Ron's Jealousy of Harry; Neuroses of Ron & Hermione (Long)

[Demelza]

No: HPFGUIDX 16925

Amy Z wrote:
>Demelza wrote:

 >>Well, we agree that that there is no evidence to support 
Hermione's 
 >>assertion that Ron is jealous of Harry's fame and attention he
 >>garner. Therefore, Hermione's assessment was incorrect.

>  Whoa!  That doesn't compute.  I'm trying to follow the logic:
 > (1) There is no evidence to support the assertion that Demelza 
likes cats.
 >(2) Demelza's best friend says Demelza likes cats.
  >(3) Therefore, Demelza's best friend's assessment is incorrect.

>Why wouldn't I take point 2 as evidence that Demelza likes  cats--
unless I was already inclined to mistrust >the friend's perceptions? 
<g>

It's not that I'm 'already inclined to mistrust' Hermione's 
assessment. It's that I've looked for evidence to support the claim 
and found none. Therefore, without supporting data, I question how 
she arrived at that conclusion. "Trust" has nothing to do with 
evidence-based analysis. In fact, once objectivity becomes clouded by 
blind trust then that bias will be reflected in any conclusion, in 
turn putting doubt into that conclusion. I can see how my messages 
might give the impression that I'm anti-Hermione. On the contrary, I 
happen to like Hermione, but I'm not afraid to challenge my thoughts 
about her with questions that might reveal a negative underside.  

>There are lots of assertions in the books that have no particular 
evidence, but that I still believe.  To doubt >Hermione, I would need 
evidence that Ron =isn't= jealous, or evidence that her judgment is 
suspect in >general.  I don't see evidence for either of these things.

Wait a second, you could have no evidence to support that Ron is 
jealous of Harry's fame and attention he garners, yet you still won't 
accept that evidence until you have evidence to prove that he _isn't_ 
jealous of Harry's fame and attention he garners?? In other words, 
you need to prove that Ron _is not_ jealous in order to believe he is 
not jealous (if I understand correctly what you have written).  That 
may be possible in other systems of logic, however, in Euclidean and 
Aristolean systems of logic, you can't use logic to prove a negative.

 >For my part, Exhibit A supporting the idea that Ron is sometimes 
jealous of Harry is the fact that >Hermione, who knows him better 
than we do, perceives that he is.  I think she is very insightful 
about 
>people in general, and she knows Ron well; if she sees signs of  
jealousy, I reckon they're probably there.

>There is supportive evidence after the fact.  "In tribute to their 
recently repaired friendship, Ron kept the >bitterness in his voice 
to a minimum" (GoF, may be inaccurate quote; it's from memory).  
That  implies >that he has had bitterness in his voice before, even 
though it  was never commented on.

That's from Ch22 GoF. The setting is McGonagal has informed them of 
the YuleBall and that they can bring dates. McGonagall pulls Harry 
aside and tells him that he and his dance partner are expected to 
open the Ball. While in the corridors, Ron asks him if he has anyone 
in mind to ask. 

***
Harry doesn't answer. He knew perfectly well whom he'd like to ask, 
but working up the nerve was somethingelse
Cho was a year older
than 
he was; she was very pretty; she was a very good Quidditch player, 
and she was also very popular.
Ron seemed to know what was going on inside Harry's head.
"Listen, you're not going to have any trouble. You're a champion. 
You've just beaten a Hungarian Horntail. I bet they'll be queuing up 
to go with you."
In tribute to their recently repaired friendship, Ron kept the 
bitterness in his voice to a minimum. Moreover to Harry's amazement 
he turned out to be quite right."
***
Contextually speaking, Ron recognizes Harry's self-doubt at finding a 
date. He compares Harry's situation to the situation of other boys 
(like Ron) who won't have them "queuing up to go" to the ball with 
them. Ron's consolatory statement smacks of self-depreciation. It's 
not hard to understand the "bitterness" in his voice when he just 
intimated that he's a loser. 

