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]

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.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Okay, thanks for the correction. That's two times in the last half hour I've failed to find some canon dialogue that takes place before and therefore invalidates a scene that I've jumped into via keyword searching. :-( I must improve my digital forensic skills.

But I fail to see maidofkent's point:

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

So? I don't get it. Clearly Trevor was still lost. Neville hadn't 'managed to look for his toad'.

*trembles in fear he's missed something yet again*

If Hermione had done nothing we'd have people here accusing her of being an unfeeling, unsympathetic cold-blooded parent murderer. :-) C'mon, you know that's true. :-)

Instead - given Neville's failure, his BELOVED PET IS (STILL) LOST!! - she offers to help.

I think maidofkent has given us just one more (one of many!) reasons why we (should) all love Hermione Granger.

[maidofkent.livejournal.com]

By 'Neville had managed to look for his toad', I meant that Neville had plucked up the courage to go round the train asking people he didn't know if they had seen Trevor. Neville's problem in the earlier books is his lack of confidence; he needs to learn to overcome that, and in looking for Trevor by himself he had done that in this particular instance. Hermione is being well-meaning here, she is trying to help, but as someone who was an unconfident child herself, I can tell you that what you do not need is a well-meaning bossyboots 'taking charge' of you. I know Hermione is only a little girl here and won't understand that. I'm not saying that she is being horrible here, but that it is an early indication of the traits condwiramurs outlines very well in the thread below.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

*shrugs*

Neville was probably so shy at this point he would never have 'overcome' his lack of confidence and gone looking; he might have stayed in his compartment. Leaving Trevor to be squished by big feet or railway wheels.

Instead kindly Hermione lends a helping hand and SAVES THE DAY TOAD, yay!

:-)

[maidofkent.livejournal.com]

Don't want to overdo this discussion but he had gone looking on his own before Hermione interfered. i should also point out that she saved neither the day nor the toad - Hagrid finds Trevor by the boats.

[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.

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Invested in seeing herself as good, compassionate, and smarter than everyone. And justified by her good intentions and superior understanding in telling others what to do. Like Albus. PS:

There was a knock on the door of their compartment and the round-faced boy... came in. He looked tearful.

"Sorry," he said, "but have you seen a toad at all?"
...

He [Ron] had just raised his wand when the compartment door slid open again. 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. She had a bossy sort of voice, lots of bushy brown hair, and rather large front teeth.

"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.


First, note that Neville knocks and apologizes for the intrustion; Hermione just barges in. She doesn't listen to Ron's answer; she hadn't listened to Neville when he tried to tell her he'd just checked there. (Neville had barely left the duo's compartment [a few lines of dialogue and a rummage for Ron's wand] when Hermione dragged him back in.) The message to Neville is that he's too stupid and incompetent to search for his toad himself, SHE can do it better.

Showing good intentions? Absolutely. Showing good, or even basic, social skills and empathy? Umm....


...the wand in his hand.

"Oh, are you doing magic? Let's see it then."

She sat down. Ron looked taken aback.

"Er--all right."

[His spell fails.]

"Are you sure that's a real spell?" said the girl. "Well, it's not very good, is it? I've tried a few simple spells just for practice and it's all worked for me. Nobody in my family's magic at all, it was ever such a surprise when I got my letter.... I've learned all our course books by heart, of course. I just hope it will be enough--I'm Hermione Granger, by the way, who are you?"

She said all this very fast


I think, madderbrad, that you asked for a canon example of Miss Granger drawing her peer's attention to her superior intelligence and abilities? And note that, again, she did what she pleased without attention to either the boys' probable wishes or common courtesy, plumping herself down in THEIR compartment without an invitation and ordering Ron to show her his spell.

... very fast.

Harry looked at Ron, and was relieved to see by his stunned face that he hadn't learned all the course books by heart either.

"I'm Ron Weasley," Ron muttered.

"Harry Potter," said Harry.

"Are you really?" said Hermione. "I know all about you, of course--I got a few extra books for background reading, and your're in... [list]"

"Am I?" said Harry, feeling dazed.

"Goodness, didn't you know, I'd have found out everything I could if it was me," said Hermione. "Do either of you know what house you'll be in? I've been asking around, and I hope I'm in Gryffindor, it's sounds by far the best... Anyway, we'd better go and look for Neville's toad. You two had better change, you know, I expect we'll be there soon."

And she left, taking the toadless boy with her.

