Marietta's Real Crime

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

In the discussion about "The Centaur and the Sneak", Dracasdiablo made a very interesting point. She stated that Marietta was a bad friend to Cho. After thinking about this for a while, I have to admit that I actually agree. The quotes that follow will, I hope, make clear why I think this.

Those of us who know and love the Narnia books will remember this scene. Lucy, a young girl on the cusp of adolescence, has been given a dangerous task. She must go into a magician’s study and find a spell to make the invisible visible. The book she must read has a mind of its own, and some of the spells it shows her are very tempting to her. Having struggled bravely against one temptation, she gives in to another. She uses the book to listen to what two of her friends are saying about her:

"Shall I see anything of you this term?” said Anne, “or are you going to be all taken up with Lucy Pevensie?”

“Don’t know what you mean by ‘taken up’,” said Marjorie.

“Oh, yes you do,” said Anne. “You were crazy about her last term.”

“No, I wasn’t,” said Marjorie. “I’ve got more sense than that. Not a bad little kid in her way. But I was getting pretty tired of her before the end of term.”
(Dawn Treader, page 129)

Lucy is, of course, furious, and begins shouting at the book, forgetting for the moment that her friends can’t hear her. Shortly thereafter, she finds the spell she was searching for and reads it. Then Aslan comes to her.

“Child,” he said, “I think you have been eavesdropping.”

“Eavesdropping?”

“You listened to what your two schoolfellows were saying about you.”

“Oh that? I never thought it was eavesdropping, Aslan. Wasn’t it magic?”

“Spying on people by magic is the same as spying on them in any other way. And
you have misjudged your friend. She is weak, but she loves you. She was afraid of the older girl and said what she does not mean.” (Dawn Treader, page 132)

What has this to do with Marietta and Hermione? I think it lays out exactly what Marietta’s sin is. Like Marjorie, she is weak and gives in to peer pressure, against her own conscience. This is what puts her in a position where she will be forced to betray someone no matter what she does.

It’s very clear in OOTP that Marietta doesn’t want to come even to the first DA meeting. She’s there because her friend, Cho Chang, dragged her there. Like Marjorie with Anne, Marietta doesn’t stand up to Cho and tell her she isn’t coming. Like Marjorie, she gives in. Marietta signs a parchment even though it’s clear she has doubts. Like Marjorie, she is weak, and rather cowardly. Had she stood up to Cho and stayed away, or had she not signed the paper, she would have betrayed no one.

And Dracasdiablo is right. In giving in and not speaking her mind, Marietta is a poor friend to Cho. Basically, she succumbs to peer pressure, but makes her resentment clear. I can emphathize with her, but also with Cho. It isn’t Cho’s fault that Marietta fails to express her doubts. It’s Marietta’s. She really does do wrong; there’s no doubt about that.

But here’s the thing: succumbing to a friend’s pressure is all too human, and all too typical of young teens –whether they are 11or 12, like Marjorie, or 16, like Marietta. It’s a failing. But is it the sort of fault that merits being scarred for life? I don’t think so.

If you think about it, the whole Marietta episode shows us two contradictory messages about teen peer groups. On the one hand, Marietta is weak, like Marjorie, and should really have followed her conscience from the outset, rather than following her friend. On the other, she sides with adults against her peers – in schoolboy/schoolgirl parlance, she’s a tattletale. Which of these apparently contradictory crimes is she actually being punished for? The book makes it all too clear. She’s not punished for her real crime – being weak. She’s punished for the secondary act, which is, apparently, unforgivable. It’s unforgivable, in the Potterverse, for a teen to side with adults against other teens.

But the peer group is not sacred. As I said before, I cannot think it automatically wrong to “betray” a group of peers rather than one’s mother. And we need to judge the characters based on what they know in the story. We know, as readers, that Harry is telling the truth and that Voldemort has risen again. Characters in the book can’t be sure of this. They have to judge based on what they know of Harry. What does Marietta know? That her friend likes him. That’s really all we can state definitely. The second thing we can state is that the club was legal when Marietta joined. It wasn’t legal any more when she betrayed it. Circumstances had changed, and, in the real world, that is often enough to void a contract.

Summing up, I can see Dracasdiablo’s point. Marietta is indeed weak. But, if I were forced to choose between her and Hermione, based on their actions regarding the DA – well, I honestly have more sympathy for Marietta.