>There are also stray comments like Ron enjoying being the center of  
attention for a change when Sirius >"attacks."  "For the first time 
in  his life, people were paying more attention to him than to Harry, 
and 
 >it was clear that Ron was rather enjoying the experience" (PoA 
14).  We know that it is Harry who people >point to in the corridors--
"Next to the tall kid with the red hair" (PS/SS 8), which supports  
Hermione's >sense that when people see Ron and Harry, it's Harry who 
occupies their attention.  And, of course, we >know that he sometimes 
longs to be free of the comparisons and second-best status that come 
with being >6th in a large family.  =These things don't prove Ron is 
jealous,= but they lay the kind of groundwork that >makes me as a 
reader, when I hear from Hermione that he's jealous, say, "Yeah, I 
can  see why he would >be."

Thank you Amy! I've asked time and time again for evidence into 
Hermione's thought process, because I couldn't find it and have 
gotten responses to the effect that since Hermione said it, it has to 
be true. Now that you've pointed these instances out; I can re-
examine Hermione
again.

You are correct. These things do not support that Ron is jealous, 
though they intimate Ron has a jealous streak. But my next question 
would be is, why would Hermione think that because someone isn't 
always  in the limelight, would mean that he is specifically jealous 
of another's celebrity? I'm trying to understand the way Hermione's 
mind works. If these books were the usual "children's lit", I could 
easily accept certain things on face value because the books are 
written with less complexities. As I've written before, there's a 
motive for everything. 

>Did I write all this once already?  Brain cells starting to 
degrade...

>Re: diagnosing Hermione or anyone else:  there's a good reason you 
have to meet several criteria in order >to get any DSM-IV diagnosis:  
we =all= display various behaviors such as overwork, sadness, fear of 
>social situations.  They don't translate automatically into OCD, 
depression, and anxiety disorders, >respectively.  I think we could 
just as easily diagnose Harry as having some kind of mania because 
he's >reckless.  By your criteria, everyone who puts a lot of 
emphasis on academics as their measure of personal >success is 
potentially in danger of OCD.  Okay, but at that point the danger is 
so widespread as to be >meaningless, IMO.  There is a wide range of 
normal behavior.  Nor does being a bit inflexible about >=one= social 
issue equal being "over-conscientious, scrupulous, and inflexible 
about matters of morality, >ethics, or values," especially at the 
developmental stage Hermione is at; there's also a good reason why 
>DSM categories are for adults.  It is normal for an adolescent who 
is just discovering social injustice to >take a stance that according 
to adult standards is extreme.

No, I never wrote that anyone who puts emphasis on  academics is 
potentially in danger of OCD. I wrote that those people with 
obsessive behaviors (ex. studying material over and over even though 
the material is mastered) can potentially be in danger of a mental 
health issue. It was only _after_ I read the DSM-IVR criteria that I 
noticed Hermione shows partial signs of 4 criteria. Take for example 
these concerning of preoccupation with details, rules, lists , 
organization, schedules and excessive devotion to work:

PS/SS Ch 6. On the Hogwarts Express, Hermione tells Harry and 
Ron  "I've learned all our course books by heart, of course, I just 
hope it will be enough." **This begs the question, "enough for what"? 
If it is "enough" for passing the courses, knowing the textbooks "by 
heart", is usually enough to pass, maybe not enough to pass with 
100%, but it is enough to pass. Furthermore, it hints that "learning 
all [the] course books by heart" is a normal thing for Hermione to 
do. Now either this is statement is to be taken as "true" or Hermione 
is exaggerating.
PS/SS Ch 14 "[Hermione] had started drawing up study schedules and 
color coding all her notes. Harry and Ron wouldn't have minded, but 
she kept nagging them to do the same.
"Hermione, the exams are ages away."
"Ten weeks, "Hermione snapped. "That's not ages, that's like a second 
to Nicolas Flamel."
"But we're not six hundred years old," Ron reminded her. "Anyway, 
what are you studying for, you already know it all."
"What am I studying for? Are you crazy? You realize we need to pass 
these exams to get into second year? They're very important, I should 
have started studying a month ago, I don't know what's gotten into 
me
"
**From this passage, we learn that Hermione knows "it all" and by 
Hermione's admission she should have started studying material she 
already knows at least a 3 and a half months (10 weeks + 1 month/4 
weeks) before the exam. For a college entrance exam, for a graduate 
school entrance exam, for a professional licensure exam, that kind of 
preparation is not usual, but these aren't those types of 
examinations .  I might have been a 'lazy' student but I never began 
studying for finals until 3 weeks before them. My roommate used to 
study for them during finals week. To each his own I guess.
PS/SS Ch 14. (the following paragraph describing Easter 
holidays)  "It was hard to relax with Hermione next to you reciting 
the 12 uses of dragon blood or practicing wand movements. Moaning and 
yawning, Harry and Ron spent most of their free time in the library 
with her, trying to get through all their extra work." **
PS/SS Ch 14 "Hermione had now started making study schedules for 
Harry and Ron, too. It was driving them nuts."** I think that's a 
little obsessive to make schedules for people who are driven "nuts" 
by it.
CoS Ch4 Hermione's letter to Ron and Harry.
"'I'm very busy with schoolwork, of course'--How can she be?" said 
Ron in horror. "We're on vacation!" --'and we're going to London next 
Wednesday to buy my new books."
**Ron took the words right out of my mouth.  What can Hermione be 
studying when 1.) school list had just arrived that morning and 2. 
She admits she has to buy the books.
I don't include PoA for study/work due to her class schedule.

