|
Post by starsea on May 12, 2009 13:51:24 GMT -5
I don't think I have a characterization problem with Hermione's act... What I found far more disturbing was the fact that no one calls her on her actions - none of the teachers seem to think that Hermione should be punished for permanently disfiguring a student. And what disturbed me more is that, unlike the time where say, Harry almost killed Draco, I got the impression that we, the readers, were supposed to approve of what happened to Marietta - like it was justice fairly meted out, and I just couldn't do it. The way I see it is, if (imagining a world without magic) Hermione, instead of cursing Marietta, finds four of her strongest friends, way-lays Marietta in a hallway, and slices up her face with a razorblade - and all the adults at the school act like "Well, she had it coming. Tattle-tale." But you have to remember that by this time, the teachers had almost no power in the school anyway. It was Umbridge who handed out detentions and decided punishments and it was thanks to Marietta that Umbridge was able to take over the school. There was already a developing siege mentality of "us" against "them". Marietta went over to "the other side" and helped Umbridge. As an indirect consequence, Dumbledore fled the school and Umbridge appointed herself Headmistress and unofficial civil war broke out among the students. If Dumbledore hadn't left, everyone in the DA would have been expelled - including Cho - and left hanging for the rest of the year. Would Harry even have been able to get to the Ministry and thus restore his own and Dumbledore's reputation? Yes, the teachers should have risen above this and punished Hermione, but I think they were caught up in the siege mentality too. It's hardly admirable but it is human.
|
|
|
Post by dancingpony on May 12, 2009 14:59:00 GMT -5
Wouldn't it have been awfully difficult, though, to punish Hermione for what she did to Marietta without casting doubt on Dumbledore's involvement in the DA? Dumbledore, in effect, sacrificed himself and his position at the school by misleading Umbridge and the Ministry into believing he was the guiding force behind the DA. He obviously did this to protect the DA. Any teacher who actually knew the truth -- that the kids had formed the DA on their own, and that Hermione had disfigured Marietta in order to protect the DA -- had to understand that Dumbledore knew the truth and wanted the truth covered up. Punishing Hermione would be work against that goal. By saying, "We know you performed this harmful and unacceptable spell against a fellow student, Hermione, and we are punishing you for it" -- they would also be saying "And we know Dumbledore wasn't involved, because he would never have allowed a student to be harmed in this way."
Hm, I don't think I said that very well. But if Dumbledore was in charge of the DA, whoever put the curse on Marietta must have done so with his knowledge and permission. So if Hermione did it (and how many teachers would have known it was Hermione?), wouldn't the assumption be that Dumbledore knew and condoned her actions? To question that assumption puts the DA back in danger again . . . negating the sacrifice Dumbledore made.
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on May 12, 2009 15:43:36 GMT -5
The problem isn't that something wasn't done in the office at the time, the problem is that no one ever talked to Hermione about it ever. And Hermione herself never feels a moments pang about it that we are told of.
Now Maybe McGonagall and the other teachers didn't know what student hexed Marrieta, she was to scared to say who gave her the parchment and the other students preferred to remain silent. It wouldn't have been hard to guess it was Hermione. How many students had the skill to do such a thing? NO one spoke to her in our hearing about the responsibility that comes with magic. Indeed no one ever talks to any of the students about that in our hearing.
McGonagall could have called her in and said I guessed that you did this and this is why it is wrong and this is why you need to think about the consequences of what you do.
(Marrietta gave away the DA. She didn't put Umbridge in power. That was done by the ministry. She had no such power. Dumbledore was driven out in consequence to her action -- something she couldn't have known would happen.)
|
|
Rugi
Third Year
Norberta's Chief Cook and Librarian
Posts: 33
|
Post by Rugi on May 12, 2009 17:03:37 GMT -5
Yeah, Vega, I think that's my thought too. Although I totally agree that no one could punish Hermione openly while Umbridge was around, nothing was stopping McG from speaking to Hermione about personal responsibility in private. And certainly nothing was stopping Dumbledore from talking to her or disciplining her after Umbridge was gone.