The quotes from The Voyage of the Dawn Treader are taken from the MacMillan Hardcover edition, 6th printing, 1965

Comments

[oryx_leucoryx]

I find it odd to have a lengthy discussion of Marietta's crime, when even in the adult world and even if there was never a change in circumstances and if everything had been specified etc Marietta would have at most committed a civil offense of breach of contract, whereas Hermione is the one who committed assault, which is indeed a criminal offense.

Marietta is guilty of being less strong than Neville. Hermione does not have the higher ground even in this regard, considering how she often folds if Harry disagrees with her.

[sunnyskywalker]

Even weirder because Hermione herself acknowledges permanently marking someone's skin as a problematic thing to do when she distinguishes between the Dark Mark and her coins. And the Dark Mark, while definitely creepy, is a voluntary permanent mark, which both parties know about in advance. I could totally understand the DA shunning her and calling her nasty names, or shooting Tripping Jinxes at her in the halls, or even having some sort of ink-based version of the "sneak" curse which wears off after a week or two. Not nice, or useful for prevention, but more on the scale you would expect for the offense, and the ink-sneak would probably still be enough to scare her so that she would reconsider talking further (since she wouldn't know what might happen next). They want punishment and vengeance? Fine, but there's options that don't involve scars.

Marietta was waffly, and I might actually have respected her more if she had turned in the DA right away rather than months after it became illegal. If you're inclined to be generous, maybe she was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt and only decided she had to do it when she heard they were going to learn to fight the official government prison guards... but we don't know either way, and she does seem like whatever her principles are, she isn't very strong-willed, at least not for good friends, and authority figures who are her mom's co-workers in a situation were her limited knowledge of the situation really might make Harry and his DA look shady.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Yes - as Oryx said above, her real crime is not being Neville. And I don't see how Hermione gets a pass for what she did in response. I hadn't - somehow - noticed before that she comes up with the snitch hex AFTER discussing how evil it is that Voldemort marks his servants' skins! Good point.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

One wonders if that's where she got the idea, says my cynical mind. I like Hermione, but she's ruthless.

[sunnyskywalker]

We know she was thinking about the Mark... you know, I had assumed when she said the coins were "better" than marking someone's skin she meant better as in "not so creepy and Dark Lord-ish," but maybe she just meant that the Dark Mark made it too easy for DEs to be identified. I really hope I'm wrong!

I've also started wondering just how much Cho and Marietta talked about the DA in private. Cho knows Marietta is stressed about her mom, but is that through observation and guessing, or did they talk about it? And after, say, a few months in the DA, did Marietta really start resenting Cho for just ignoring all her concerns about her mom and whether there was something off about Harry and this whole organization and insisting Marietta keep supporting her quest for Harry? It isn't like she would remember now, and Cho's apparently the only one being nice to her after the event, so we'll never know what the dynamic was now.

[oryx_leucoryx]

There is also the fact that twice in the past Hermione was humiliated by magic affecting her face so she knew from experience how effective that would be.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Oryx, we were having a lengthy discussion on the other thread. I posted here because Dracasdiablo's comment - that Marietta was a bad friend to Cho - sparked this in my mind. Why was she a bad friend? Because she didn't stand up to her. She gave in, twice, to peer pressure, rather than following her own conscience.

That's it. That's all. Marietta displays a simple human failing. What Hermione does to her in response really does look psychotic, when you think of it this way.

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

I definitely agree, sunny. Completely. :)

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Nice analysis, and I think you hit on a very important point.

The thing that gets to me about the Marietta/Hermione thing - enough that I've purposefully not let myself get very involved in the discussion on the other thread - is the framing of the argument in false terms: evaluating the morality of what Hermione did soley on the basis of whether or not we can consider Marietta "a traitor." There's the issue with the "traitor" part that you've dug into here, but there is also a bit of an assumption (in the other discussion/s) that Marietta's guilt or innocence is the only variable that matters in determining whether or not to criticize Hermione. That upsets me.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that I side with the "Marietta should never have said anything!" crowd (I don't - my take is much closer to yours - but for argument's sake). Even taking that stand I still have to criticize Hermione for her utter lack of empathy or respect for basic human rights. The set-up was unfair and impractical, given that there was no mention made of the consequences beforehand and did nothing to prevent telling. But it's also grossly out of proportion, cruel and unusual punishment, and Hermione's assumption that she has the right to do whatever she likes to another person without remorse because of her 'cause' disturbs me deeply. It's clear to me that to Hermione, as to many of the other characters, people only really count as people if you like them.