You make a good point about adolescent and childhood diagnoses. 
However, most personality disorders/mental disorders are diagnosed 
when a person reaches young adult or adult hood because for some 
reason or the other they can no longer suppress these behaviors and 
these unsuppressed behaviors begin to interfere with normal function. 
However, if the person's past is examined, there is usually evidence 
that these behaviors were indeed present during his childhood and 
adolescence and these behaviors were chalked up to the fact that he 
was 'a kid' or he was 'a teen' and that's how all children or teens 
behave.  Again, Hermione has obsessive traits. We may never know if 
Hermione will be affected adversely by these traits. Though fanfic 
authors might want to explore the possibility. A psychoanalysis of 
Harry would be interesting considering his history, among other 
things, of emotional neglect.

>You fence your views around with lots of "potentials" 
and "possiblys," but you rely on the view that >Hermione is currently 
pathological in order to say that Ron isn't jealous.  I still don't 
see any motive for >her to be lying (yes, she has reasons to be 
ticked at Ron, but why would this make her say he's jealous?  I >just 
don't get it), nor any reason to think that she is way off base.  

No I don't. I've never said that because Hermione has obsessive 
traits, she is also a liar. I stand firm in my beliefs that you have 
to question motive. There's a reason for everything. The only way, I 
see, to be able to understand the characters is to question their 
actions. You're guess is as good as mine why Hermione would tell 
Harry that Ron is jealous. Could she have had the best intentions at 
heart when she told Harry that? Could she have foretold that Harry 
would become angrier and not even want to sort things out with Ron as 
he had the intention to do before Hermione spoke to him? I can't 
answer that answer that. She's known both boys for four years. She 
could probably anticipate how Harry would react considering he's not 
very comfortable with his fame either.  Again, what is the motive? 
Although there's not enough information to definitively answer that 
question, it doesn't mean it should be asked. 

.

Penny wrote: 
> Nope.  Amy Z pointed out the fallacy of your logic.  You've skipped 
some
> steps logic-wise in reaching your conclusion.  Amy also pointed out 
that
> one must assume that Hermione is not to be trusted or have solid
 evidence that Ron *isn't* jealous in order to reach your
conclusion.

As I explained in another message, my system of analysis is 
scientifically based; that is, it is extrapolated from evidence-based 
science, where evidence is necessary to support a theory. If there is 
no supporting evidence, then you cannot consider the hypothesis to be 
true. However once evidence is supplied, then the hypothesis can be 
considered true. It has nothing do with "trusting" a person; however, 
it has everything to do with their methodology used to reach that 
conclusion. Unless I'm not understanding this example properly, what 
you and Amy are saying is if a friend tells you that your next-door 
neighbor is child-molesterer and doesn't show you any evidence 
supporting that claim, you would believe your friend on the basis 
that it was your friend who told you. Well if that so, there's some 
land in Florida you might be interested in
. I've already
addressed 
Euclidean and Aristolian systems of logic and proving a negative.

