Deathly Hallows, Chapter 9: A Place to Hide

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Harry and Hermione happen to be together when the attack comes, so when Ron finds them, Hermione Apparates them to London. As usual, the boys are unprepared, but Hermione has packed everything they need: changes of clothes, Harry’s invisibility cloak, reference books, luggage--and whatever else they might need as the story goes on that Rowling didn’t think of right now.

Harry experiences emotion as GERD again as he thinks about the danger Ginny is in, and “fear bubble[s] like acid in his stomach.” Um, Harry, I know your science education ended at age eleven, but surely you’ve picked up from TV commercials for antacids that the stomach does have acid bubbling in it. Maybe you just have indigestion from all that rich food and champagne you ate and drank at the wedding reception.

As they walk down the street, Hermione is sexually harassed by some drunk men. Ron is about to defend her honor when Hermione drags them into an all-night greasy spoon. They are preparing to leave when they are attacked by two DEs, who had followed them into the restaurant and been sitting there for a while. This is a contrived scene because as soon as the DEs are defeated, Ron recognizes one and Harry the other. Harry even admits he should have recognized the blond one, Thorfinn Rowle, from the night Dumbledore died. Clearly, the DEs are doing a better job of educating their recruits on whom to watch for than the Order is. Any commander who’s not a complete dimwit should make sure hir soldiers or police officers know who the major enemies/criminals are and what they look like. Honestly, both sides in this rumble are so incompetent that I can’t help thinking the non-magical government just needs to protect the public, then stand back and let the magicals have at each other until all the dumbest ones are dead. It would greatly enhance the gene pool of the ones who are left.

The Trio tries to decide what to do about their prisoners and settles on Obliviation. They all insist they’ve never done it, despite Hermione’s weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth regarding her parents just two days ago. Apparently her memory charm on them was a little too good: Its blowback damaged her memory, too.

Or maybe it was too bad. Maybe Hermione’s telling at least part of the truth when she says she’s never done a memory charm--at least, a successful one. That is, perhaps she tried to mind-rape her parents and change their identities, but she wasn’t successful. Maybe when this high school girl with a fifth-grade science education tried to perform magical brain surgery on her parents, she failed so disastrously they ended up vegetables, and she had to kill them because she couldn’t take care of them.

Think about it: We have only her word they really are in Australia. Remember all my objections to the logistics of changing their identities and shipping them off to a foreign country? All those problems disappear if the Grangers are dead. In chapter 6, it says Hermione’s eyes “were swimming with tears” as she talked about them. This is not a girl who cries easily. The only other time I can think of her crying in the whole series is in book 1 when nobody will be her friend--that is, when she feels all alone in the world.

Hermione has been building up to this for a long time. In first year, she set Snape on fire. In second year, she committed a series of felonies that would have gotten HRH expelled and criminally prosecuted in a sane society. In third year, she knocked Snape unconscious with her friends and cared only for the fact she might get in trouble for attacking a teacher. In fourth year, she kidnapped Rita Skeeter, held her hostage, and blackmailed her. In fifth year, she tricked Umbridge into becoming the prey of the centaurs. She also tricked other students into agreeing to the Dumbledore’s Army contract without knowing what the consequences were for breaking it--and permanently disfigured another girl in revenge when the girl dared to put the well-being of her own mother before that of her schoolmates. In sixth year, she attacked her own boyfriend with birds à la Alfred Hitchcock, and in seventh year, she “jokes” about doing it again (in chapter 19). She also at least attempted to perform forcible brain surgery on her own parents and ship them off to a foreign country.

Look at that series of violent felonies. Try to forget it’s the life story of Hermione Granger, a character you thought you knew, and instead imagine it’s the case history of some anonymous teenager in a news story. Then tell me that murder is not the logical next step in the criminal career of someone with that record.

Back to the story:

Ron complains he can’t get his wand out of his jeans because the pair Hermione packed is his old pair, which is too tight. God forbid he should do his own packing--or laundry--or cooking--or any of those “girl jobs.”

This is a very strange restaurant: Apparently the waitress also does the cooking, since there’s no reference to any other employee being present.

The Trio discusses where to run to, and Hermione suggests the DEs may have found them because Harry still has the underage Trace on him. Ron insists that cannot be the case because Wizarding law doesn’t allow it to be put on adults. Um, Ron, I hate to tell you this, but the Ministry is in the control of violent terrorists who want to kill large numbers of people and take over the world. I don’t think they’re going to shrink from breaking any law, particularly if it will help them find their number one quarry, Harry Potter.

HRH (Hey, JKR’s pretending Harry’s royalty, so why not go with it?) decide to go to Grimmauld Place, even though Snape knows where it is and can get in there. Harry displays textbook Gryffindor bravado by boasting that he’d love to fight Snape. I can just imagine Snape sneering and replying, “Yes, Potter, because that worked out so well for you last time.”

They leave the restaurant after waking everybody up, thus leaving the defenseless waitress to the mercies of the muggle-hating Death Eaters. Remind me again why these are the good guys?

