Hermoine, compassion, and idealism

[malic-ba.livejournal.com]

Hi everyone

First post, hope this works!

This started out as a comment in response to DH chapter 9, below, but I decided to put it where it can be seen more easily because I'd really like to learn what people think.

The discussion was about Hermione as compassionate and/or ruthless, which grew out of a discussion of her changing her parents' identities.

To me it seems that she cares about the rights of others as an ideal, from her own perspective. That does show compassion but it's patronising. I think that's something pretty common among Western do-gooders (and probably do-gooders more generally) and it's something I have to struggle against myself. It's entirely likely in someone so young.

The scary thought is her level of potential power and the lack of guidance in the WW to help her really consider those she's trying to help. Ron points out that house elf values are different - whether because he actually considers them or to protect the status quo - but Hermione doesn't respect anything he says. Her approach agrees perfectly with the most 'enlightened' wizarding attitudes to muggles, and there are plenty of wizards who've grown up with them. I can easily see a 'greater good' type attitude developing as Hermione gains power in the Ministry.

Since JKR worked for Amnesty I wonder if this aspect of Hermione is based on what she found there?

Also, I wonder what message she was trying to send. Is it supposed to be a good or bad part of Hermoine's character? Or, with unusual subtlety for these books, both? The message almost seems to be that 'do-gooding' is pointless - SPEW is a misguided joke, compassion is wasted on goblins and giants, and no-one questions the inferiority of muggles. At the same time I'm sure it's meant to show Hermoine's courage and goodness.

What does anyone think? Is JKR really trying to turn people off idealism? If so, does that have anything to do with the actual wishes of the 'helpees'?

Comments

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

I'm going to copy-paste my comment from the chapter 9 discussion here (below). In general, I'd say that I read it as JKR intending it as demonstrating Hermione's goodness and compassion, combined with JKR's tendency to try to make comic relief of things at inopportune moments/without thinking it through. Perhaps she wanted to show Hermione as having to learn some sort of lesson about how to do this properly with the SPEW thing, but fell through on it because it was too hard to really let Hermione be wrong long enough to have to explore the elf thing in any detail and she didn't have the material mapped out for that to work worldbuilding-wise. Perhaps she also just didn't think about it, since she never reread to see what she actually wrote, and it was just a series of spur-of-the-moment decisions about drawing out the plot and creating conflict and/or comedy. Certainly JKR's failure to see the actual racism towards muggles, goblins, etc. contributed to it. I can't really see her writing it as some sort of message against idealism, since it's exactly that sort of abstract Greater Good that the premise of the whole series rests on and that makes Dumbles supposedly the 'epitome of good.'

My comment from the other discussion, for my take on Hermione:
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.

As I think I might have said in the other post, I don't see that at all. Please tell us where Hermione stands up and says "hey, folks, LOOK AT ME, I'M A CHAMPION!". It doesn't happen.

... but putting it into practice on a one-to-one basis with the individuals she is confronted with?

You can't get more one-to-one than spending months doing legal research to save Buckbeak.

She's faced with a country full of subjugated slaves. She tries to save them ALL. (Or a castle full of them.) And you're saying, what, she should have gone tossed a coin and picked ONE?

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

She does that all the time. Cho. Little Ginny. Kreacher. She's the most empathic person in the book!

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

"You can't get more one-to-one than spending months doing legal research to save Buckbeak."

But that's exactly the point, Brad. You can. This is not "one-to-one" at all! Kindhearted? Definitely. But it's legal research; it's not reacting astutely and empathetically to the person (or animal) who's right in front of you.

I have a lot of fellow feeling with Hermione, even after DH. I think she means well. But I also think she is very competitive and rather insecure and, like many others in the Potterverse, lacking in empathy. I think Condwiramurs has given a very astute and accurate assessment of the character.

Note: neither she nor I thinks that Hermione would ever be a conscious and willing murderer. Never! The sort who would do harm to others "for the greater good", or because she thought she knew what was best for them? Alas, yes.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

But it's legal research; it's not reacting astutely and empathetically to the person (or animal) who's right in front of you.

