Hermoine, compassion, and idealism
Apr. 7th, 2013 09:06 am![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
malic-ba.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
deathtocapslockHi 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'?
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'?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-04-11 01:32 am (UTC)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.