They enter 12GP and we have a brief recap of the furnishings in the foyer. Surely I’m not the only one who finds those stuffed elf heads really creepy and grotesque. Proving their fitness for battle with ruthless terrorists, the Trio is traumatized by Moody’s ludicrous “protections” on the house: a Tongue-Tying Curse and an apparition of Dumbledore that appears to be a giant dust bunny disguised as a decomposing corpse.

OH! COME! ON! Anybody’s who ever been to a local charity’s “haunted house” has seen scarier stuff than that! I started reading horror comic books and watching horror movies and TV shows when I was five. I was never scared by those stories because I knew they weren’t real. In my expert opinion, if JKR is writing horror, as she’s sometimes been accused of, she’s doing a damned poor job of it.

Those “protections” are idiotic for other reasons: (1) As others have pointed out, Snape can do silent magic, so tying his tongue would have no effect on his ability to cast spells. (2) If he’s as ruthless and evil as the Order thinks he is, he’s not going to be put off by a dust bunny representation of the man he killed. If anything, he’s going to laugh at the absurdity of it. Hell, I’m not a ruthless murderer, and I laughed at it.

For somebody who was supposed to be so formidable, experienced, and hung up on “constant vigilance” (a euphemism for clinical paranoia), Moody was a complete incompetent when it came to actually protecting places that needed to be protected. No wonder he resorted to torture to get captured DEs to talk. He was too ineffective to get information any other way.

As if they weren’t traumatized enough, the Three Stooges (seriously, this scene seems to have been ripped off from an old Three Stooges or Abbott and Costello short) Golden Trio then has to put up with the painting of Walburga Black shrieking racist invective at them. Harry shuts her up, but I have more to say on that subject.

I know it’s commonly accepted that Walburga was mentally ill, maybe even insane, and that’s why she acted so abominably. I don’t buy it. There is no way of being certain of her mental state without observing her behavior when she wasn’t either at home or in another place she considered safe for spewing her filth. That is, if she could behave like a perfect lady when she wanted to--say, while shopping in Diagon Alley, or at Ministry social functions--then her behavior was under her conscious control. She was therefore not mentally ill, just a vicious racist who got off on terrorizing everybody with her violent tantrums. Only if she was unable to control her behavior and conform to appropriate social norms would she qualify as mentally ill and/or incompetent. That’s why, in the various editions of the DSM, the diagnostic criteria always specify that, to qualify for a diagnosis, the aberrant behavior has to be present for an extended period and in a variety of contexts.

Harry has another Voldie-vision, and Hermione starts shrieking à la Walburga, that he has to close the mental connection, or Voldemort can plant false images in his mind. Don’t worry, Hermione. Voldemort’s much too dumb to do anything that sensible.

Harry retreats to the bathroom and lets go with the vision, seeing Draco being forced to torture Rowle with Crucio. To his credit, Harry seems to feel sorry for Draco, although not for Rowle.

However, this “terrifying” vision is undermined by more logical contradictions. Voldy snarls that Rowle called Voldy back to report he’d let Harry get away--but Hermione Obliviated Rowle, so how is that possible? And would Rowle really be so stupid as to call his Master back just to report a failure to him, knowing what kind of punishment he’d receive for his failure? I’m so tired of this nonsense, I feel like Crucioing somebody at this point.

Comments

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

but Hermione has packed everything they need: changes of clothes, Harry’s invisibility cloak, reference books, luggage--

But not food.

She packs clothes. But not food.

She packs kitchen utensils and cutlery. But not food.

She packs *tea*. But no food.

Because Rowling needs Hermione to FORGET the food, thus giving Ron the BEST EXCUSE EVAH to abandon his friends.

What a terrible book.

Hermione is sexually harassed by some drunk men.

No, we're just being shown again that Hermione is all grown up and pretty now, a suitable prize to be awarded to Won Won. It's all part of the OBHWF solution, Ron doesn't have to worry about a girlfriend, Hermione has been parked waiting for him for, like, YEARS. No worries Ron!

This is a contrived scene because as soon as the DEs are defeated, Ron recognizes one and Harry the other.

Oh, excellent, another error to add to the list!

That is, perhaps she tried to mind-rape her parents and change their identities, but she wasn’t successful. ... and she had to kill them.

What?!?!?!

This is not a girl who cries easily.

I really believe that this is not true; my recollection is the exact opposite. Tears and all sorts of emotions. (One of my favourite, most awesome fanfic authors has his Hermione remarking on how prone she is to crying; part of my conviction on this point is indirectly through him.)

Just looking at OotP:

- Ron was standing there with his mouth half‐open, clearly stunned and at a loss for anything to say, whilst Hermione looked on the verge of tears.

- ʹHarry weʹre really sorry!ʹ said Hermione desperately, her eyes now sparkling with tears. ʹYouʹre absolutely right, Harry ‐ Iʹd be furious if it was me!ʹ

- Hagrid stared at her, clearly at a complete loss to understand why she was acting as though he did not understand normal English. Hermione had tears of fury in her eyes now.