I just ... don't understand your point at all. It's months and months of effort to save the life of an animal. I don't think that would be possible without 'empathy'.

Now, tell me that she lacks social skills, or is too blunt - at first - and I'll agree. Terri's pointed out her bossy manner in the train going to Hogwarts, for example. In the first book. When she's eleven years old. :-)

But no empathy? Because she chooses to spend her time where it's most needed - 'legal research' or not - to save a life?

No, sorry, I just can't agree.

neither she nor I thinks that Hermione would ever be a conscious and willing murderer. Never!

At least most people here are agreed on that score. oneandthetruth stretched things waaaaaaay out of proportion with that one!

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

In a reply to madderbrad on that other thread, I went through the scene introducing us to Hermone. I'd never really subjected it to close analysis before, but really her actual behavrior the first time we see her was so socially inept as to be outright boorish.

She entered without knocking or apologizing for intruding (Neville had done both), she sat down without invitation in someone else's space, she ordered Ron to demonstrate his spell, insulted him for its failure, informed him that she could do better and that she'd already memorized all their course books--and then introduced herself! And then when she learned who Harry was, she listed off all the books she'd read about him, and implicitly criticized HIM for not having done so himself. Then she informed the boys that only the "best" house, Gryffindor, is good enough for her, then she told the boys she needed to be off to look for Neville's toad, and told the boys to change because she expected that they'd arrive soon. (Incorrectly--it's hours yet)

What we see is someone who cares about other people's opinions and feelings, unlike Tom Riddle, but who's remarkably insensitive in actually registering them. Rather, she seems to project her own values and feelings on others and assumes they feel as she would, or as she thinks they ought.

It's a good thing to be very smart and to do well, all her teachers tell her so, so if she establishes that she's smarter and better-performing than everyone else, they'll admire her, right? They ought to, therefore they will!

Rules (internal) substitute for responding to non-verbal cues about what the other person thinks/feels.

Even Harry can see that Ron (like he) is appalled, not admiring, at Hermione's bragging about having memorized the texts. But Hermione is entirely oblivious to the boys' reaction. she goes on to compound her error by listing the books she'd read about Harry!

I suspect that the reason she reacted so strongly to Ron's words at Halloween is tha they were actually news to her: no one can stand her, she's a nightmare, honestly, she must have noticed she'd got no friends..... I think she hadn't actually quite noticed that--she knew something was wrong, that people she tried to "help" (help keep out of trouble, like she tried to keep Harry from flying after Draco and from his "duel", or help in class, like she corrected Ron's errors of pronunciation) didn't seem to appreciate her well-meant efforts, but I think she really was so oblivious and insensitve to non-verbal cues that it took outright hearing someone talking about it to clue her in.

And when she'd been trying so hard to do everything right!

So she lied to teachers and denigrated her own intelligence, signalling to the boys that she's submitting to theri values over hers.

But that doesn't change her nature. If she's decided to stop upholding rules where her friends are concerned and to privilege bravery over book-learning, it doesn't make her more empathetic or more able to see points of view or feelings that are alien to her. (It took two months of ostracism and Ron's verbal diagnosis to make her realize her peers didn't share her own admiration of her rule-enforcing and overachieving). This is not a girl who's sensitive to others, even to those whose opinions she cares for.

Consider her treatment of Kreacher in Book 7. Trying to hug someone who thinks you're vermin and filth is not considerate behavior, even if it's prompted by compassion for his agony of spirit. The kindest thing Hermione could have done would have been to have kept herself out of Kreacher's sight and not keep shoving in his face that his mistress's house (and he) had been defiled.

She meant well, of course.

If she cares about you, she'll do what SHE thinks you should like without noticing whether you like it or not. (Like giving Harry and Ron homework planners that nag and insult them 5th Xmas. She expected them to like that??!)

And if you're outside of the circle of her concern, she's utterly callous.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

What we see is someone who cares about other people's opinions and feelings, unlike Tom Riddle, but who's remarkably insensitive in actually registering them. Rather, she seems to project her own values and feelings on others and assumes they feel as she would, or as she thinks they ought.

