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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?