- Just like Hermione, Pansy had tears in her eyes, but these were tears of laughter;

- ʹBut why?ʹ asked Hermione, who sounded as though she wanted to cry. ʹWhy ‐ what ‐ oh, Hagrid!

- There was a pause in which Harry glared at her, and her eyes filled slowly with tears.

- ʹYou said you didnʹt hurt the innocent!ʹ shouted Hermione, real tears sliding down her face now.

(My goodness, all of that from just ONE search for ONE word in ONE of the seven books!)

And of course she's completely overwrought when she listens to Kreacher's tale in DH.

This is the girl who spends months trying to save Buckbeak's life. The girl who gives 'Granger-class hugs'. Nah.

No, sorry, you're absolutely wrong on this. Your faulty recollection of Hermione's lack of crying is a single erroneous fact on which your whole (preposterous) proposition is perched?

Harry displays textbook Gryffindor bravado by boasting that he’d love to fight Snape.

That really really vexed me in this chapter. Your 'Gryffindor bravado' equals my 'stupidity'. So STUPID. But Hermione and Ron let it go. This from the boy who was wiped out with ease by Snape in their last encounter.

[sunnyskywalker]

I guess it just isn't dramatic enough for Ron to get sick of eating earwax-flavored wizarding protein bars. Or to have the spells that turn dead leaves into food making only dead-leaf-flavored food, or nothing but lettuce.

I'd take that last example off your list, since crying at the possibility of being torn limb from limb by centaurs (or whatever harm Hermione was envisioning) isn't what I'd call crying "easily," ie at little provocation. That's plenty of provocation! The best you can say in that scene is that she cries more easily than Harry in that kind of situation. I can't recall the context of the other examples offhand, though, so your point may stand in general.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

There's so much that is just wrong, stupid, or stupidly wrong with Rowling's last novel. 'Gramps law' conjured out of thin air to keep Ron hungry. When we have earlier books making wine out of water, materialising sandwiches out of nowhere, et cetera. More never-mind-that contradictions.

I'd take that last example off your list, since crying at the possibility of being torn limb from limb by centaurs (or whatever harm Hermione was envisioning) isn't what I'd call crying "easily," ie at little provocation.

Agreed. I was rushed for time and just doing searches for 'tears'.

Strike that one from the list. Plenty more examples left! Hermione is quite the opposite from the 'cold blooded killer' that oneandthetruth seemed to be attempting to portray.

[sunnyskywalker]

I could have accepted that the sandwiches were magically teleported from a kitchen somewhere and that you can transfigure water to wine (which may suddenly revert back in your stomach an hour later, or not have quite the same effect as the real stuff, or however you want to set it up). Which is probably what Rowling was trying to set up with Hermione's "It’s impossible to make good food out of nothing! You can Summon it if you know where it is, you can transform it, you can increase the quantity if you’ve already got some..." But it breaks down when they can't turn a handful of mushrooms and berries into real meals. And Hermione conveniently didn't pack the book that tells them how to do that. Seriously? You're planning to go on the run for who knows how long to who knows where, and "a book on food magic" doesn't occur to you?

Heh, well I did say it may stand ;-) Since you have the electronic version, could you copy a few sentences around the other examples to help signal the context of each one? Now I'm curious as to when and under what provocation, exactly, Hermione tears up.

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

The first two quotes are the same situation: Harry yelling at her and Ron immediately after seeing them for the first time in OotP.

In the third, Hermione is furious with Umbridge for the way she treated Hagrid like an idiot when inspecting his class. It's immediately followed by ʹYou hag, you evil hag!ʹ she whispered, as Umbridge walked towards Pansy Parkinson. ʹI know what youʹre doing, you awful, twisted, vicious ‐ʹ

The fourth is once again the same situation as the third -- the tears refer to Hermione's "tears of fury."

The fifth is Hermione's reaction to learning that Hagrid brought Grawp to Hogwarts. She doesn't cry when Hagrid says he's about to be fired, a few moments earlier; it's knowing that Hagrid brought back a giant that makes her "sound as though she wanted to cry."

The sixth is shortly after that. Like the first one/two, Harry is angry at her. Although in this case, she's angry, too:

ʹOh, come off it, Harry!ʹ said Hermione angrily, stopping dead in her tracks so that the people behind had to swerve to avoid her. ʹOf course heʹs going to be chucked out and, to be perfectly honest, after what weʹve just seen, who can blame Umbridge?ʹ

There was a pause in which Harry glared at her, and her eyes filled slowly with tears.

ʹYou didnʹt mean that,ʹ said Harry quietly.

ʹNo… well… all right… I didnʹt,ʹ she said, wiping her eyes angrily. ʹBut why does he have to make life so difficult for himself ‐ for us?ʹ

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Thanks Lynn!

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Which is probably what Rowling was trying to set up with Hermione's ...

Honestly, there are so many huge flaws with Rowling's last HP book, so many contradictions with continuity, I very much doubt there was any effort or 'trying' at all when she wrote that Grawp's law thing. Well, okay, at least she recognised the need to explain why Won Won was going hungry, but it was typical of much of Rowling's plotting by the end, superficial and flying in the face of many other canon facts.

