deathtocapslock | Hermoine, compassion, and idealism

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'?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

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.

From:

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!

From:

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.

From:

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!

From:

mary-j-59.livejournal.com

Brad, as Condwiramurs says, that is sympathy, not empathy. But the Potterverse is, IMHO, an empathy-deprived universe. No one in it exhibits true empathy - not Hermione, certainly not Severus, maybe not even Luna, who seems to come closest. Certainly not Harry! When he shows signs of empathy, Dumbledore carefully quashes them. I would be willing to agree that, in her early years (up to and including GOF), Hermione approaches Luna in her capacity at least for sympathy. But the Wizarding World does her no favors. I really do think it's an evil place.

From:

madderbrad.livejournal.com

Wow, my first attempt with this comment was marked by LJ as 'spam'? Was it because I wrote dictionary dot com? I'll change that and see if it passes muster.

Brad, as Condwiramurs says, that is sympathy, not empathy.

She's wrong.

Dictionary dot com says this of 'sympathy':

1. harmony of or agreement in feeling, as between persons or on the part of one person with respect to another.

2. the harmony of feeling naturally existing between persons of like tastes or opinion or of congenial dispositions.

There is most definitely NOT an 'agreement in feeling' between Hermione and Kreacher, nor are they 'persons of like tastes or opinion or of congenial dispositions'. Ha ha ha!

But 'empathy', on the other hand:

1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

That's *exactly* what Hermione Granger shows in the books. Spot-on. Her analysis of Cho's feelings, of Kreacher's motivations, is most certainly an 'intellectual identification' of same.

So Condwiramurs is wrong.

Edited Date: 2013-04-21 01:20 am (UTC)

From:

oryx_leucoryx

Well, I don't think she understands Kreacher's motivations at all. She has a very superficial interpretation of his motivations. How does she know he judges people entirely by whether they treat him with kindness or with cruelty? Voldemort didn't treat Kreacher with kindness, yet that did not stop Kreacher from thinking it was right of Regulus to support him. The fairest thing Hermione could have said was that without a better understanding of elf culture it is impossible for the trio to understand Kreacher's motivation.

As for spam - any post containing links is marked as spam. Regretfully so, because this 'feature' makes proper debate very difficult.

From:

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.

From:

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).

From:

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.

From:

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.