>  of course, being a huge Hermione fan do agree
> with Amy that Hermione is in general a good judge of people and is 
very
> perceptive.  So, like Amy, if Hermione says Ron is jealous, then I 
tend
> to believe her.  As I've argued before, Harry also believes her.
> 
That's why you lose objectivity in your analysis of Hermione. You 
identify with her and maybe you closely identify with her. There's 
nothing wrong with that, because I'm a reformed Hermione,. myself, 
and I know how easy it is to rationally explain her actions because 
defending her is like defending myself or defending my best friend. 
But I choose not to lose my objectivity, because keeping my 
objectivity is the only way I can see Hermione as J. K. Rowling 
intends her to be portrayed. I wrote earlier that authors 
deliberately choose words, descriptions etc. in order to paint a 
picture of their character. I think that ignoring the author's intent 
results in a less than "accurate" analysis.  Take for example 
Hermione giggling at Ron's arachnophobia. Objectively, Hermione is 
being insensitive. However, if I introduce my bias into the analysis 
of Hermione's behavior I can say "serves Ron right for all the 
comments he's made about her" and I lose light of the fact that 
Hermione can be insensitive and isn't the prefect little angel I want 
her to be. I think it goes to how one wishes to interpret J. K. 
Rowling's writings and how one utilizes the "canon" to analyze her 
work. 

In terms of Hermione's judgement, I believe I've addressed that in a 
prior message. PoA, Hermione doubted that Crookshanks was "after" 
Scabbers contrary to Crookshanks actions and Harry's observation that 
there were plenty of mice in the castle. CoS, Hermione's judgment of 
Gilderoy Lockhart was inaccurate (CoS Ch 6-post -Pixie pandemonium, 
Ch. 10 "brainless git" response and de-boning Harry's arm incident): 
Hermione lets her 'subjectivity' get the better of her. In both 
cases, she is emotionally attached to the subjects and let's that 
emotional attachment cloud her judgment.  Crookshanks _was_ out to 
get Scabbers and Lockhart, well, he wasn't the brave, knowledgeable 
wizard she thought him to be. 

 Again, I pointed out a passage in which Harry specifically 
identifies that assessment as Hermione's. That puts enough doubt to 
prevent me from assuming he completely agreed with her.

>Demelza has in the past discounted evidence that occurs *after* a 
scene in question.

I do think you would agree with me that the books follow a specific 
sequence of events. That is they follow a time continuum. As I 
explained in an earlier message, what is known to the characters at 
any given point in the books is limited to past knowledge and present 
knowledge, similar to reality.  Meaning that a character in Ch 2. 
cannot use something in chapter 22 to formulate an opinion on 
something during the course of chapter 2. To say that Ron is jealous 
of Harry in, for example, Ch 26 and that's what Hermione in Ch 18 
used to determine he was jealous is an ex post facto argument, which 
is generally believed to be illogical.

>  In anticipation of >that argument, I will comment that authors 
don't always map out *everything* in great detail and
> proceed straight through from chapter 1 to chapter 37 without ever
> moving forwards or backwards.  I really don't think JKR has details 
such
> as you suggest mapped out that explicitly.  I think she has an 
outline
> and she knows in general where she's going.  I think she has a good
> handle on each character.  She has alot of extraneous material 
about the
> wizarding world, and she's revealing it bit by bit.  But, she's 
said,
> for example, that there will be loads of details that never make it 
into
> the books because there simply isn't space to cover it.  I don't 
think
> she evaluates each scene and thinks back to herself, "Is this all
> supported by things I've written in previous books or chapters?"  
It's a
> creative, evolving process.  The editing process can also affect
> things.  JKR might well have inserted other clues about Ron's 
jealousy
> that were prior to the scene in question, but they might have been
small
> details that didn't survive the editing process.  She also might not
> have noticed that they *didn't* survive the editing process.
> 

No she might not have a minutely detailed outline. However, as with 
most writers, she is probably cognizant of storyline continuity and 
knows the pitfalls of not maintaining it. And even if she isn't 
particularly cognizant of continuity, her editors should be because 
the lack of continuity interferes with the general plausibility of 
the work.