So she insults Ron, telling him that she, with no previous exposure to magic, can already do much better, and she's so smart she's got the books memorized. Anyone with a grain of empathy would register that this revelation has NOT won friends and influenced people--even our dim HARRY can see that Ron, like he, is "stunned" rather than (favorably) impressed. Hermione is oblivious however: having started by pointing out how much more skilled and intelligent she is than Ron, she then establishes that she's more knowledgable than Harry..

For her exit, she orders them about and one-ups them yet again, this time incorrectly. (I know when we're arriving, and you don't!) And then goes and asks the conductor to get the correct ETA, and makes a curtain call, intruding AGAIN, to repeat her previous information and instructtions!

She likes to tell people what to do. She likes to inform them that she knows better than they, and so they should just do what she says. And at eleven, she was clueless that openly displaying this attitude would make her strongly disliked.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Yes. Also I would add that being emotionally invested in a certain image of oneself doesn't always translate directly into invested in being publicly seen that way. It's possible to be deeply invested in an image of oneself as XYZ whether or not people 'acknowledge' one 'really is' XYZ, or even to be invested in an image of oneself as nobly doing good despite the ignorance of others - or even having to hide one's 'true' goodness from others for the sake of the cause, etc. Emotional investment in an image of oneself doesn't necessarily mean being Lockhart about it, just that it matters a great deal to the person hirself, in a way that can block true mature appraisal of oneself.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I think, madderbrad, that you asked for a canon example of Miss Granger drawing her peer's attention to her superior intelligence and abilities?

Hee. :-) I think you found me one.

(Curse you. :-))

Still, as you say -

And at eleven, ...

Looking at the examples I gave, at some time in the series other than the *very beginning* Terrri!!!, I think we can all see that Hermione made lots of progress into maturing into a much less egotistical girl.

[malic-ba.livejournal.com]

This is true. In this scene, at 11, she doesn't notice at all how others react to her behaviour, and doesn't consider how they feel.

I don't think that necessarily means that she likes bossing people around, just that she thinks about the problem, or whatever issue's on her mind, without thinking about the actual people at all. I'm sure it doesn't cross her mind that she's insulted Ron.

But, to be fair, later that year she finds out that acting that way makes other kids dislike her, and she moderates her behaviour. She'll never be empathic, but she does try to be more thoughtful. (Not with Ron, though.)

Sadly, Dumbledore is the worst possible role model.

[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.

[sunnyskywalker]

cont.

Hermione's parents obviously taught her what kinds of things "good people" do, and she tries to do them. I don't think they're deliberate Machiavellian posing of the "if I do these things people will think I'm good and therefore I can manipulate them MWAHAHA!" type. However, I do think it's possible that she thinks of herself as a good person - and how many people don't, honestly? even Voldemort says he doesn't think evil is a valid category, not that he's evil and loves it - and so it's very important to her that she understand the things she does in terms of why they're "good." Nothing unusual there - again, how many people don't do this? And she is driven to be the best in what she attempts, such as schoolwork, so she probably also wants to be "best at being good." Again, not uncommon, and not necessarily bad.

Thehangup I see is that Hermione very often does not understand how things affect other people or take their differences and their pain into account. So she justifies her actions to herself as good, and rarely stops to reflect on whether having what she's sure are good intentions means the methods and outcomes are also good. It would be painful if she did so and realized that deep down, her motives weren't as pure as she'd initially believed, or that the outcome was in fact something terrible. Again, this is not uncommon human behavior. And she's immersed in the wizarding world, where putting kids at risk of horrific injury or death is often taken as a matter of course and treating Muggles like lesser beings to be mind-wiped at will is actually legally required in many cases. When these standards mix with her fervent belief that what she does is good because she's good, it's a dangerous mix. Which, again, I think is understandable and even tragic. But also scary, because she could do a lot of harm while telling herself it's for the greater good. And I don't think believing oneself to be doing the right thing makes it so.

But I did think up a scenario where she didn't actually alter her parents' memories at all or even anything half as dubious, and I think Lynn came up with a perfectly good reason she might have lied to Harry about it to protect her parents from possible Voldie-intrusion into Harry's head, so it isn't like I'm bent on proving Hermione is evil. I let her off the hook for what I consider one of the worst possible things she could have done! So when I say I don't see her being super-amazingly-compassionate in the text, it's because I actually don't see it.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

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 ...

