry (recall that Voldemort knows he's teaching the boy, and would expect him to make only minimal effort)... none of it adds up right for me.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

I've also noted that the M&NM, himself, says absolutely nothing to Harry about James until Harry's third year, when he catches the boy sneaking out of the castle at a time when he's the target of a supposed mass murderer. IMO, Severus's remarks on how Harry is extraordinarily like his father are completely justified in this instance.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

In trying to determine how accurate the "it's all about James" reading is, I find it telling that he only brings up James when he is comparing specific behaviors of Harry's to James' behavior. And in a way that suggests that behaving like James is not the way to go. This tells me that he isn't acting so much out of wild hatred as he's trying to teach Harry *not to behave that way* and that he thinks using the example of his father is going to stand a chance of *getting through* to Harry.

Of course his wording my be influenced by some residual negative feelings - not surprising given that these are moments when Harry explicitly reminds him of James - but it's a far stretch from that reading of a few particular events to the assertion that everything he ever does or says to Harry is motivated only by an unreasoning hatred of him due only to his parentage. And not, say, legitimate frustration of a teacher dealing with a disrespectful, lazy and inattentive student. Or the need as a sleeper spy to put on a highly visible display of wanting nothing to do with the son of the Muggleborn woman whose life he had begged Voldie for and then not received. Or even, the pain of being confronted day in and day out with the living reminder of the woman he loved, had been treated badly by and had accidentally gotten killed. I'd say it's probably not one thing, either. There's a lot going on in his head, and Harry doesn't exactly have the greatest track record of reading Snape correctly.

As to the topic of lingering feelings regarding James in general: what never gets pointed out is the fact that he's a spy and an Occlumens, who knows that he will probably have to face Voldie again when he returns and had better have a convincing case to set out when he claims to be a still-loyal Death Eater. His feelings about James and co were likely known to Voldie, and quite possibly played a greater or lesser role in his joining up in the first place. Given this, it makes a lot of sense for him to decide that a good strategy would be to go back to Voldie and show him that his feelings are still quite genuine and he's still basically got the same attitudes he had as a teenager. Therefore he not only would not attempt to "get over" the James thing completely, he would make sure to fan the flames from time to time so as to keep a little spark alive. It's not like being in his position would *allow* him the space to do the sort of psychological housecleaning that others get - not when his credibility as a spy basically rests on the contents of his head.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Sorry, didn't want to take up your time.

Now we know that the 'schoolboy grudge' was not about 'being better at quidditch' but about being systematically bullied and harrassed and nearly murdered by the boy's father and his cronies for seven years.

*Whatever* the reason for Snape's hatred of James ... it's still a fact that he was a nasty git to James's son. You've tried to paint Harry as 'misbehaving' in Potions, but that's not really correct; I don't believe Harry did so at all. Certainly his behaviour was within normal parameters for children, which a good teacher should have been able to handle without personal attacks and insults, etc.

Knowing all that, why do people still regurgitate old and outdated opinions that have been PROVED TO BE WRONG?!

Because Snape's case is one of the few things that Rowling got right?

It's funny ... I discovered deathtocapslock around the time of Montavilla's excellent sporking of DH, and I know there are many here who happily criticise Rowling and all of her bad writing. It's sort of discontinuous when we broach Snape territory and some here switch over to the canon side. I get dizzy. :-)

Basically you and Rowling are much of an accord when it comes to Snape, right? She tried to keep his allegiance a mystery until the end, when it was revealed that he was on the side of the good guys. In order to keep the mystery and doubt going for seven books she tried her utmost to make him unlikeable ... to Harry and we readers. Seven books of nasty git behaviour and Harry going overboard on his reciprocating hate.

And then, at almost the last page, we find two things that showed that he was honestly a 'good guy' - that "those I could not save" line, and the fact that there was a period there, after Dumbledore told him that Harry was destined for sacrifice, that he no longer had the reason - that had kept him going for so long - protecting Lily's son - to continue. Yet he didn't break away from Dumbledore, but kept to the plan.

I dunno. Do you think Rowling erred in not making the proof of Snape's motivation more 'obvious'? I recall noting the "those I could not save" thing but didn't realise there was an interval where he didn't have protecting-Lily's-son to keep him driven; that was pointed out to me by another fan.