> Point is: I still believe that Demelza's analysis is entirely too
> scientific to be applied to literature.  I think you're trying to
> interject too much *objectivity* to what is inherently a very
> *subjective* subject, Demelza.  I'd be interested to know if other
> former or current English lit majors agree with me.  I'm a lawyer, 

and
> so I'm familiar with logical analysis.  But, the rigid application 

of
> not only logic but scientific principles to literary analysis .... 

well,
> I don't really see that it applies all that well.  But then, maybe 

it's
> just that I don't agree with the logical conclusions that Demelza 

has
> reached.  I see no reason to doubt Hermione's assessment of Ron's
> jealousy, and I don't require that JKR have provided me with 

specific
> unambiguous examples of it *prior* to the GoF fight scene.  She's 

given
> me enough other groundwork as Amy calls it to make it believable.
> 

I was one of those oddities who double majored in college, receiving 
bachelor degrees in science and liberal arts (art history to be 
exact). Art isn't as "subjective" as popular belief holds. There are 
steps used to 'analyse' a work of art, and one of those steps is 
understanding the social environment during the time the artist 
created the work and understanding the intent of the artist. A 
painter relates his version of the story with his paints; an author 
tells his version of the story with words. 
I look at it as more of a choice of understanding and analyzing a 
character utilizing the intent of the author or analyzing and 
understanding the character by utilizing less of the intent of the 
author and more of your personal bias. Authors have an image of their 
characters. They write about those characters from that perspective. 
In order to appreciate those characters, you have to consider that 
perspective in the analysis (which is why some people to 'get' modern 
art). Authors pick and choose descriptive words and phrases, actions, 
etc. as a way to 'paint their picture' of that character. For 
example, Rowling describes Dean Thomas as a "black boy taller than 
Ron" (US ed of PS/SS Ch 7). A reader might want to picture Dean as a 
short, white boy with blond hair. That's the reader's prerogative; 
but, that isn't _ J. K. Rowling's _ vision of Dean. To use the short, 
blond Dean as the basis for a critical analysis of the physical 
appearances of _ J. K. Rowling's _characters gives a biased analysis 
that would be less than accurate, plausible and convincing.

> > We know from Ron's mirror of Erised experience, that his
> > heart's desire (as of PS/SS) was to be Quidditch Team Captain and 

to
> > be Head Boy---like _Charlie and Bill_. It's not really fair to 
Ron 

for
> >
> > us to interpret his desires to be like his _brothers_, as 

'jealousy of
> >
> > _Harry_"
> 
> Dumbledore didn't interpret Ron's Mirror of Erised desires in that 

way
> and neither did I.  He says, "Your friend Ron, who has always been
> overshadowed by his brothers, sees himself standing alone, the best 

of
> them all" (loose paraphrase probably).  He doesn't want to be 
*like* 

his
> brothers; he wants to be *better than* his brothers.  He wants to be
> Head Boy like Bill AND Quidditch Captain like Charlie.  He doesn't 

want
> to just excel at the same level that they did -- he wants to be
> *everything* and significantly, all alone: the center of attention. 

 Who
> do we know in the books who often is just that: the center of
> attention?  Harry!  I don't fault Ron for being jealous -- he's got 

alot
> to contend with.  He obviously already had some self-esteem problems
> with trying to live up to his brothers before he ever even met 

Harry.
> Having his best friend turn out to be the most famous wizard in the
> world can't help but affect Ron's already fragile ego IMO.
>

It might not have been you, but someone on this list has certainly 
brought up the theory that Ron is jealous of Harry's Quidditch talent 
in addition to other Harry-related "jealousies" and pointed out his 
Mirror desire as evidence. 
 
> > Because I'm not a shipper of any kind, I would have to disagree. I
> > don't think Hermione spends much time with anyone outside of Harry
> > and Ron.
> 
> Shipper or no, you're making a fairly broad assumption there.  It's
> unsupported by evidence.  You've argued that we have no evidence 

that
> Ron feels jealousy about Harry's fame prior to the fight scene.  To 

use
> your same logical analysis, I would want some evidence for your
> assertion that Hermione doesn't spend time with anyone outside of 

Harry
> and Ron.  When she's "off-screen," we can't know where she is or 

what
> she's doing.  Evidence that Harry & Ron observe her studying alone 

on
> various occasions when they are estranged from her in the PoA fight 

is
> not solid evidence that she unequivocally doesn't have any other 

friends
> or other activities to occupy her time.
> 

I think  has posted some evidence to support that. 