Yes, this exactly. You've summed up - perfectly - something I was only grasping at earlier. It's not that she simply doesn't care, at all, about others' feelings - it's that she's not good at actually registering the possibility that others could feel *differently* than she wants or expects them to feel. She's self-centered, not exactly in outright thinking others' feelings or views don't matter, but insofar as her emotional reality is the only one really present for/real to her, and she unthinkingly projects it onto others in her attempts to engage with them. It's sort of like the difference between the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) and the Platinum Rule (treat others as they wish to be treated).

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

And if you're outside of the circle of her concern, she's utterly callous.

Hmmm, just like Sirius. Maybe someone should write SB/HG romances. :D

It just now occurs to me that all of Rowling's self-inserts--Harry, Hermione, Albus--are like that. That says something very ugly about Rowling herself. As a corollary, anyone who is sensitive, especially to the feelings of others--Snivellus, anyone?--is ridiculed and diminished in these books. Neville only receives approval when he turns into a typical Gryffindor in DH--brash, smart-mouthed, and defiant. True, he's defying DEs, but he could have done that without becoming a loudmouth. And Lily, who starts out fairly sensitive to Severus's feelings, becomes more callous and selfish the longer she's at Hogwarts. What's really sick is that we're supposed to regard that as a good thing.

Just when I think the corruption of these books has been fully plumbed, something like this happens to show me newer, uglier depths.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

But that doesn't change her nature.

Sure it does. Or are you saying that no-one can change their nature, their personality, ever?

I certainly wouldn't agree with that.

And how does one change one's personality? By changing one's behaviour. As you've noted Hermione did.

It took two months of ostracism and Ron's verbal diagnosis to make her realize her peers didn't share her own admiration of her rule-enforcing and overachieving.

I doubt it was that black-and-white. She may have noticed her lack of popularity. But she may have been waging an internal war - so what if no-one liked her when SHE WAS RIGHT?!! Ron's blunt diagnosis was probably the straw that broke the camel's back, that changed her priorities. And that triggered the change of Hermione Granger's personality into the much more likeable character that we saw since then, i.e. for about 95% of the series.

(*gak*. My goodness, I have reason to LIKE RON!!!!!)

The kindest thing Hermione could have done would have been to have kept herself out of Kreacher's sight and not keep shoving in his face that his mistress's house (and he) had been defiled.

Oh, goodness. That's a rather simplistic and demanding attitude, isn't it?

So you're saying that Kreacher's 'racism' should have ruled supreme during the months that Hermione was staying - as a guest of his master - at Grimmauld Place?

Everything in moderation, Terri. Understanding Kreacher's upbringing and personality - as Hermione is sensitive and wise enough to do - doesn't mean making yourself a doormat. Your suggestion is overkill. You're granting Kreacher absolute and total rights and Hermione zero. (And Harry, Kreacher's master, too.)

Canon rules you wrong anyway. By the end of the series Kreacher had mollified greatly. No longer rejecting Hermione's presence (so your imposing HIDE YOURSELF FROM THE RACIST ELF restrictions on a free witch were unnecessary) and even acknowledging her.

[oryx_leucoryx]

But that doesn't change her nature.

Sure it does. Or are you saying that no-one can change their nature, their personality, ever?

I certainly wouldn't agree with that.

And how does one change one's personality? By changing one's behaviour. As you've noted Hermione did.

I think you are missing Terri's point. Hermione was acting - not to save the boys from trouble, as Harry believed, but to ingratiate herself with the boys. She was manipulating them dishonestly in order to save herself from her outsider status.

[hwyla.livejournal.com]

I usually attempt to stay 'Watsonian' in my explanations of canon, however, I was also expecting something in the books to show JKRs ties to Amnesty Int'l. - tho' I expected to see it in a different way than this. I suppose, in the end, that the Muggleborn Registration was the closest she ever came.

However, in the case of Hermione and the house-elves, JKR has said in interview that it was a subplot she didn't originally plan. That she was writing along and when she got to that spot the character of Hermione demanded it. In other words, I'd say it was done more without planning, but on a 'feeling' that wasn't necessarily based on 'wanting' to do it, so much as it just 'felt right' for her character.