And Hermione conveniently didn't pack the book that tells them how to do that. Seriously?

Yeah, exactly. And double that incredulity when it's painfully clear that there's a big black hole we're supposed to skirt in how Hermione packed tea, packed everything including the kitchen sink ... except food.

Gah.

I see that Lynn Waterfall has given you the quotes' context, which is appreciated. As I said at the start, those were just a single search for a single word in a single book of the seven. I really do believe that the real Hermione Granger's personality is an exact one hundred and eighty degrees in the opposite direction from that which oneandthetruth was attempting to fabricate.

Just having a quick look at a couple of web sites ... on the Harry Potter Wiki entry for Hermione we have these excerpts under the 'personality' heading:

Despite this, Hermione was generally sensitive to others' emotions, and would lie when she had to ...

Hermione seems to have a great deal of compassion, evidenced by her somewhat whimsical purchase of Crookshanks simply because "No one wanted him."

Oh, and here's a 'tears' quote from that site taken from DH regarding our heroine of "a great deal of compassion":

Even before Hermione understood the priceless quality of the gift, she was moved to tears by Dumbledore's great act of friendship.

And from Wikipedia:

Hermione has an extremely compassionate side to her personality and is quick to help others, especially those who are defenceless, such as Neville Longbottom, first-years, House-Elves, fellow Muggle-borns, half-giants like Hagrid, and werewolves like Lupin. It was revealed by Rowling after the publication of the final book that Hermione's career in the Ministry was to fight for the rights of the oppressed (such as House-elves or Muggle-borns).

I don't consider Rowling's post-publication interview indulgences as canon but it's interesting to note all the same.

No, this 'extremely compassionate' girl who dedicates her life (in Rowling's non-canon) to fighting for the rights of others is as far removed from oneandthetruth's 'violent criminal' as I am from a rocket scientist. :-)

[maidofkent.livejournal.com]

Hermione likes to champion the cause of the underdog. While that's a laudable quality in itself, she does tend to ignore the feelings of those that she's championing. On the Hogwarts Express, Neville had already managed to look for his toad before Hermione intervened and dragged him round again. The House Elves did not appreciate Hermione's hats. Her righteousness in a just cause ironically leads to ride roughshod over the rights as well as the feelings of those she is championing - her parents being a prime example. I don't for a moment think she murdered her parents, but what she did do to them was appalling enough. She has a ruthless streak which has been amply set out in other posts, and she could easily become another Dumbledore, acting for the Greater Good, but ignoring the individual good. She may well mature after the war, but the thought of canon Hermione working in the Ministry is not a comforting one.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Other than her parents, once recovered, telling her seriously off and cutting ties with her I don't see what of her experiences might cause such proposed maturation. I don't see any of her other actions coming back to bite her.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

On the Hogwarts Express, Neville had already managed to look for his toad before Hermione intervened and dragged him round again.

Huh? That's not true. Hermione and Neville only appear once in Harry's compartment, and at that point they're looking for Trevor (Neville is described twice as 'the toadless boy').

Later on Hermione pops back in, but only to be helpful. Neville's not with her.

Hermione likes to champion the cause of the underdog. ... Her righteousness in a just cause ironically leads to ride roughshod over the rights as well as the feelings of those she is championing

In the early years/books, maybe. It's a classic case of imbalance between intellectual and emotional intelligence, maybe. Consider her detailed analysis and understanding of Cho's feelings about Harry and Cedric. Or Ginny's desire to snare her crush-target. Hermione not only champions the causes of the underdog but she also *understands* and *emphasises* with the underdogs' feelings. Just read her dialogue in DH's "Kreacher's Tale" for further proof.

But in the early days she may have gone a little overboard in her zeal. Not so much by the last two books. No SPEW after book 4 (or 5?). No attempts to 'free' Kreacher at all.

And no murdering her parents. :-)

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

Huh? That's not true. Hermione and Neville only appear once in Harry's compartment, and at that point they're looking for Trevor (Neville is described twice as 'the toadless boy').

No, maidofkent is right. Neville visits first, alone:

There was a knock on the door of their compartment and the round-faced boy Harry had passed on platform nine and threequarters came in. He looked tearful.
"Sorry," he said, "but have you seen a toad at all?"
When they shook their heads, he wailed, "I've lost him! He keeps getting away from me!"
"He'll turn up," said Harry.
"Yes," said the boy miserably. "Well, if you see him..."
He left.

Hermione and Neville show up together:

The toadless boy was back, but this time he had a girl with him. She was already wearing her new Hogwarts robes.
"Has anyone seen a toad? Neville's lost one," she said.
[...]
"We've already told him we haven't seen it," said Ron, but the girl wasn't listening, she was looking at the wand in his hand.

[sunnyskywalker]

I'm not sure what quoting random websites has to do with anything, since I've seen plenty that also describe Dumbledore as compassionate and concerned for his students' welfare, and Harry as kind and never tempted to do anything dark (like, oh, the Unforgiveable Curses...?). (I wish I'd bookmarked them; they were hilarious.)