This comes through in her treatment of Umbridge also. I'm not talking about the choice to go into the forest - that I can understand and see good arguments for, on the whole. It's her behavior afterward. I don't care what someone has done, you *do not* laugh at another human being's trauma. Especially trauma you caused, however justified it was at the time. That steps over the line from defence of self to simply seeing another person as a lesser being. I see the same dynamic at work in her RE Marietta. I think we know where to find the next quasi-sociopathic dictator of the WW.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks, Condwiramurs. I agree with with you here, also. The lack of empathy Hermione displays in both these instances is appalling.

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

Yes. This comes out more with our discussion of Umbridge (who obviously is at fault). I've been focusing on discussing Marietta, rather than Hermione, but this is an important point in any discussion of Hermione's behavior with her jinxed list.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Yes, thanks. I tend to think about it in terms of an ethics of justice vs an ethics of revenge - and the HP books really IMHO come down on the side of an ethics of revenge. I ought to do a proper post on the subject, but time, arg.

[the-bitter-word.livejournal.com]

I think both Cho and Marietta were bad friends to each other, in varying degrees, throughout the DA's existence. Neither seemed to be particularly concerned for the other in the actions they took. They didn't seem to be communicating in an upfront manner about their worries or real interests. But, like you say, they were human and these are things humans do, as is forgiveness. Over-the-top, one-sided, sneaky and pointless retribution, on the other hand, is a little disturbing. It just serves to reinforce the notion that some people should be shamed, some should be feared, and some get to make those decisions on behalf of everyone else. Magic is might!

It seems the worst thing you can be in Rowling's world is a traitor. Even Severus, who risked quite a lot to go to Dumbledore and tell him of Voldemort's plans (not that Dumbledore really did anything) had to pay for his decision to "tell." If I remember, one of the Marauders said that during their schooldays, Severus was always trying to find out what they are doing so he could inform on them. (Whether this is true or not, who knows? He didn't tell his best friend after he was attacked by a werewolf, after all, although she wasn't listening -- possible Marietta and Cho parallel for me. Anyway, Severus was given the reputation as a tattletale, deserved or not.) The thing is, the Marauders were roaming the countryside with a fully-transformed werewolf. They admitted it was lucky someone didn't end up injured or dead. So, would Severus have been wrong to tell Dumbledore about them (not that Dumbledore would have done anything)? Lupin, on the other hand, kept his friends' schoolboy secrets well into adulthood. Was he the better person for it?

I see cases now where students are acting peculiarly in schools and other students are turning them in because they fear these students are learning how to shoot guns or make bombs. Are the people who inform on these disaffected students wrong to have done so? It's actually hard for me to say, but I don't think peer pressure is the most important consideration when making the decision.

Great evils can occur in closed groups where keeping secrets is the top priority -- see religious cults and political cells, for example -- but keeping secrets on behalf of bullies and other violent abusers occurs on a daily basis. When Rowling was asked what advice she would give to someone being bullied, she said to go to an adult or authority figure. Her books preach the exact opposite, however, the code of the playground or something. Keeping secrets reinforces the power of abusers (not that authority figures always do something about abuse).

I'm wondering if those who are so upset at Marietta would feel the same towards either Crabbe or Goyle had they informed Dumbledore of Draco's activities in the Room of Requirement (not that Dumbledore would have done anything). In fact, look at Dumbledore, who kept his secret about Grindlewald's ambitions... how much damage might have been prevented had he just told the truth and right away?

We don't really know what Marietta thought when she told Umbridge about the DA. Without that knowledge, I can't condemn her out of hand.

[sunnyskywalker]

They're reluctant even to tell about things the authority figures they don't like are doing wrong (unless it's Snape), which is weird. What if Harry had told another teacher - McGonagall or Flitwick, say - about Umbridge's blood quill instead of trying to hide it even from his friends? I mean, I think it's probably an accurate dynamic for a troubled, abused kid who's now run into a new abuser, but then, he isn't the only victim of the blood quill, and none of the other kids seem to tell either. What's up with that? Is the school culture so bad that kids expect to be physically injured by teachers as a matter of course, and that complaining will not get them any help and might get them in trouble? And more importantly, why doesn't the book ever address the issue in any way? Even Harry realized he could have called Sirius with the mirror, so why didn't anyone go, "Gee, maybe if we'd tried talking to McGonagall, Umbridge might have been publicly disgraced ages ago and we would have had a lot fewer problems, oops"?

Yeah, I think we just don't have enough information on what Marietta did, said, and thought for the last few months and when she turned in the DA to make any definitive judgments. And if she isn't proven guilty of being a horrible person, I can't consider her one.