But I really do think it fits Hermione. She (like Albus), has been told umpteen times how brilliant she is. She has come to the spot where she does not believe she can ever be wrong. And while I do agree with her about the slavery, once she saw that her methods were not working, she should have stepped back and done what she could to speak directly to the elves and find out why. Instead, she plowed on (at least for a while) whether the house-elves wanted her to or not.

Her knowledge comes from 'book-learning' not from experience. Unlike youngSev, whose brilliance came from trying out new things when old ones didn't work quite the way he wanted, she will just keep going with the original (see her disgust with Harry over the scribblings in the potions book). Her best creativity came from reworking existing things found in books - such as the DA coins.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Having been the recipient of Hermione's kind of "help" from several relatives, I can tell you it really has nothing to do with helping at all. That is, I have family members who love to butt into other people's lives, saying, "You should do this," or "You should do that." But that's all they do: give orders. They never offer to help accomplish this goal they've arbitrarily set for someone else, with either money or labor. They just sit on their cans flapping their jaws, feeling morally superior because they tried to "help," and complaining about what incompetent losers the rest of us are for not following their "advice" (which is always couched as an order). And just like Hermione with the house elves, they never bother to find out if the people they're "helping" really want their help, or at least that kind of help. They just decide for someone else that someone else needs to do such-and-such.

For example, several months ago, my oldest sister told me, "You should set up a Facebook account for Mom so she can keep in touch with her grandchildren." Never mind that it's not my job to manage the social lives of a bunch of adults. Never mind that our mother is afraid of computers, so such an account wouldn't do her any good, anyway. Never mind that my sister already has a Facebook account, so if she thought this was such a great idea, she could do it herself. Nooooooooo. As Mommy's designated caretaker, it's my job to do anything like that. Whether I want to do this is totally irrelevant.

In other words, people like Hermione are not really helpers or reformers at all. They're just sermonizers on an ego trip. It's just another kind of narcissism: "Look how wonderful and helpful I am. Why, I'm so smart, I know when people need help, even when they don't realize it themselves. And, by God, they're going to accept my help--whether they like it or not. Because my feeling good about myself is more important than anything else."

[librasmile.livejournal.com]

Well said

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

But that's all they do: give orders.

But that's not all Hermione does.

She spends months trying to save Buckbeak.

She spends years saving Harry.

She spends months knitting caps to help the elves.

She's solicitous towards Kreacher even though he's a ratbag towards her.

She helps Neville with his homework (that I recall). She helps the boys for seven years with theirs. Rather than, like, 'giving orders' and then letting them wallow.

That's just not true at all.

They're just sermonizers on an ego trip.

Please cite examples from the books where Hermione stands up and shouts LOOK AT ME I'M WONDERFUL THIS IS MY EGO TALKING.

And I'll give you excerpts like this:

"You're the cleverest witch of your age I've ever met, Hermione."

"I'm not," Hermione whispered. "If I'd been a bit cleverer, I'd have told everyone what you are!"

Or this:

'But that's ... that's NEWT standard, that is,' he said weakly.

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

Funny how the Ravenclaws hadn't known - from Hermione's public ego trips - just how smart she is. Look how modest she is instead.

And, by God, they're going to accept my help--whether they like it or not. Because my feeling good about myself is more important than anything else."

Hermione is one of the most self-sacrificing people in the books, as per my examples above. I don't know who you're talking about, but it's not the Hermione Granger from the books.

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

Funny how the Ravenclaws hadn't known - from Hermione's public ego trips - just how smart she is. Look how modest she is instead.

Maybe they didn't know she could do anything useful, just regurgitate information from textbooks?

Anyway, here's an example of Hermione more focused on showing off than on anything else:

-----------------------------
“As I was saying before Potter interrupted, Professor Lupin has not left any record of the topics you have covered so far —”
“Please, sir, we’ve done Boggarts, Red Caps, Kappas, and Grindylows,” said Hermione quickly, “and we’re just about to start —”
“Be quiet,” said Snape coldly. “I did not ask for information. [...]