From the examples, it looks like a lot of Hermione's tears are of fury and frustration, with some others because she's afraid of the suddenly-capslocky Harry (well, he does seem unstable in that book! being afraid is reasonable!) or because she's been insulted. So, I think it's fair to say she cries moderately frequently and moderately easily (in situations with moderate-to-severe provocation, not just from any minor slight or setback).

But do those tears demonstrate a deeply caring nature? Strike off Hermione being afraid of Capslock!Harry, being insulted/in a shouting match and furious, and panicking that there's a giant in the Forbidden Forest and she's been dragged into possible danger because of it. Being angry or afraid for oneself doesn't demonstrate anything one way or the other about whether she's caring and so aren't really relevant.

The possible exception left is for Hagrid when Umbridge is going after him, but since Hermione is already set against Umbridge, it isn't clear exactly how much is on Hagrid's behalf and how much is just fury and frustration that Umbridge is getting her way in anything, and getting her way by having some actual valid criticisms, of all the rotten unfairness. Not that I blame her for being furious that Umbridge is getting her way, mind! But I'd say it's not a clear-cut example. (How I wish we weren't stuck in unobservant Harry's head all the time...)

So that leaves once incident in the course of a year where she tears up over some combination of being furious that a nasty woman she already dislikes is getting her way and the person being railroaded in this instance being an adult she's friendly with (in the sense that she and Hagrid aren't BFF but she does seem to sort of think well of him in general - not his teaching skills or judgment, though).

Not a clear case for evil, but hardly proof that she's a nice person either. "Highly strung and liable to cry when angry or frustrated" seems the most you can say with confidence from the tears.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Yes. I would also say that Hermione, like Dumbledore, is highly invested in the idea of herself as champion of the underdog and general do-gooder. But she does not display much genuine empathy in her day-to-day dealings with actual people, as opposed to the sort of vague pity masquerading as 'compassion' that this character type is prone to and that fundraisers for certain commercial charities often promote. She may care strongly about good in the abstract, but putting it into practice on a one-to-one basis with the individuals she is confronted with? Not very good at that.

She doesn't stop to consider what *others* might be feeling, or even fully grasp that someone else might have a different view of a situation that is as equally valid, or moreso, as her own. (A pretty basic form of empathy that nevertheless can be difficult to put into practice.) She assumes that she knows best, sometimes with little basis, and charges in, often resulting in causing more distress to the people she's trying to help. (See the elves for Exhibit A.) She rarely considers her own motives or actions critically or recognizes her own wrongdoing and apologizes. Rather, she seems to take the view that since she knows best, and she's doing it For The Good, then her solution is the best one (ha!) and the ends justify the means. (See setting Snape on fire, the Skeeter incident, the secretly-cursed parchment, her parents, McClaggen....)

Now, given proper guidance and experience of practicing solid empathy and self-criticism, Hermione's brand of championing the underdog can be transformed into something powerful *and* effective. She's not indifferent (which is important), and she tends towards wanting the moral rather than the greedily selfish despite her ruthlessness and occasional malicious moments. However, she's plunged into an extremely dysfunctional and dystopic situation in the WW, leading her to abandon what seems to be the somewhat healthier environment of her parents and to develop exactly those tendencies she most ought to repress. She's also nowhere near being mature and self-aware enough during the books to be able to see that for herself. She's not mature as many assume she is - she's intellectually precocious. Emotionally she's rather immature and neurotic, but her intellectual and verbal abilities lead people to the wrong conclusion, and the general dysfunction of the WW also makes her look mature in comparison. She gets on better with adults than her peers for the most part because she's skilled at reading what they want to see and performing to their expectations of her as 'the brightest witch' and a good student - her emotional dynamics with people her own age are another matter.

Look, I like Hermione as a character, and in some ways I identify with her. She's not the Most Horrible Evar, and the WW is an awful place teaching awful 'lessons'. But she is flawed, and definitely not the Paragon of Virtue JKR tries to paint her as being.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I would also say that Hermione, like Dumbledore, is highly invested in the idea of herself as champion of the underdog and general do-gooder.

Okay, please cite canon examples when Hermione Granger went around posturing as a do-gooder.

SPEW doesn't count; that was an attempt to raise funds and public awareness.

The girl is the opposite of 'highly invested'. She doesn't even boast about her intellectual superiority:

'Oh,' said Hermione, trying to look modest. 'Oh ... well ... yes, I suppose it is.'

(Book 5.)

She doesn't stop to consider what *others* might be feeling -

What?!?!?

The girl who analysed and understood the depth of Cho's feelings about the death of Cedric and her 'relationship' with Harry?

The girl who advised Ginny Weasley on how to snare her crush-target?

The girl who sobbed in sympathy while hearing Kreacher's tale? Who had to explain exactly why the elf was what he was to the two oblivious boys with her?

Sorry, no.

She assumes that she knows best, sometimes with little basis, and charges in, often resulting in causing more distress to the people she's trying to help. (See the elves for Exhibit A.)

And see the elf, one Kreacher, as exhibit B; evidence that Hermione had matured from her behaviour at the tender age of FOURTEEN and had grown to accept that some elves didn't want to be freed. At least I don't recall her trying to free Kreacher (crosses fingers that Oryx won't pop up with proof of exactly that).