[the-bitter-word.livejournal.com]

Is the school culture so bad that kids expect to be physically injured by teachers as a matter of course, and that complaining will not get them any help and might get them in trouble?

Actually, I wonder if teachers at Hogwarts encourage students to come to them with complaints no matter how devastating the subject matter. When Harry brings his dire concerns about about Snape to Hagrid and Dumbledore, he's brushed off as talking nonsense (which he is). Does he confide in other adults? He tells the Marauders some things, but their interest in having Harry like them makes them poor guides. He sees an ally in Fake Moody, so there's an unreliable adult there. He tries to tell Snape one thing, then loses confidence in him. Of course, Harry's not hated for his failed attempts to try to tell/get information from adults.

It goes to the whole lesser status of minors in general, and the staple of youth literature, the plucky kids who have to make it on their own in the face of adult indifference or incompetence. But even if teachers don't have a chance to prevent harm, teachers will use recent examples to get their students to think about issues. After the fact, do we hear of any teacher condemning either Hermione or Marietta? Well, that's probably just poor writing -- the story line was over, except for the mirth at the continued scars, and most teachers were largely irrelevant. Just look at Charity Burbage.

I think MJ59 is right, it's the viewpoint of never tell an adult anything, whatsa matta can't take it, never betray your gang. So you get this polarized and violent secret society with a triumphalist mentality, where Hermione prevailed so she was right all along, and never mind the damaged or dead. Winner!

Compare this to Draco, who apparently tells his parents when he gets injured and is roundly sneered-at for it, then goes to an even bigger adult authority and gets a killer gang initiation. Loser.

I sometimes wonder what kind of messages these books send to young readers about right and wrong, might and cooperation. I've heard some not-so-good things from teachers, actually.

[oryx_leucoryx]

I sometimes wonder what kind of messages these books send to young readers about right and wrong, might and cooperation. I've heard some not-so-good things from teachers, actually.

You have actual examples of students inspired by the HP books to questionable behavior? I'm interested to read about that.

[sunnyskywalker]

So am I. There's been actual instances of kids internalizing bad messages? I would have hoped they'd just ignore it and focus on the trolls and dragons.

Harry I can understand - he's grown up in an environment where no adult will help him, and might actively harm him. But the other kids, especially the Muggleborn kids? When we know there are dangerous bullies and criminal teachers pretty much every year causing all kinds of damage, yet still no one ever seems to ask for help? Something is very wrong.

The Muggleborn kids probably learn quickly, though. In third year, Hermione told the teachers about Harry's broom which it seemed quite reasonable to assume was of shady origins, but by fifth year, she's setting up disfiguring jinxes for telling on something which (at the time she arranged the jinx) wouldn't have even gotten them in much trouble, if any, because as she pointed out it was perfectly within the rules.

[the-bitter-word.livejournal.com]

You have actual examples of students inspired by the HP books to questionable behavior? I'm interested to read about that.

There were two teachers at Azkatraz in 2009 who said they had students who were rowdy and belligerent, and justified their behavior through HP characters. The teachers had a lot to say on the subject, but some listeners shouted down their experiences. The teachers made their comments as part of the People vs. JKR event, which was high-spirited all around.

I actually work with educators. I should probably ask around my workplace.

[sunnyskywalker]

Yikes. I'd be very interested to hear what your coworkers say.

Of course kids will come up with any excuse, but it sure is interesting that they picked that...

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

That's fascinating - and a bit disturbing. In my experience, the "Gryffindor" types are naive readers who truly seem to think that Harry, Hermione, the Marauders, etc., are "good". The horribly mixed (even toxic) messages about prejudice, ethics, relationships, etc, just seem to pass them by. It's really pretty disturbing that some children ARE picking them up and acting on them.

Thanks for the info! If you do have more specifics, that would be very interesting.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

I seem to hear this sort of thing a lot, and weirdly, mainly from people who ought to know better. Recently I had a conversation with a classmate who was standing up for the rights of marginalized peoples only a moment before, but was quick to defend HP from the charges of prejudice, paternalism and bad ethics. I don't get it.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Also, I concur about the specifics. I am curious if any real case studies have been done on the topic.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

How fascinating! Sorry to ask a dumb question, but what is Azkatraz?

[jodel-from-aol.livejournal.com]

It was the Harry Potter Symosium in San Francisco a couple of years ago.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Ah, makes sense. I figured there was some sort of Alcatraz connection there. ;-)

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

It could be that Umbridge, like many abusers, had a knack for targeting only the kids whom she knew wouldn't tell anyone.