Today we shall discuss [...] — werewolves,” said Snape.
“But, sir,” said Hermione, seemingly unable to restrain herself, “we’re not supposed to do werewolves yet, we’re due to start Hinkypunks —”
“Miss Granger,” said Snape in a voice of deadly calm, “I was under the impression that I am teaching this lesson, not you. [...]


“Which of you can tell me how we distinguish between the werewolf and the true wolf?” said Snape.
Everyone sat in motionless silence; everyone except Hermione, whose hand, as it so often did, had shot straight into the air.
“Anyone?” Snape said, ignoring Hermione. [...]


“Please, sir,” said Hermione, whose hand was still in the air, “the werewolf differs from the true wolf in several small ways. The snout of the werewolf —”
----------------------------


Regardless of whether you think Snape should have called on Hermione (and allowed the rest of the class to sit there blankly), Hermione's behavior is focused on what *she* wants, not what anyone else wants. The first interruption could be genuinely intended to be helpful, but with the second and third, Hermione knows she isn't helping. She's more interested in what she has to say than what anyone else has to say, and that determines her behavior.

The other students take her side in this case because Snape is unpopular and because this was a time when they didn't have anything that they *wanted* to say. But "every one of them had called Hermione a know-it-all at least once." That isn't a compliment, and it isn't a reflection of how much she knows: it's a reflection of how she behaves.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Maybe they didn't know she could do anything useful, just regurgitate information from textbooks?

Ha ha ha! You shouldn't let your enmity for the character flavour your interpretation of 25% of the students of Hogwarts. :-)

“we’re not supposed to do werewolves yet ..."

And she was right! Just being helpful again. So that's both first and second interruptions being helpful.

And as for the third:

“Anyone?” Snape said -

Are you saying that Hermione Granger is not 'anyone'?

Snape asked for 'anyone'.

Hermione replied.

I see no problem here.

Three out of three 'interruptions' fully justified.

[maidofkent.livejournal.com]

The clue is in 'trying to look modest'. If she were actually modest, she'd be blushing and mumbling, not putting an effort in. You could say that she shoudn't have to be modest about her intellectual/magical ability, but that is a different argument. Your argument is that she is naturally modest, when the text is telling you quite clearly that she is not; she has recognised that being modest about cleverness is a socially desirable norm in the UK, and she is trying to achieve that norm. It does not come naturally.

As to the Ravenclaws' knowledge of Hermione, do they actually share any classes with the Gryffs? Potions is shared with the Slytherins, and Herbology with the Puffs, but I can't think of a class with Ravenclaw until NEWT level.

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

Thanks -- this is something that I was thinking, but couldn't find a good way to express.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

A modest person is someone who acts modestly.

To act modestly one has to 'try' to be modest.

That may be easy for those who are naturally modest, or have nothing to be modest about. More difficult for those who are superior to her classmates. And intelligent enough to know it.

But, luckily, determined to be modest and thus not push that fact in their faces.

As to the Ravenclaws' knowledge of Hermione, do they actually share any classes with the Gryffs?

I have no idea.

But I do think that, if Hermione had been trumpeting her superiority all over the place, the Ravenclaws would have known. Gossip has been shown to move very fast at Hogwarts.

[maidofkent.livejournal.com]

Actually, madderbrad, I do agree with your there. Hermione doesn't just give orders, she actively involves herself in causes, but sometimes she is less than helpful - the houselves' hats, doing Ron and Harry's work for them.

In a post below, librasmile talks about Hermione being self-satisfied because of her professional middle-class background. I'm not sure that's quite right. Hermione comes to Hogwarts with an almost pathological desire to do well, 'sitting on the edge of her seat, desperate to start proving she wasn't a dunderhead'. Even in third year, her Boggart is Minerva telling her she's failed academically. That speaks to me of a child who feels (rightly or wrongly since we know little of the Grangers) that love for her, her self-worth, is dependent on her achievements, particularly her academic achievements. She needed support on that front, and didn't get it.