> > Likewise, you can't possibly argue that Hermione is truthfully
> > reporting to Harry her impression at the feast. We aren't privy to
> > her thought process. In order to objectively determine her 

veracity,
> > you must examine all of Hermione's past behaviors, especially 

those
> > concerning Ron. In cluding, Hermione's giggling at Ron's 

revelation
> > of arachnophobia. Her insensitivity towards Ron's concerns that 

his
> > pet rat is being targeted by her pet cat. Ron's ability at chess.
> > PS/SS specifically states that Hermione wasn't good at it, nearly 

the
> > same way she wasn't good at Divination.
> 
> Um .... what do Ron's chess-playing skills (and Hermione's lack 

thereof)
> have to do with Hermione's veracity?  Puzzled .... (equally puzzled 

by
> the reference that she isn't good at Divination).  :::shakes head:::
> Sorry but I have *no* idea how either of these facts have any 

bearing on
> whether Hermione is in general a truthful character or a 

pathological
> liar.
> 

Wait a minute! I never intimated that Hermione was a pathological 
liar. Please refrain from 'putting words' into my messages. 
Questioning motive and veracity is not equivalent to saying that she 
is a pathologic liar. My point is Hermione has issues with Ron. 
Hermione likes being good at things. She isn't good at chess, which 
Ron is. She isn't good at Divination. These things influence the make-
up of her character, which in turn, affect her perspective and her 
thought process. All things have to be considered in order to make an 
accurate "profile", ignoring these things gives an incomplete profile 
and an incomplete basis for determing motive and veracity.

> > Furthermore, does Hermione have an 'axe to grind with Ron'? You 

bet
> > she does! Less than a year before, Harry took Ron's side during 

their
> > estrangement. In light of this pattern, she does have a motive.
> 
> A motive to do what?  Like Amy, I don't see that telling Harry that 

Ron
> is jealous of his fame accomplishes anything in particular for
> Hermione.  Unless you're arguing that she *wanted* to be sure Harry
> wouldn't try to make up with Ron, that he would prolong the fight 

they'd
> had.  Even this staunch H/H'er won't buy that.  There's evidence 

that
> she went back & forth between the two of them at least occasionally 

(as
> the R/H'ers have pointed out on numerous occasions).
> 
As I explained earlier. There's a reason for everything. She could 
have been acting with the best of intentions. She could have 
subconsciously wanted to get even with Ron for the estrangement in 
PoA. I don't have an answer, but that shouldn't stop me or anyone 
else from asking the question. I happen to find the sequence of 
events. Harry was determined to sort things out with Ron that 
morning. He meets up with Hermione who has been to breakfast and has 
seen Ron.  She tells him that Ron is jealous of him. Then Harry loses 
his earlier desire to sort things out and becomes even angrier with 
Ron.  You and Amy argue that Hermione is a good judge of character. 
If that's true, then she would have at least anticipated Harry's 
reaction. According to your arguments, Hermione was insightful enough 
to recognize Harry's shock after the Goblet regurgitated his name; 
she's insightful enough to recognize Ron's jealousy of Harry. So all 
of the sudden, she loses her insight when she tells Harry that Ron is 
jealous of him and isn't able to anticipate Harry's reaction?? Using 
the argument for Hermione's good judge of character, her motive 
during the Ron-Harry fight is even more suspect than it was before 
applying that.

> > My point is Hermione's personality isn't all that 'black & white'.
> 
> I don't think her personality is "black & white."  But, I still 

don't
> see why you think she'd lie about Ron being jealous of Harry's fame.
> What exactly would her objective have been?
> 
> > Again, if this excessive devotion to work and productivity 

interferes
> > with her daily functioning, as the diagnostic criteria states, 

then
> > it is will be more definitive. But as I wrote above, you cannot
> > discount the presence of the behavior.
> 
> Actually, yes I do discount the presence of the behavior.  I have 

yet to
> see evidence that her preoccupation with details, rules, 

organization,
> etc. reaches a level that the "major point of the activity is lost."
> She uses study schedules & organization, but the major point of the
> activity is not lost.  It is achieved and with great success.
> Similarly, I don't see evidence that she is devoted to studying to 

the
> exclusion of leisure and friendships.  There was a period in PoA 

when
> she might have thrown herself into studying as an escape (although 

we
> don't know for sure that she didn't have any other friendships or
> leisure activities during this time), but in general, her friendship
> with Ron & Harry comes first.
> 