She's also nowhere near being mature and self-aware enough during the books to be able to see that for herself.

I think she improves throughout the series. Hopefully she would mature further as she grows older.

(That's one of the draws of H/Hr fan fiction stories; Harry provides some emotional guidance to help Hermione and blunt some rough edges. Although those tales need a Harry who's grown up himself and is more of a match for the heroine of the HP series. :-))

But she is flawed, and definitely not the Paragon of Virtue JKR tries to paint her as being.

And definitely not a cold-blooded parental killer either.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what quoting random websites has to do with anything -

Secondary or 'indirect' evidence. If the quotes were in dispute one could/would then delve deeper to justify them. I think the quotes I pulled all had the canon facts bundled with them, though, so they stand as further examples of Hermione Granger's compassion.

I don't see the 'tears' scenes the way you do; I think you're looking at them with murderess-coloured glasses. :-) And they were all the result of must one search in one book for one word. And then there's those website quotes - if you're not sure they're appropriate then counter the factual evidence they cite.

No, Hermione Granger is most definitely a compassionate and non-murderess person. She's simply not perfect, she has some flaws. Sometimes some people prefer to look at the flaws, exaggerate the flaws, and see only the flaws. :-)

[sunnyskywalker]

Okay, here's an example of what I'm talking about: the Harry Potter Wiki entry on Harry, under the "Personality and traits" section, claims that "Harry was not a cruel person and he never wished anyone harm." And that he could be "extremely intimidating" and that when he was angry, even his friends were wary of him, and that he eventually could perform an unforgivable torture curse just fine on the provocation of someone spitting and insulting a teacher he likes. And that love helped him overcome Voldemort (funny, didn't he have a long speech about it being the wand? and that whole blood-exchange thing Voldemort did with no love for Harry at all?). It's a big mish-mash of people deciding that when Rowling says Harry's such a nice guy and a real role model, it must be true, and looking at the text and finding some things that don't quite jive and trying to make that work, that you can't really draw a solid conclusion about whether "people" are actually looking at the books when they say Harry's nice and doesn't wish people harm. Though it does look a lot like some people put in the bits about how Harry couldn't Crucio Bellatrix because she said he wasn't sadistic enough, which proves he's nice! and then other people added the bit about Carrow later.

Er, I didn't say those quotes in OotP prove she's a murderer. I said most of them are Hermione being frustrated/angry, having been insulted herself, or being terrified for her life, which just aren't relevant to determining whether she cares about other people.

Others have already covered how Neville had already worked up the courage to ask strangers about Trevor on his own, and Hermione didn't bother to ask him where he'd already looked before charging around into compartments to show how helpful she was being, showing she didn't particularly value Neville's input on the issue. Her tears in DH seem to be prompted by the fact that Dumbledore left something for her, which is ambiguous - Dumbledore was very touched by Harry's regard with his single tear, after all, while still frequently failing to take Harry's feelings into account and, you know, planning to have Harry off himself in a couple of years, which is very "greater good" style compassion if it's any kind of compassion at all. So I wouldn't take those tears as solid evidence either way.

And I'm sorry, but her analysis of Cho's feelings in OotP is far from evidence of any great sensitivity. I'm having a hard time thinking of many of my high school acquaintances who wouldn't have been able to work that out, and they were not exactly Mr. Sensatives. (So... Cho is still sad about her boyfriend being murdered several months later? really? and it's kind of awkward that she's also interested in someone now? who happened to be with her boyfriend when he died? SHOCKING.) It's just that Harry and Ron are so very dense that your scale of measurement is off. You're also overlooking that this was probably a major topic in the girls' bathroom gossip network for the entire year to date. Part of that analysis might well be Lavender and Parvati's.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Er, quoting random websites outside the books in order to prove what is really in the text of the books themselves does not work as actual evidence. I could put up a website filled with assertions that Catcher in the Rye is really at heart the story of an extraterrestrial invasion the narrator is trying to cover up, and that because Caulfield was the manager of the fencing team he was therefore in truth a lackey of the ETs helping to subtly put their plans into action on Earth. But no matter how many times I said it, it would not be true, because those things simply aren't in the text. Nor would it suddenly be true if Salinger released a letter stating exactly what I argued, because even the author hirself can be wrong about what is actually there - one can for example have such a clear vision in one's head about a story that one imagines one has written something that one has not, in fact, provided evidence for in the text.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

I knew this would happen. I knew if you responded at all to this chapter, you'd make a spirited-but-lame defense of your idol.

First of all, as I said, I used a paper copy of the book. I don't own ebooks that I can do word searches in. Even so, one of your examples of Hermione crying is irrelevant, the one about her crying tears of fury. That's entirely different from tears of grief, just as crying when you cut an onion is different.