Hermione is not a monster when she comes to Hogwarts. She is a little girl with good instincts, to study hard, to help the weak, to be a loyal friend. However, she does not take account of how other people feel about being helped; as with Neville on the train, she forces her help on them. A decent school could have taken and developed Hermione's good instincts, and helped her understand how to direct them. She could have emerged a thoroughly decent person.

Instead, she is allowed (except by Snape) to get away with rote-learning. She becomes ruthless in her loyalty to her friends, and is left to throw herself into causes without adult guidance. (Why, for example, was helping Buckbeak left to a 14 year old? ). So the negative side of her instincts is allowed to develop. Harry couldn't have survived without her, but the Hermione we end up with is not the way Hermione should have developed.

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but I have to address this exchange, presented as an example of Hermione's modesty:

"You're the cleverest witch of your age I've ever met, Hermione."

"I'm not," Hermione whispered. "If I'd been a bit cleverer, I'd have told everyone what you are!"

After due reflection, it isn't modesty to acknowledge having made a mistake when the mistake is a werewolf you could have gotten kicked out (as she believed) teaming up with an apparent mass-murderer to apparently kill you and your friends. While confronted with said werewolf and possibly rapidly approaching death. At it's best, that's being honest.

On the other hand, *staying silent* was a bit of an ego-trip. Here's the first mention of Hermione knowing, about midway through the book:

“Still looks ill, doesn’t he?” said Ron as they walked down the corridor, heading to dinner. “What d’you reckon’s the matter with him?”

There was a loud and impatient “tuh” from behind them. It was Hermione, who had been sitting at the feet of a suit of armor, repacking her bag, which was so full of books it wouldn’t close.

“And what are you tutting at us for?” said Ron irritably.

“Nothing,” said Hermione in a lofty voice, heaving her bag back over her shoulder.

“Yes, you were,” said Ron. “I said I wonder what’s wrong with Lupin, and you —”

“Well, isn’t it obvious?” said Hermione, with a look of maddening superiority.

I'm not sure what exactly I think of Hermione, but I do *not* think she's modest.

[librasmile.livejournal.com]

I probably should not reply because I'm not sure how relevant my thoughts on this will seem. But...here goes nuthin'...

For quite a while now I've seen Hermione as quite smug and self-satisfied. I don't think it's just a function of the dynamics of the wizard world and her place in it as the "brightest witch of her age" I think she would have been that way had she never found her way into the wizard world. It's a hazard of coming from a very comfortable background - professional, middle class, financially secure. Not everyone from such a background is like that. But it's much easier to fall into that mindset when one is. (I can hear the backlash bubbling up now...anyhoo...)

I can't address anything specific in the chapter simply because the minute I finished reading the series most of it just faded from my mind, the details anyway. What I do recall is the complete lack of history or any kind of codified moral center. For example, when I write my fan fic I have to THINK about why an element of that world is the way it is. There COULD be VERY valid reasons of the house elves' servitude. But since no one at Hogwarts or apparently the wizard world takes the study of history seriously they never think to look back for the ORIGINS of that servitude - origins that could reveal that reason.

As for a codified moral center - religion gets a very bad rap, deservedly so when one counts up all the people killed thanks to religious wars, witch hunts. pogroms, terrorism and the like which sadly are ever going. Having acknowledged that, the one thing many many religions seem to come up with is the notion that mankind should NEVER place itself on the throne of the universe. Yet if one has magical power how do you avoid falling into that temptation? There's no institution in the wizard world that at least tries to keep that impulse in check, i.e., the impulse to elevate onesself above others.

It seems to me that the lesson of the so called deathly hallows was supposed to be this acceptance of one's limitations although it still doesn't quite send the message home if you ask me.

Okay that was tangential but hopefully you find something of value or insight in it.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

As far as the elves go, my view is this: there is something very wrong in the elves' current situation as we see it in the books. Being literally forced into obedience or into hurting oneself at the whim of sadistic or even just empathy-deprived masters is not ok, nor is treating a whole race of creatures like walking furniture ok. However, beyond those issues it becomes murkier, since we do not get a reliable, full look at what the situation looks like from the elves' own POV. All we know is that they view it differently than wizards and witches do, in a way that brings most of them to accept it for some reason/to some degree.

