Hermoine, compassion, and idealism
Apr. 7th, 2013 09:06 amHi 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'?
no subject
Date: 2013-04-11 03:27 am (UTC)"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.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-13 12:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-20 09:16 am (UTC)I think she is. As other examples show.
As to *your* last example, Hermione was on the outers with the boys at the time. That's why she was trying to irritate them. Reasonable enough for children at odds.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-20 01:51 pm (UTC)