You very conveniently ignored all the other points I used to buttress my argument, such as my completely accurate description of her as "this high school girl with a fifth-grade science education." You also ignored the entirety of the next two paragraphs, which are what contain the basis of my argument. To save you the trouble of looking them up, here they are:

Hermione has been building up to this for a long time. In first year, she set Snape on fire. In second year, she committed a series of felonies that would have gotten HRH expelled and criminally prosecuted in a sane society. In third year, she knocked Snape unconscious with her friends and cared only for the fact she might get in trouble for attacking a teacher. In fourth year, she kidnapped Rita Skeeter, held her hostage, and blackmailed her. In fifth year, she tricked Umbridge into becoming the prey of the centaurs. She also tricked other students into agreeing to the Dumbledore’s Army contract without knowing what the consequences were for breaking it--and permanently disfigured another girl in revenge when the girl dared to put the well-being of her own mother before that of her schoolmates. In sixth year, she attacked her own boyfriend with birds à la Alfred Hitchcock, and in seventh year, she “jokes” about doing it again (in chapter 19). She also at least attempted to perform forcible brain surgery on her own parents and ship them off to a foreign country.

Look at that series of violent felonies. Try to forget it’s the life story of Hermione Granger, a character you thought you knew, and instead imagine it’s the case history of some anonymous teenager in a news story. Then tell me that murder is not the logical next step in the criminal career of someone with that record.

No, sorry, you're absolutely wrong on this. Your faulty recollection of Hermione's lack of crying is a single erroneous fact on which your whole (preposterous) proposition is perched?

Total BS. YOU are absolutely wrong on this. I made a mistake about one fact--the least important fact, as it happens. My observation about her complete incompetence to perform brain surgery is true, and my list of her felonies, is, if anything, not accurate enough because it lacks detail (e.g., of her crimes in CoS).

Face it. All the evidence is on my side. Not yours.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I used a paper copy of the book. I don't own ebooks that I can do word searches in ... I made a mistake about one fact--the least important fact, as it happens.

Okay. You've conceded that one out of three paragraphs you wrote about this - the leader paragraph, the one appealing to our emotions, "this is not a girl who cries easily" - is incorrect. Good, thanks. We'll strike that from your case for the prosecution.

So what's left?

... such as my completely accurate description of her as "this high school girl with a fifth-grade science education."

Hermione is a girl who has proven aptitude in magical feats well beyond her years. Polyjuice potion in second year. The Protean charm she casts on the DA coins in fifth year that's "NEWT standard, that is". Other examples I'm sure. And we've always got the "cleverest witch of your age" quote.

You tell us she couldn't brainwash her parents because she is a witch limited to a fifth year education. But there's solid evidence in the books that Hermione Granger operates well beyond those limits. Those limits don't apply to Hermione Granger - it says so in the books. So that argument collapses.

Which just leaves the tired litany of misdemeanours. None of which apply either, I think. But first of all, can you clarify your case for the prosecution? Are you telling us that Hermione *accidentally* killed her parents - "she failed so disastrously they ended up vegetables" - or *deliberately* committed murder - "then tell me that murder is not the logical next step"?

Because you are saying both, but they're quite different accusations, you know. I'd like to know exactly which of the two you mean before looking at Hermione's track record of extremely efficient and capable (i.e. not 'accidental') magic cast against non-parental *enemies* who are non-parental *bad guys* and actively non-parentally *fighting against her and her friends*.

Well, never mind. If you're saying she killed her parents 'accidentally' - nothing in that litany shows that Hermione Granger commits such 'accidents'. If you're saying she viewed her parents in the same light as Death Eaters, Umbridge and Rita ... well, that's silly too.

And remember, we've agreed that her tears are authentic measurements of her emotions when she mentions her parents. Which pretty much contradicts your entire theory, since those tears are coupled to the fate of her parents in the first case for we readers. Oh, I see now why you took us down fantasy lane about the tears thing, trying to believe she never cried, etc. Sorry, I'm slow. But we've cleared that up.

I don't think you have a case. You have to turn a blind eye to too much of the canon.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

I think the point about Hermione's "fifth-grade science education" was that she does not have any detailed, precise knowledge about the workings of the human mind or brain such that would allow her to safely perform the equivalent of experimental personality-altering brain surgery with minimal risk of catastrophic effects or irreversibility. Even highly trained neurosurgeons don't exactly have that sort of knowledge.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Magic.

Eleven year old children don't understand Einstein's General Theory of Relativity to be able to defeat gravity and levitate a feather. In fact, they're demonstrating that they know *more* than Einstein to be able to achieve such a feat.

Hermione was able to Confund McLaggin (whatever his name was) without any precise, detailed knowledge about the workings of the human mind. She just waved her wand and muttered a few latin words. That's how magic works in Rowling's universe. No science education necessary.

That's why that point just doesn't make sense. We're talking magic. Trying to chain magical feats to muggle science isn't appropriate. An eleven year old can turn animals into objects? Conjure water out of nothingness? Defeat every known 'law' of physics? Without having a clue about muggle science? Okay, that's how Rowling's world works.

Ditto mind-wiping one's parents.