I think it makes me like all of the teacher less to think that they didn't care to investigate who it was that (so far as we can tell) permanently scarred another child.
|
|
|
Post by dancingpony on May 12, 2009 17:58:42 GMT -5
Maybe the key is that McGonagall should have talked to Hermione in private about responsibility and the consequences of using her magic in improper ways. Since the entire series is from Harry's point of view, we would only know about such a discussion if Hermione told Harry or spoke about it in Harry's presence. Just because we, as readers, didn't see it, doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. Presuming, of course, that McGonagall knew. You're right that she probably would have figured it out in normal circumstances, but the circumstances at the time were hardly normal. The entire school was in turmoil for quite a while, and then McGonagall was in the hospital with rather serious injuries.
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on May 13, 2009 0:59:34 GMT -5
Yes, but the next year Marrieta still has the scars. Surely by then there is enough time to think about these things.
They were fighting a war over Dark Magic. Surely the responsibility to use Magic in a "moral" way something the teachers should talk about. Maybe the lack of such talk was part of the reason kids like Snape and many in his generation joined the Death Eaters either while at school or immediately upon graduating.
If Hermione had had a difficult heart to heart talk with McGonagall that censored her behavior don't you think she would have reacted in some way that Harry would have seen?
|
|
|
Post by dancingpony on May 13, 2009 21:49:12 GMT -5
Teenage boys aren't exactly known for perception.
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on May 13, 2009 22:20:55 GMT -5
You are right there. Harry does spend the sixth book obsessed about a lot of things. Outside of his obsessions he doesn't notice much.
|
|
Rugi
Third Year
Norberta's Chief Cook and Librarian
Posts: 33
|
Post by Rugi on May 14, 2009 3:02:29 GMT -5
Teenage boys aren't exactly known for perception. Well that's definitely true. But I don't think I really buy that as an explanation here because we generally know what it looks like when Harry isn't being perceptive: he sees that Hermione/Neville/Ron/etc. are upset, but doesn't know the reason and doesn't really explore it. Actually, one the main narrative elements in the story is often Harry seeing that, say, Hermione is upset and distracted, but not knowing why (or not knowing the real reason). And I can't really believe that Hermione would have been able to be spoken to by one of the teachers (or disciplined by Dumbledore) without having it affect her a lot. Secondly, it seems odd to me (from the authorial end) to make a point of showing that Marietta is still scarred at the end of the book, but not show that there are any consequences on Hermione's side. And it wouldn't take much - Hermione could see her and wince or blush or look away or do any of a thousand things to show that she has (at least) been spoken to about it.
|
|
|
Post by dancingpony on May 14, 2009 12:21:17 GMT -5
I've been thinking about Hermione's spell and Marietta's scars, and I don't recall -- is it explicitly stated in the books that Marietta's scars are permanent, or are we just making that assumption?
I know that when George lost his ear, it was stated that curse spells can't be reversed. On the other hand, Bertie Crouch (who was a bad wizard but actually a fairly competent Defense teacher in his disguise) made the clear point in one of is classes that curse spells performed by underage, unpracticed wizards aren't very powerful or even particularly harmful.
This seems to be born out by the fact that Harry did a Sectumsempra spell (clearly dark magic) on Draco Malfoy. The spell seriously hurt Draco (there was blood gushing from his face and chest) -- but there's no indication later that Draco was scarred by the incident. And Harry was nearly seventeen when he performed that spell.
So is it possible that Marietta's scars aren't permanent? Perhaps they would only last until Marietta repented her actions . . . or until the "natural" age of acne passed . . . or some other time frame?
|
|
|
Post by birdg on May 14, 2009 12:59:32 GMT -5
What I'm wondering is, isn't it only Dark curses that leave permanent scars? Moody is all messed up, permanently, because of Dark curses and they can't heal George's ear because it was a Dark curse that did it.
So if Marietta's scars are permanent, wouldn't that mean Dark magic was involved in some way?
|
|
|
Post by dancingpony on May 14, 2009 13:08:42 GMT -5
I just reread the section in Dumbledore's office, where Umbridge was using Marietta as her informant. It is clearly stated that Marietta's spots were caused by a "jinx" -- which I think, in Harry Potter's world, is quite a bit different from a curse. The students jinx each other all the time at school.
So, if Hermione jinxed someone with acne, and that person's pimples darkened and changed position to form a word, I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume the word would eventually vanish, when Marietta outgrew acne.
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on May 14, 2009 16:51:15 GMT -5
IN the sixth book while on the train to Hogwarts Harry sees Marietta, wearing "a very thick layer of makeup that did not entirely obscure the odd formation of pimples still etched across her face." He smirked at the sight. (HB page 142 American)
Now this does not necessarily mean that the marks were permanent, but I for one was surprised that they were still there.