On the other hand ... 'Albus Severus'. You can't get more obvious than that as to what Rowling wanted readers to think.

I still stand by what I said before. I acknowledge that Snape was on the side of the good guys. And that it appears he was thus even without the obligation/promise to save Lily's son.

I also note that Harry's hatred of Snape - which Rowling needed to drive home to keep her mystery going for seven books - was lopsided, exaggerated or unwarranted in places.

But Snape was still a nasty git. And a bad guy at the start, please remember. They don't hand out Death Eater badges for reciting poetry, after all.

I guess one reason why I just scoff at Snape's rendition and turn away is because I found the whole loves-Lily thing, as rendered by Rowling, too weak to hold the weight it was under. Pretty hard to believe, that a man would keep going under duress for 18 years due to an unrequited crush on a girl who not only spurned him but married his worst enemy. Plus I don't believe that Snape truly 'loved' Lily - I've mentioned that before in this community. So for me the whole issue of Snape has holes in it. I do acknowledge that the official canon line is that he was redeemed by the end, though.

But he was still a nasty git. :-)

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

'Boo', hey? YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!

:-)

A couple of people on that other thread started out saying "Hermione is a sociopath". By the end they were saying okay, she's not a full-on sociopath, she has merely displayed some traits - on occasion - that are consistent/shared with a sociopath.

I call that progress on the we-love-Hermione front. :-)

Please note that we all share traits with sociopaths. We all breathe oxygen, for example. No, seriously, some of the Hermione-is-a-sociopath evidence just shows that Hermione was willing to take a harsh action for a good cause/reason. But nothing saying that tomorrow she'd strike out as a full-blown sociopath and spread that action across all and sundry.

I honestly don't have a problem with Hermione's dumping Umbridge to the centaurs, for example. The woman was a sadist, tried to kill Harry with dementors, was about to torture him. If there'd been a lever handy in the castle wall with a sign saying "pull this to remove Umbridge" I'm sure Hermione would have taken that 'softer' option. As it was her author only gave her the choice of either (a) letting her best friend be tortured or (b) rescuing him. She took option (b). Good on her, I say. Umbridge deserved whatever she got. And please note - Hermione DID NOT take that action to wreck vengeance on Umbridge. She took action to save her best friend.

(Umbridge's punishment was collateral.)

I've seen enough evidence to think she has serious empathy issues.

Nah. You've seen Hermione under pressure trying to do the right thing. Sometimes we can see that she could have done better - but that's easy with hindsight. Also, sure, she's not perfect. But we can admit this without going all the way over to the extreme SHE'S A SOCIOPATH setting.

You're also ignoring all the cases where she HAS displayed empathy.

[oryx_leucoryx]

My position on Hermione is that she engages in enough behaviors worthy of a sociopath that whether or not she is in fact a certifiable one doesn't matter. If I knew that anyone I interact with IRL did anything on that level I'd stay away from such a person because it is impossible to know when one might find oneself on the receiving end of her self-righteous vindictiveness.

As for Harry, if he ever paid attention he'd realize his behavior earned him Severus' ire. That other teachers let him get away with stuff they shouldn't have doesn't mean Severus owed him that.

Severus and Harry's eulogy

[urbanman1984.livejournal.com]

Perhaps Harry did realise that after Snape was dead. Absence makes the heart grow fonder after all. Maybe he would have regarded Snape more favourably during his lifetime if Snape had been an Alan Rickman look alike! Then we would have been subjected to gushing descriptions from Harry about how ruggedly handsome he was.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

If I knew that anyone I interact with IRL did anything on that level I'd stay away from such a person ...

Ah, I think I see one of the biggest differences between us.

See, when I map the goings-on of the books into 'real life' and then hit a discontinuity I shrug my shoulders, note it as yet another example of Rowling's poor writing and move on. In other words, it's the author's credibility/worthiness as a writer which crumples first in any chain of 'extrapolation' that I employ in my mind.

But you soldier on. Your particular joy in your HP reconstruction work is to take Rowling's words more seriously, you soldier on where I've said "oh, Rowling's a bad author" and stopped. And so you get to these more 'extreme' positions where poor Hermione is a budding sociopath whom you'd eschew with extreme prejudice in the real world, etc. You're taking Rowling at her written word and mapping the books straight into real life without adjustment nor attenuation for what is a work of (poor) fiction.