So Hermione's abilities there are covered both ends. She's been demonstrated as operating way beyond those 'fifth-grade' limits. Plus the limits don't apply, anyway, in Rowling's 'wave a wand when you need something to happen' universe. There's nothing in Rowling's books saying that what Hermione did isn't possible. And heaps showing us that Hermione routinely performs feats way beyond the capacity of her peers.

Add to that the sincere emotional angst she attaches to the tale of what she did to her parents and the whole idea of her 'murdering' them is absurd. Or, with regard to your point, slipping up and killing them. I'm still unclear what oneandthetruth was trying to say, she seemed to switch from 'accident' to 'deliberate murder' in mid-stream.

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

Hermione was able to Confund McLaggin (whatever his name was) without any precise, detailed knowledge about the workings of the human mind. She just waved her wand and muttered a few latin words. That's how magic works in Rowling's universe. No science education necessary.

No, she didn't need any science education. It didn't go entirely smoothly, though. When Hermione Confunded McLaggen, the effects lasted considerably longer than Hermione presumably intended. The tryouts were in the morning, then the Trio goes to visit Hagrid, and they stay until dusk:


...with the result that by the time Hagrid waved them off the premises at dusk, he looked quite cheerful.

"I'm starving," said Harry, once the door had closed behind them and they were hurrying through the dark and deserted grounds...

As they came into the castle they spotted Cormac McLaggen entering the Great Hall. It took him two attempts to get through the doors; he ricocheted off the frame on the first attempt. Ron merely guffawed gloatingly and strode off into the Hall after him, but Harry caught Hermione's arm and held her back.

"What?" said Hermione defensively.

"If you ask me," said Harry quietly, "McLaggen looks like he was Confunded this morning.


So, roughly 12 hours after Hermione confunded McLaggen to miss a single save, he's still failing to walk through doors on the first try. Granted that Hermione's goal was in fact to make him physically inept; that isn't my point. My point is merely that she only needed him to be clumsy for a minute or two, and she made him clumsy for at least 12 hours.

Knowing you, you'll probably say that this shows how powerful a witch Hermione is, and that may be true. But a scalpel needs to be wielded with precision, not force.

Did Hermione simply not care about making McLaggen clumsy for a long period of time? Maybe, but that'd not only be gratuitously inconsiderate, but stupid. Hermione's "help" is negated if people notice it, and Harry, not the most observant guy, noticed that McLaggen looked Confunded.

The alternative is that Hermione didn't have very precise control over her spell: she tried to do something small, and had a significantly bigger effect than she intended.

I didn't believe that the mind-wiping was very likely before considering her Confunding of McLaggen. I still don't consider it likely, but it does make me think that an accidental mind-wiping is a little more plausible.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

It didn't go entirely smoothly, though. When Hermione Confunded McLaggen, the effects lasted considerably longer than Hermione presumably intended.

Unfortunately there's quite a few variables there which prevent your point from being anything close to conclusive. Your word 'presumably' for starters. And then any canon knowledge at how the Confundus works, whether its effects *can*, indeed, be limited in accordance with your assumption. I wish I had a memory like some of the folks here so I could whistle up other canon cases of the Confundus and compare them to your's/Hermione's.

Also, another variable:

Did Hermione simply not care about making McLaggen clumsy for a long period of time? Maybe, but that'd not only be gratuitously inconsiderate, but stupid.

But that's exactly what Hermione was in book 6! Stupid. I hated it, but that's what Rowling decided to write; a smart girl who went ga-ga and lost her smarts in her puerile little dance with Won Won.

Finally, there's a big difference, of course, between a spur-of-the-moment decision to curse a fellow student to gain the favour of the BOY SHE HAS HOTS FOR (using the emphasis that Rowling gave the silly juvenile romantic antics in HBP) versus a calm and deliberate spell cast on her beloved parents following months of planning.

I still don't consider it likely, but it does make me think that an accidental mind-wiping is a little more plausible.

Yes, it's a neat idea, I appreciate the logic, and I agree with you, but you have to stress the 'little' in 'a little more plausible'. :-) Because of all those variables and differences between the two scenarios.

Whereas I think oneandthetruth's accusation of a mistake that renders her parents VEGETABLES which Hermione then treats by MURDERING them is one HUGE leap over a cliff in comparison.

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

There's stupid "let me cheat for a guy I like in a game I don't care about," and there's stupid "let me cheat and go out of my way to make it so blatant that it's a miracle I don't get caught and that the guy I like doesn't realize it was all me, not him."

The former, we know that Hermione does. That's explicit in the text. Do we see her deliberately do anything else like the latter, though, even in HBP?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

One last thing -

No, sorry, you're absolutely wrong on this. Your faulty recollection of Hermione's lack of crying is a single erroneous fact on which your whole (preposterous) proposition is perched?

Total BS. YOU are absolutely wrong on this. I made a mistake about one fact -

Fair enough. I was in a rush for time and decided to just concentrate on that 'one fact'. By the end of my post I'd semi-forgotten you had other arguments. I knew I didn't have time to focus on them.

Although I believe you're wrong on those, too - as per my earlier comment - I was silly to spout the 'whole preposterous proposition' rhetoric. I understand and accept your ire on this matter. Sorry.