Hermione In Trouble?

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 120669


GEO wrote: 
> > How does that make Hermione and co. different from Umbridge
> > and co.? From the perspective of the book, both have done things 
> > in order to further their respective cause. Umbridge may be 
> > wrong, but how exactly does that make Hermione right? Trying to 
> > get her killed by the centaurs, blackmailing reporters and 
> > cursing her fellow students isn't any better than Umbridge using 
> > her authority except maybe for the fact that Hermione is the 
> > underdog while Umbridge has the establishment behind her,
> >
> > Furthermore are we going to see Hermione get her comeuppance just
> > as Umbridge get hers and probably Draco, Voldemort and Lucius 
> > will get theirs. Rowling can't spare Hermione and punish the 
> > others for their various offenses especially when Draco was 
> > practicaly brainwashed by his father's ideology.

Cory:
> I understand your point. Please understand, I am not trying to
> defend Hermione's actions....
>
> To answer your question about how Hermione and Umbridge are
> different, I would respond that I think the difference JKR wants us
> to see is that Hermione's actions were taken in furtherance of a
> cause that we (the reader) are supposed to believe is "good," while
> Umbridge's actions (and Rita Skeeter's) were taken in furtherance of
> a cause that we are supposed to think of as "evil." In real life,
> this is a difficult distinction to grasp -- nobody thinks they
> are "evil"; the Delores Umbridges of our world do what they do
> because they believe they are right, and they believe the ends
> justify the means. In Potterverse, however, I still think that's the
> message JKR is sending: If you truly *are* on the side of good (and
> we know the heroes are, because they're, well, the heroes), then the
> ends truly *do* justify the means.
>
> Again, I'm not agreeing on an ethical level, just giving my
> interpretation...


Katie:
> I think that there is a definite difference in Hermione & Company
> and Umbridge & Company. It lies in their INTENTIONS. Hermione is
> trying to protect people, help her friend and save Sirius while
> Umbridge is a lot like Voldy in the fact that she is power hungry
> and will go to any lengths to get it. I don't think that it was
> Hermione's intention for the centaurs to kill Umbridge, just provide
> enough of a distraction for them to escape. Umbridge represents
> ignorance, blind obedience, and evil. I think that JKR is showing
> us that "I was just following orders" is no excuse for bad
> behavior. I also think that Umbridge serves as a way to show us
> that while sometimes unfair and mean spirited, Snape is not EVIL.


SSSusan:
I'm with Katie on this one, and Cory, I think you should be less 
apologetic for holding the view you do!  

GEO stated: "Rowling can't spare Hermione and punish the others for
their various offenses," to which I say, "Well, sure she can!"  One, 
for the trite reason that they're her stories; and two, because I 
think Katie's right that INTENTIONS make all the difference to JKR.

One of the things JKR is teaching us, I believe, is that the world 
isn't all black and white -– there are MANY shades of gray out 
there.  Decisions and actions taken in one situation definitely 
aren't always identical in appropriateness or rightness in another.  
Just like in real life, we encounter situational ethics, the 
proverbial "A man's wife was in desperate need of medication but they 
had no money or means to pay.  So he stole.  Is this wrong?"  It's 
NOT so easy as "yes" or "no" for most people.  Many will say it's NOT 
wrong, even if it does deprive the pharmacist of income & stock.  
Stealing to support a drug habit most people see as wrong.  Then 
again, some will explain it away as that the person can't help it 
because he's addicted to the drug.  Stealing for the thrill of it 
most people will see as wrong.  A few might argue that the poor kid 
probably had no guidance or attention at home and this is a desperate 
cry for help.   

My point?  There's gray out there... some closer to white, some 
closer to black, but enough that we'd never get total agreement 
amongst the members of this list on these examples.

So what does that have to do with JKR?  Well, she offers up the gray 
stuff, too.  Hermione's behaviors have been clearly in the gray, 
right?  She stole from Snape's supply cupboard.  She kidnapped Rita 
Skeeter and blackmailed her.  She set up a curse to catch any student 
who narced on the DA without telling them.  In many situations, all 
these are "bad" behaviors.  But looking at the particular situations, 
at the INTENTIONS of Hermione and/or H/R/H, they're more 
understandable and even, to many people, fully acceptable.  

What about Umbridge?  Well, she punishes a student who speaks out in 
class & argues with her by having him write, for *hours*, with a 
quill which slits open the back of his hand.  She is prejudiced 
against all half-breeds.  She is power-hungry, if not for her own 
sake, then at least for Fudge's sake.  Her INTENTIONS are clearly 
selfish, her actions are on occasion EVIL, and she works for the 
cause of gaining power at any cost.  Her actions, then, are seen by 
most as just plain wrong.

Does JKR want us to see this distinction between Hermione [& Harry & 
Ron] & Umbridge?  I think so.  Does she want us to think Hermione is 
perfect?  No, I don't think so.  But the place where I think JKR 
wants us to find fault with Hermione isn't in *these* instances; it's 
in her misunderstanding of how to work with the House Elves and with 
S.P.E.W.  Her heart's in the right place, but her actions are 
misguided, most seem to feel.  She is condescending and wants to 
force the house elves into changing their lives in the way *she* 
feels is right, without speaking to them about their own desires and 
wishes.  I think *this* is where Hermione will learn her lesson, get 
her comeuppance, or whatever.  

But I don't think JKR will ever "punish" Hermione for the stolen 
ingredients or leading Umbridge into the forest [I don't think her 
intention was to have DJU killed but just to get herself & Harry 
free] or even for the Marietta incident [which, of the examples 
given, I think comes closest to unethical].  I think we're meant to 
see these situations as by & large driven by non-selfish and "right" 
intentions.  

Would it have been good for DD to have punished the three for their 
actions more often?  Maybe so!  Certainly some here have argued that 
Harry should have been brought up short more than once and faced some 
consequences for his actions.  I wouldn't have objected too strongly 
to Hermione's having received some sort of punishment for generally 
breaking school rules, too, in these cases.  But I don't think they'd 
ever be consequences as serious and those we'd expect to see for 
Umbridge or Draco & gang.  Is that fair?  Well, *I* think so, yes.  I 
do think we're meant to question blind following of rules, decisions 
made which might hurt or endanger others.  If H/R/H break some rules 
in the cause of fighting Voldy and evil, then I think we can expect 
punishment to be non-existent or light.  

Is this fair of JKR?  That's up to each person and his/her own sense 
or morality.  Some people [on the Christian right, especially] trash 
the books because they say JKR *glorifies* breaking rules.  I don't 
think that's correct, but she certainly does show us that there are 
times when she thinks it's appropriate to do so.  And I don't have a 
problem with most of that.

There are others who object to JKR's one-sidedness, as I think GEO is 
doing in this thread.  Why NOT punish Hermione if Draco, Lucius & 
Umbridge all get theirs in the end?  Katie, Cory & I have each tried 
to answer that on grounds of INTENTIONS.  *Yet* JKR has been 
criticized -– and more fairly so, imo -— for one-sidedness on the 
question of why she's shown us only "bad" Slytherins so far.  She 
just *does* favor the heroes, the Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs & 
Ravenclaws.  And for someone who's good at showing us all the grays 
of many of the (esp. adult) characters and of situations, with the 
houses she's still being awfully black & white.  *That's* an 
inconsistency I can see being concerned about.

Siriusly Snapey Susan, who's in a bit of a fog today, so I hope this 
makes some sense.