Hermione Granger and the Missed Opportunity

[sunnyskywalker]

I'm re-reading PS/SS, specifically paying attention to things which are part of the overall 7-book plot but which Harry (and we, back in the day) didn't have enough information to flag as relevant. Absolutely fascinating, and I'm sure I'll be posting about some of that soon. This isn't that time, or not exactly. I was also paying closer attention to wizard/Muggle relations, and so I stopped at this little exchange:

"And you could ask your parents if they know who Flamel is," said Ron. "It'd be safe to ask them."

"Very safe, as they're both dentists," said Hermione.

I can't help but picture the AU where she does ask, and her father says, "Flamel? Wasn't there something about him in that history program on the telly last night?" And her mother replies, "Yes, something about alchemy, wasn't it? Was he really a wizard, Hermione dear? How exciting!" And then Hermione comes back after the break all bright-eyed, very pleased as she shows the boys her photocopies of Flamel's entry in her Muggle library's encyclopedia. "No wonder he wasn't in any of the books on modern magical discoveries, he was born so long ago that witches and wizards still lived openly among Muggles, can you imagine? Do you think alchemists can really make a Philosopher's Stone?" Which reminds Harry of Flamel and Dumbledore's alchemical partnership on the Chocolate Frog Card, and off they go.

The schedule of events would hardly be different from the actual book, but the kids would have discovered that Muggles aren't just helpless, pitiable lumps. Wouldn't that have been something.

Comments

Re: In Hermione's defense.... regurgitating facts

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

As I've said before, as someone who was bright AND very insecure when I was a teen, regurgitating your texts for teachers is what you do when you're absolutely terrified of GETTING IT WRONG. Or at least it's what I did. If I ventured an explanation on my own, I might end up being mistaken, oh nos.... Anything but that! Plus, if I repeat what the text says, I'm backed by Authority; if I venture an observation of my own, I'm on my own defending it.

So I can see a bright but insecure person, entering the WW from outside, clinging to textbook knowledge as Hermione seems to. (What if, before she was taken up by Harry and Ron, she'd had an encounter with the Gryff girls in which Hermione's opinion was met with giggles and "Only a Muggle would think that!"?)

Also, as I've mentioned, Jo's internalized sexism: if you look at the history of sexist attitudes over time regarding education, the version of "women are intellectually inferior to men" prevalent in her and my youth-to-college days was, "women aren't really creative--if they chance to outperform a man in a class, it's just because they memorize better."

And here's Jo, creating a universe in which the bright males are all creators, but her token brainy female is a memorizer....

Re: In Hermione's defense.... regurgitating facts

[spongebending.livejournal.com]

Yes, that does makes a lot of sense. And from my view, the WW doesn't seem to place a high value on creativity anyways. Like you said, Hermione's insecurities are probably doubled by her heritage, she seems to feel the needs to prove herself as the perfect witch.

Those sexist attitudes toward education are fascinating to me, since the attitudes when I were in school were starkly different.
When I was in school, girls were actually seen as being more creative than boys. The thought process was along the lines of "girls are sensitive and emotional and that makes them artistic". Boys, on the other hand, were seen to be logical and rational, they were supposed to be better at math and science. "Girls are bad at math" was a popular sexist attitude from my time. I also remember when I was a kid some of the boys would get teased if they were into art for being a 'pansy' or 'gay'. (Born in 1991, by the way, to give you an idea of my time period).

The 90s-gen kids like myself would be getting a very different reading than someone from Rowling's generation. Maybe that's why many HP fans don't notice the unfortunate implications as much?

Re: In Hermione's defense.... regurgitating facts

[sunnyskywalker]

I was born between you and Harry, and I got similar implicit messages--except that even though girls were supposedly more artsy and creative in general, somehow it was still usually men who did textbook-worthy great artistic things. (The whole "women are better at cooking and men are hopeless in the kitchen, but it takes a man to be a truly great chef because... er... *mumblemumble*" contradiction.) Painting? Girly. Creating a masterpiece painting or starting a new artistic movement? Suddenly masculine, or at least masculine enough not to mock! Which gave us the overall message that girls were creative at stuff that "didn't matter," like crafting or writing generic sappy poetry, and boys were usually uncreative unless they were creative geniuses. Wizards aren't the only ones lackign in logic, unfortunately.

I can very much see Hermione getting the message that "creative" means "girly and therefore worthless," and being too insecure to think that she might have the genius-level creative potential boys were alleged to have sometimes. And obviously Hogwarts is not teaching the kids to work at experimenting and being creative, and it sure doesn't seem like her parents did either. Poor kid.

Re: In Hermione's defense.... regurgitating facts

[spongebending.livejournal.com]

Very true. It's a pretty ridiculous double standard: art is girly and feminine, but all the famous painters and musicians in the textbooks are male for... some reason. There isn't a lick of sense to it.

You have a good point about Hermione, I could easily see her having that point of view about herself.

Re: In Hermione's defense.... regurgitating facts

[oryx_leucoryx]

Ahem, science is an incredibly creative endeavor. You can't do new stuff without creativity.

Re: In Hermione's defense.... regurgitating facts

[sunnyskywalker]

Well, of course, but it isn't taught that way nearly as often as it should be, in my experience. Learn these standard equations and replicate these experiments so you can see that the textbook is correct, kids! And it seems like Hermione is more comfortable with that view than with science as constant experimentation and revision of provisional understandings. If her parents did encourage her to actually experiment with a chemistry set and praised her for trying new things even if they didn't work out, we sure don't see much evidence of that in her behavior when she arrives at Hogwarts. It seems more likely that they taught her the "science as memorizing True Facts Discovered By Great Men" view, if they gave any particular thought to it.

Re: In Hermione's defense.... regurgitating facts

[spongebending.livejournal.com]

You're right, science naturally needs creativity in order to make breakthroughs, new technology, etc. But as a child, I was led to believe that science and creativity were like oil and water; they just didn't mix, never ever. When I was a teen I hated science; thought it was the most boring subject ever. But when I met my boyfriend (a science student), he showed me how interesting and creative science is supposed to be! Nowadays I'm actually quite fascinated by it. I never truly hated science, I just hated the way my teachers taught it.