I think that's a mistake. Because (a) Rowling just isn't that good a writer; we KNOW she didn't think all these things out, from her interviews and such. And (b) the books - and Rowling - just didn't have the depth, the detail, that you're expecting. It's like putting an electron microscope to bear on a brick; we're supposed to just see the brick, but you're picking up fractal patterns in a microscopic world of quartz molecules far removed from the brick's purpose/placement.

*considers that he could have come up with a better metaphor* :-)

I do think you still tend to 'amplify' those negative things that Hermione is seen to do and not similarly mark her up for all of her good deeds and emotions. But that's because you're trying to redeem those nasty death eaters too. :-)

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Um, but Madderbrad? What you are criticizing us for where Hermione is concerned is EXACTLY how you're reading Snape. You don't cut him any slack at all. There is no evidence in the text, for example, that he actually hates Harry because, after all these years, he still hates James. But you don't give the man any slack at all, while you bend over backwards for Hermione.

I used to love Hermione in the first two or three books. In the last three, she became a horror. Well, in my humble opinion, anyway. In the meantime, I was pretty much vindicated in my interpretation of Snape (I'd been a Sev/Lily shipper from POA, and it was glaringly obvious that he killed Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders.)

Just my two cents.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

You don't cut him any slack at all.

That's not true. Somewhere here I wrote just a few hours ago as to how Harry's hatred for him was unbalanced/unfair, viz blaming Snape (totally) for the death of Sirius.

while you bend over backwards for Hermione.

Likewise, not true. I acknowledge Hermione's faults (one or two new ones I hadn't realised the last few days in the 'sociopath' thread!). But I acknowledge her redeeming traits too. Some here damn her with the negatives and filter out the positives entirely, it seems.

In the last three, she became a horror.

No; she did a couple of horrid things. Big difference. And she did lots of good/positive things too, you know.

... it was glaringly obvious that he killed Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders.

Yes, even I'd seen that after putting HBP down, I think.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Sorry, I'm just going on what I'm shown. I am shown Hermione doing terrible stuff. Even when she could have easily been written as a better person. She could have reversed Marietta's curse later in the year, she could have expressed horror at how Umbridge ended up - neither of these changes would have mattered to the plot, only to her characterization.

And wrt the DEs, I'm going on what I'm shown too. Some are ruthless killers and torturers, some clearly don't have it in them. For Severus there is of course more evidence in favor.

Rowling had hundreds of pages, I don't see why she should get away with 'Death Eaters - evil!!! doom!!! an 11 year war!!!!' without actually writing it.

[sunnyskywalker]

But by that logic, you could also say that any action which seems to show Hermione having empathy was also the result of bad writing one way or another (she wrote Hermione as teary-eyed at Plot Point X because it popped into her head as something girls do in the movies, or something), and therefore can't be used to say anything definitive about her character. She might have intended to portray Hermione as a troubled, highly-strung girl who very occasionally has some good impulses peek through, and you're just mpaping those incidents of bad writing - tears-as-cliche for a vague girly emotional reaction, juvenile self-important impulse to do Great Things and lead a Moral Crusade - straight onto real life, without adjusting for the bad writing, leading to an extreme position where Hermione is a paragon of morality.

You could read her consistently as a deeply troubled kid who occasionally has good impulses and suffers through lack of good guidance, in which case the good impulses would be the discontinuities, and then you'd have to consider tossing them out as writing mistakes ;-)

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

I think that the common denominator here is that JKR is not a good enough writer to clearly portray her one way or the other. I wonder if her cruel acts aren't more of a result of JKR trying to make her more edgy or badass, and her cliched tears added in because "hey, she's female, right?" On the whole, I'm starting to think that her characterization is too inconsistent to be able to make a case for her being either a sociopath or a warm, caring girl.

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/I wonder if her cruel acts aren't more of a result of JKR trying to make her more edgy or badass/

I think that that may be it. I remember JKR saying that Hermione would ‘loosen up’ in the last three books. Maybe Hermione’s behavior was a result of JKR trying to make her less of an uptight stick-in-the-mud.