Let me clarify this because it seems there's a little confusion with 
terminology here. A 'behavior' is simply that; a behavior. For 
example, memorizing all your school books by heart is a behavior. 
Organizing all your notes is a behavior. Doing schoolwork during 
summer vacation, when none has been assigned is a behavior. Singing 
in the shower is a behavior. Once a behavior interferes with day-to-
day functioning, that behavior becomes abnormal. However, even if the 
behavior doesn't interfere with day-to-day functioning, it does not 
mean the behavior does not exist. 


> > Well, if that's the favored argument, then it
> > can be applied to virtually everything written by J. K. Rowling 
in 

the
> >
> > Potter series; that most of it is distorted because it's written 

from
> > Harry's POV. I'm glad I don't write fiction. It must be terribly
> > unsatisfying to learn your reading audience has so little regard 

for
> > the way _you_ have choosen to represent _your_ characters.
> 
> I doubt JKR would take offense that readers bring different
> interpretations to bear on her writing.  That's the point.  That's 

the
> beauty of literary analysis.  I see things that you don't see, and 

the
> converse holds true.  It's *not* scientific.  There is no *single* 

right
> answer at the end of the day.  Harry's POV is a limiting factor ....
> there are things that we can't know because JKR didn't take us 

inside
> the heads of Hermione or Ron or Hagrid.  So, we can speculate.  But,
> there is no objective right answer at the end of the day.  JKR 

wouldn't
> read all of this and award the blue ribbon to any of our debates.
> 


> > First of all, these aren't _my_ definitions.
> 
> I know that, Demelza.  I just didn't phrase it correctly.  I should 

have
> said, Hermione doesn't meet 4 of the 8 diagnostic criteria that you 

set
> out in your message.  She doesn't meet *any* of them IMO.
>

Oh, for a minute there I thought it was a sneaky lawyer trick to 
discredit the criteria of a psychiatric association by implying they 
were of_my_ design. 

> > Again, as I wrote in my prior messages and have repeated here, 

once
> > these
> > criteria are met. That is, once these behaviors interfere with her
> > daily functioning, she will have the 4 or more criteria for OCD 
as 

set
> >
> > by the American Psychiatric Association. Once again, I will 

repeat.
> > That just because she cannot be diagnosed at this time, that does 

not
> > erase the existence of the behaviors nor does it erase any mental
> > health concern for them.
> 
> Except that I disagree that the behaviors are even present.  But,
> whatever.  Sounds like we at least agree that Hermione doesn't have 

OCD
> at this time.
> 
> > A third party might successfully argue I'm as determined to give
> > Hermione a psychiatric diagnosis as you are in denial that she has
> > the potential for one.
> 
> As you yourself have said, we all have the *potential* for one.  I 

just
> don't believe that her behavior meets the diagnostic criteria that 

you
> set out in your earlier message.  I don't agree with you that it's 

just
> a matter of waiting until these behavioral traits manifest 

themselves to
> a degree that they interfere with her "daily functioning."  I don't
> think she arguably has a solid enough foundation for OCD at this 

point.
> Maybe her preoccupation with rules & organization could escalate to 

a
> degree that it interfered with the end objective: achieving high 

marks &
> academic success.  In that case, she would have Behavior #1 on the 

APA
> list.  Maybe she would eventually study to the exclusion of spending
> time with Harry and/or Ron (or anyone else).  If a future books 

says,
> "Hermione was now spending all her time studying.  She refused to 

have
> anything to do with him or Ron.  Harry knew she wasn't spending any 

time
> with the girls in her dormitory because Parvarti confirmed this.  

etc."
> -- then you would have some evidence of Behavior #3.  But, as of 

right
> now, the evidence for Behaviors 1 & 3 is *not* there.  And, SPEW is 

a
> weak link for Behavior #4.  "Rigidity & stubbornness" -- seems like 

you
> need more than just that one trait (which can apply to alot of 

different
> people who do not have OCD) to make a valid argument for OCD.
> 

And these people who do not have OCD, might have traits/behaviors 
that haven't interfered with their daily activities. Maybe they do 
have OCD, but their behavior isn't considered abnormal by themselves 
or the people around them. Again, the behavior has to interfere with 
daily activities of living in order for a diagnosis to be made. 
However, the exclusion of the diagnosis does not mean the behavior 
does not exist.