This might conceivably be the result of some sort of mass intergenerational brainwashing scheme foisted upon them by wizards, in which case there's an even more massive injustice going on than anything canon hinted at. Or, as Jodel convincingly argues, it could be that wizards took unfair advantage of some cultural or pyschobiological mechanism whereby elves have always connected deeply with their homestead and then twisted it or used it to lay a geas upon the elves. In which case it's the latter manipulation that's the root of the wrongness, not the elves' sense of themselves as bound in some way to something beyond themselves.

ITA regarding the lack of any check upon wizards' sense of their power and elevating themselves over others. One of the things that most disgusts me in certain kinds of fawning admiration of the series is the validating of that arrogance in arguments that Harry is like Christ because he's totally got the two natures, human/divine thing going on too! (I have literally seen it argued, yes, that one reason Harry is Christlike is because just as Jesus had a human parent and a divine one, so Harry had muggle and wizarding blood! Nevermind that Lily was a *witch,* and that being wizard is *not,* in fact, equivalent to being a deity. Grrrrrrr.)

[deathsblood.livejournal.com]

Even if it were, every half-blood would be Christ-like, which would make it meaningless, especially since I think Rowling said at some point that half of the students at Hogwarts were half-bloods.

[librasmile.livejournal.com]

YOU WROTE: As far as the elves go, my view is this: there is something very wrong in the elves' current situation as we see it in the books. Being literally forced into obedience or into hurting oneself at the whim of sadistic or even just empathy-deprived masters is not ok, nor is treating a whole race of creatures like walking furniture ok....

ME: Hmm, maybe. It all depends. If elves were human than I'd say yes. But they're not human so we don't know if they're hurt the same way. Which sounds awful I know. But I read a wonderful fan fic where Dobby turned out to be this terrifyingly powerful creature which made me wonder, hunh, maybe there's a reason the elves are so restrained. I wish I could remember the name of that fic. There's also Caeria's Pet Project which fleshes out the elves wonderfully. Hermione poses a question that has something of your elements of concern about the elves' treatment and freedom and the Elf Matriarch Lonny replies that the elf relationship to humans is something like that of a parent ( the elf ) to a child ( the human/wizard ). Her elves are also more powerful apparators than the wizads and can get through any ward. But because they are in such a humble position, the wizards completely overlook that power until the Order takes advantage of it against Voldemort. Really fascinating. Here's the URL: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/2290003/1/Pet-Project


YOU WROTE: ITA regarding the lack of any check upon wizards' sense of their power and elevating themselves over others. One of the things that most disgusts me in certain kinds of fawning admiration of the series is the validating of that arrogance in arguments that Harry is like Christ because he's totally got the two natures, human/divine thing going on too! (I have literally seen it argued, yes, that one reason Harry is Christlike is because just as Jesus had a human parent and a divine one, so Harry had muggle and wizarding blood! Nevermind that Lily was a *witch,* and that being wizard is *not,* in fact, equivalent to being a deity. Grrrrrrr.)

ME: Yup, yup and yup. It's absolutely insane. But then someone wrote a book about the religious validity of Star Wars ( original, non-Lucas-crapped over version ) way back when. I kid you not. Yeah...

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

To address your actual question.... Authorial intent is a tricky one, but JKR seems quite sincerely to have admired her own heroes and not seen any of their behavior as truly problematic. (Wise Dumbledore, loving Harry's gallant Crucio, etc.)

I expect she felt it humanized Hermione a bit, making her the brainy girl who's still a bit clueless about how people work and whose idealism leads her to go overboard a little.

And, as madderbrad delights in pointing out, Hermione's competence and preparation repeatedly save the day for the Trio. And the same idealism that led her to found SPEW is part of what led her to follow Harry on the Horcrux-hunt. (The rest being personal loyalty).

So I think we are meant to see her idealism as positive. As long as, like the good gril she is, she uses it, like her intelligence, in Harry's service. it's only when she gets too carried away with her opnions that run counter to Harry's that she goes off-track.