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

And now I'm reminded of Terri Testing's essay on Snapedom where she theorized that part of Hogwarts rules (at least under Dumbledore) is that nobody is allowed to tell on anyone for any reason. It makes sense that kids would internalize the message, if that were the case.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Had she stood up to Cho and stayed away, or had she not signed the paper, she would have betrayed no one.

For the sake of thoroughness, let's look at the following AU scenario:

Marietta is at the Hog's Head and signs the parchment, because although the homework club Hermione is proposing supports a curriculum Umbridge doesn't agree with, it is a completely acceptable student activity and the activities seem to be in line with the curriculum that the students are expected to know for external exams.

Then Umbridge passes ED 24 that makes the club illegal. Marietta refuses to go to the meetings because she isn't willing to break the law for studies. She even tries to convince Cho not to go. After all, they can study and practice with other Ravenclaws in their common room (ED 24 de facto a prohibition against inter-House activities. Umbridge did not, as far as we see, prevent gatherings within a House.)

Should she feel bound by the word she gave in the Hog's Head, now that the nature of the group changed and she is not participating in it? Yet Hermione's curse stands.

And if she thought the group was dangerous and was endangering her friend, perhaps she was actually obligated to hand them, including her friend, in?

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

That's the thing. This "loyalty to your peer group at all costs" that Brad is pushing in his defense of Hermione is not adult or ethical behavior, IMO.

Madeleine L'Engle (a far better writer than Rowling, IMHO, and another one who wrote far better women and girls), wrote a book called The Young Unicorns. A plot point in the book is a 17-year-old boy making a promise to someone he believes he has reason to trust. But - Dave doesn't have all the facts. When he does have them - when he sees what's really happening - he is faced with a choice. Will he break a promise, and, if so, why? Dave, btw, is a former gang member; some would call him a juvenile delinquent. He's got a better ethical sense than any of the trio.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

I concur. Hermione had no right to punish anybody in such a cruel and permanent way. Especially when she didn't tell them that there would be any retribution like that. I wonder if Marietta would have joined if she had known. Even if it wasn't technically illegal then, doesn't it seem a bit over the top for just a study group?

[wolf-willow31.livejournal.com]

One could compare Marietta getting into the DA and later changing her mind and betraying them, with Snape getting into the DE's and later changing his mind and betraying them. Snape was enthusiastic, however, where Marietta was cautious, and he got in much deeper before he woke up to what he was doing, but I don't think that many people would argue that he should have kept faith with the Dark Lord and kept his mouth shut, instead of going to Dumbles. (Which also proved to be a bad idea, IMO, but that's beside the point.)

Marietta was uncertain, but Cho encouraged her, and she decided to try it out. Was her curiosity such a crime, really? It was just a study group, after all. But when it became illegal she got worried, and when she realized that it threatened her mom, she finally gave in and ratted them out. Was this "weak", or was this what a normal person might do under those circumstances? Was it what you might want your kid to do?

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly. In condemning Marietta, Brad is assuming a lot of things the text just doesn't support - that the Wizarding World was at war; that it was common knowledge that Voldemort was back AND that Umbridge went along with the Dark Lord's agenda; that it was appropriate for a bunch of teenagers to style themselves "Dumbledore's Army", and so on. But, really, Marietta, within the story world, probably didn't know any of that. What she knew was that Umbridge wasn't teaching information the kids had to know for a standardized test, and that she was joining a study group.

I don't think her curiosity was a crime. I do think it's pretty clear that she gave in to peer pressure, and that she had mixed feelings, at best, about coming to the meeting and very mixed feelings about signing that parchment.

I just can't see her as an evil person for going along with her friend and then changing her mind.

[oryx_leucoryx]

I just can't see her as an evil person for going along with her friend and then changing her mind.

Especially as in-story she was silenced by her Obliviation. She is no longer able to say what she believed at the time about the DA (or Umbridge, or Voldemort). Clearly Cho believed Harry's version, but this does not mean that Marietta necessarily shared those beliefs.

[wolf-willow31.livejournal.com]

And we should keep in mind that the books would have judged her to be "evil" if she had turned her back on Cho and refused to join, too. She was damned either way. The only "right" way would be to join wholeheartedly and keep faith with a group of junior vigilantes, despite any possible consequences to her family. "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!" Words to live by, if you're a Gryffindor. But Marietta wasn't.