Even if they fade when she enters adulthood, it is a cruel joke to have a sixteen year old girl spend her highschool years marked in this way.
If she had covered them with makeup she was obviously trying to get rid of them without success.
The teachers would have seen her walking around school looking like this. So would Pomphrey.
Harry's smirk does not imply that he felt any remorse, nor that he had to deal with any of Hermione's.
|
|
|
Post by dancingpony on May 14, 2009 21:13:41 GMT -5
I saw the mention of Marietta on the train in book six, but I don't recall. Is there any mention of her later in book six?
If not, my conjecture is that the teachers and Madam P were in somewhat of a quandry after Marietta was jinxed in book five. On the one hand, they (especially Madam P) would be loath to leave a student in that condition. On the other hand, they were even more loath to do anything to help Umbridge -- and removing the jinx from Marietta would definitely be helping Umbridge. (I can picture Umbridge -- having failed to reverse the jinx herself -- confronting Madam P, demanding that she remove Marietta's spots . . . and Madam P being torn. At that point, all of the teachers were getting back at Umbridge by leaving her to deal with every big and little problem on her own. (Which was a fairly effective way of dealing with her, since she didn't seem to be a particularly clever or skillful or powerful witch.)
And then, at the end of book five, things were quite chaotic . . . and Madam P had seriously injured students to deal with . . . so perhaps the Marietta situation either slipped her mind or just fell to the bottom of the priority list. And Marietta went home for the summer without having the jinx lifted.
As soon as Marietta returned to school in book six -- it's possible Madam P could have taken care of her problem.
Not saying that Harry was right to smirk, of course. However, I don't think a jinx would necessarily be looked at in the same light as a dark curse.
|
|
|
Post by Chocolatepot on May 14, 2009 21:21:13 GMT -5
I've been thinking about Hermione's spell and Marietta's scars, and I don't recall -- is it explicitly stated in the books that Marietta's scars are permanent, or are we just making that assumption? I know that I remember reading someone saying that Madam Pomfrey couldn't get rid of them, but I can't remember where ... oh, I was looking in the wrong book! - OotP, 637 Someone could write around that in a fic with your theory and I'd buy it, but I don't see any reason to assume they weren't permanent in canon. If they couldn't be removed magically and didn't fade over several months' time ... But you're right, she's not scarred. (She's permanently awful-skinned, which is much, much worse.) But Marietta wasn't described with acne before, just with curly hair. It makes the most sense to read the whole thing as the "close-set purple pustules" appearing and not being rearranged, since JKR would almost certainly have referred to her as "Cho's pimply friend, Marietta".
|
|
|
Post by dancingpony on May 14, 2009 22:23:30 GMT -5
True, but I don't see any reason to assume they were permanent, either. We saw a lot of jinxes in canon -- but they were temporary. Did we see any (other) permanent ones?
|
|
|
Post by dancingpony on May 14, 2009 22:27:57 GMT -5
And on a subject unrelated to Marietta's spots . . . but indirectly related to the discussion of the twins' attitudes toward other students being used in their experiments: In general, I like Ron as a character, but I didn't at all like his attitude toward the younger students when he became a prefect. That was very Fred and George-like.
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on May 15, 2009 1:25:49 GMT -5
I wondered about that too. Was JKR just facing the truth about her character; he was a younger child in a large family. His parents couldn't notice everything and protect him. He was bullied by the twins himself. Was he enjoying the opportunity to have younger kids than himself to bully a bit? Or was this just the normal attitude of older prefects toward kids. He really isn't cruel.
|
|
|
Post by birdg on May 15, 2009 1:55:57 GMT -5
I tended to see Hermione and Ron's turn as prefects as one long extended Lily and James parallel.
|
|
|
Post by dancingpony on May 15, 2009 11:40:34 GMT -5
But James wasn't a prefect. One of a prefect's responsibilities is to help / support / protect the younger students. Did we ever see Ron do that? He seemed to use his position to help himself (get the good armchairs, etc) at best, to bully the younger kids at worst.
I never had the impression that James bullied younger, smaller, weaker students -- particularly the ones in his own house. His bullying seemed directed at Snape (who was his own age) and other Slytherin contemporaries, who were his rivals.
|
|