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:

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.