Much like some people do here. :)

No, I appreciate that quoting other people's opinions is nebulous and doesn't stand as 'evidence' at all ... unless the canon facts that support said opinions are also available. I believe most of those quotes I provided went on to attach those facts. "Hermione is compasionate because ..." and a HP fact of Hermione *being* compassionate was then mentioned.

Hermione didn't bother to ask him where he'd already looked before charging around into compartments to show how helpful she was being -

No. Hermione *may have* not bothered to ask him - we aren't shown Neville protesting "Hermione, I've already checked here!" - where he'd already looked before charging around into compartments to be helpful. Please show me where, in this incident, Hermione said "hey everyone, please look at me and note that I'm helpful!". She said nothing of the sort. Neville's lost his toad, where is his toad, you should get dressed.

her analysis of Cho's feelings in OotP is far from evidence of any great sensitivity.

Of course it is! The 'cold blooded murderess' caricature that oneandthetruth attempted to define would never have had such insight. Or pointed it out to Harry, trying to help him/her. Or applied same insight to the house elves, and Kreacher, crying as she related their situation.

It's just that Harry and Ron are so very dense that your scale of measurement is off.

Of course there's an element of that too.

Part of that analysis might well be Lavender and Parvati's.

That's more of a stretch than simply accepting that Hermione Granger, smartest girl of her age, demonstrated progressive with a history of helping others, worked out herself Cho's situation, just as she explained. Going another couple of hops - she's suddenly part of the girls gossip network, she's now good friends with Lavender and Parvati, she's picked up gossip that Harry and Ron haven't, and just at the right time to impart it to Harry - is just making for a more complicated answer simply because that's the one you prefer. The simplest answer, and the one consistent with the character of the rest of the books, is that Hermione worked it out for herself.

Case closed. :-)

[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.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

As I've said elsewhere, I quite agree that quoting others' opinions isn't evidence.

But most or all of the quotes I furnished were - in the source material - substantiated by canon facts. "Hermione is compassionate because she once did this", etc.

If you don't agree with the quotes, follow them back to the source, and if there weren't facts attached, then sure, the quotes are rendered insufficient as evidence. But if the facts are attached then the conclusions stand.

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

I quite agree that quoting others' opinions isn't evidence.

But most or all of the quotes I furnished were - in the source material - substantiated by canon facts.

If you don't agree with the quotes, follow them back to the source

(blink)

Right, quoting other people's opinions isn't evidence, it's the facts from the book... so *you* need to go to the book and find the evidence from the book. Not the people on the other side of the debate, *you*.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I guess you didn't take the time to fully read my original post using the quotes?

Here's the pertinent extract from my original comment, verbatim.

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've put in bold the parts that attribute the canon facts which substantiate the opinions, to make it easier for you this second time.

I guess the third section is a bit indirect, fair enough, but even my poor HP memory could work out the associations from the hints supplied. Let's see ... Neville Longbottom - okay, from the very start, on the train, and then she helps him with his homework. House-Elves, that's easy, SPEW & Kreacher. Fellow muggle-borns ... hmmm, I don't recall when Hermione went out to bat for them specifically? I dare say somewhere in the books she mentioned them in her anger about their mistreatment, maybe as late as the concentration camps in DH? Okay Lynn, the onus would be on me to find that link/evidence. Half-giants, sure, she was angry at Skeeter for writing about Hagrid negatively in fourth year. Werewolves, that's obvious, she kept Lupin's secret in book #3.

Case closed!

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

The bit about Crookshanks counts as evidence from the book, although more context from the quote would have been helpful to make sure that the full context was given. I had to look it up.

For "moved to tears by Dumbledore's great act of friendship" thing, you/they didn't give any context, so I don't know how much of that is the book, and how much of that is interpretation. After all, with the half dozen quotes of Hermione crying from OotP that you quoted, none of them were as sympathetic as you implied (although I do have sympathy for anyone being ranted at by Harry).

The last bolded thing: that's more (less?) than indirect, that's a list of names. The evidence is the specific cases where she helped them -- specific examples that can be examined, to see whether she was actually demonstrating compassion, or what.

In any case, this is getting boring. You prefer quantity of the examples you can list over the quality of analyzing things in the text, which is the part that's interesting. Moreover, if anyone knocks down an example, you shrug it off by saying that there are plenty more examples. If knocking down an example makes no difference to your viewpoint (and I can't remember a time when it *has* made a difference), then there's no point to this debate.