> > And I might add that this fictitious third party probably won't 

ignore
> > my constant use of the words 'potential', 'possible', 'probably' 

and
> > won't ignore the times I've written that the behaviors must 

interfere
> > with Hermione's activites of daily living(functioning) in order 
to 

be
> > diagnosed with OCD.
> 
> As stated above, my point is that evidence for the underlying 

behaviors
> is not there.  So, it's not just a matter of waiting for these 

behavior
> patterns to escalate to the point that they interfere with daily
> functioning.  The behaviors themselves have yet to manifest 

themselves.
> IMO.
> 

Well, I'm beginning to see this problem . Even if I use evidence-
based analysis and point out examples in the books of obsessive 
behavior, I don't think it will be taken as "evidence" or 
even "possible evidence", because you don't necessarily weigh  
Rowling's intent (the quoted material) in your analysis of the 
characters. 

> > Likewise I don't see Ron self-destructing either. What has 
puzzled 

me
> > from reading the various critiques on Ron is that one set of 

desires
> > is regarded as 'positive' (Hermione's desire for academic
> > achievement) and another set is regarded as 'negative' (Ron's 

desire
> > for financial stability and recognition).
> 
> I don't think the goals themselves are positive versus negative.  I 

just
> put a positive spin on Hermione's methods for reaching her goals.  

She
> wants academic success, and she takes the steps to achieve it.  My
> problem with Ron is not at all that his goals are inherently 

negative.
> I just have the impression that he does little but moan about it.  
I 

do
> see your point & Amy's point that he can't do too much to achieve
> financial success given his age, but maybe it's the "academic 

success is
> the path to other success" mindset that I admittedly have.  I can't 

help
> thinking "Get good grades; ensure your future."  That's just me
> projecting my own bias on him though.  He could be financially
> successful without ever cracking a book & I do know that.  In the 

end,
> it's probably just that I identify with Hermione.  And, I don't 

identify
> at all with Ron.
> 

Lol, I have a graduate degree and I'm working on a  post-graduate 
degrees
.my plumber makes more money and lives in a better house
than 
any of my preceptors do, and I know he didn't get stellar grades in 
high school  nor was he a 'brainiac' because I've known his since 
kindergarden!
I think we have been brain-washed that a good grades automatically 
means success. Sure they may  increase your chances of 'success' 
(another term open to interpretation). But then, I look at Jerry's 
house, cars, his working hours,  etc. knowing that he didn't bust his 
rear-end in school and I can see that good grades thing doesn't 
always apply. (The root of my Fred and George sympathy) 

> I also do think his ambitions & insecurities put him more at risk 

for
> being targeted by the dark side than Hermione's ambitions.  I just 

don't
> see the whole "plant a super-student at Hogwarts to challenge 

Hermione's
> status as star pupil" as an effective means of targeting someone 

close
> to Harry.  Sure, it's possible.  But, Ron's ambitions & 

vulnerabilities
> are, IMHO, more likely to be targeted.
> 

I can see Hermione's ambitions being a risk factor too.  Like I said, 
I'm a recovering Hermione. I'm not nearly as anal-retentive now, as I 
used to be at her age. I was a straight-A student through high 
school, scored 1600 on the SATs, graduated at the top of my class, 
etc. The first time I ever scored a grade less than perfect was the 
first exam in my freshman Chemistry class. I was devastated. By mid-
terms, I was so demoralized that I would've have done almost anything 
to get my 'smarts' back. My roommate's boyfriend's roommate was a 
senior Biochemistry major and I used to have him help me, but it was 
no use. I never once scored above an 89% on any exam or quiz for that 
class the entire semester. I passed the course with an 88%. I 
remember coming home for the Christmas holidays and crying to my 
mother about what a failure I was.  I remember the sinking feeling of 
hopelessness and the feeling that I was worthless. So yes, I can see 
Hermione's ambitions being a risk factor for temptation by the Dark 
Side.

Demelza