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

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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.