Hermione is Umbridge

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 93035

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kia" <kiatrier at y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> I leave Bilius and Molly to other people for now and concentrate 
> on the fact that Umbridge and Hermione share the same middle 
> name. Jane. 
> 
> Both Hermione and Umbridge like rules. They like to enforce 
> them. They like having the power to enforce them be it through 
> prefecture or being a High Inquisitor. 

We see that Dolores Umbridge likes rules and likes to enforce them. 
We do *not* see this with Hermione. She respects rules, and when 
given the responsibility to enforce them, she does her best to fulfil 
this duty. There is not a shred of evidence that she gets a buzz from 
it. In the same way, when she campaigns for a change in rules (i.e., 
SPEW), it is strictly geared to an issue, not to enhance her power or 
sense of power.

>They like to break them, if 
> they deem it necessary, being by trying the Cruciatus on 
> students or leading teachers to an almost certain death. 

Dolores certainly has no problem in breaking rules - if she can get 
away with it. This is the other side of the coin of her attitude to 
rules in the first place - they are to be used and manipulated to 
serve her own agenda, not to express and enforce justice. 

>Both 
> have a sadistic or at least cruel streak - Umbridge and her quill, 
> Hermione and her parchment. 

Again, Umbridge is certainly sadistic, but *Hermione*? JKR appears to 
have a fondness for boils, acne and such, and uses them a lot in the 
books - people are forever being jinxed with it, or getting it 
through magical accidents. So, Hermione was using a *mild* 
punishment, in terms of the Potterverse. In real life, it's the 
equivalent of painting somebody's face with indelible paint. If you 
see giving boils as sadistic, then it's JKR, not Hermione, who is the 
sadist.

>Both are not above blackmail. 

Do you truly not see the difference between putting pressure on 
somebody to stop them from doing wrong, and blackmail?!

> Both are not above abusing their power.

*When* has Hermione abused her power? 

> Both do what they deem 
> necessary to do to keep the world the way they want it. 

Hermione wants a world that is fair, kind and just. Dolores Umbridge 
wants a world that is at her service. All people want things, the 
difference between good and bad is the difference between *what* they 
want.

> 
<snip> 
> If Pansy Parkinson or even Cho Chang had been responsible for 
> "The Marietta Incident", we would have hated Pansy or Cho for it. 

Nope. I certainly wouldn't have hated them. Marietta betrayed her 
friends and was a coward. She got a (mild) comeuppance, that's all.


<snip> 

> Uhm, I think this might be a bit of an unpopular answer but I don't 
> think Umbridge is evil. <snip>

>That is evil on a completely different level. >It's evil, but it's 
also very normal, very human in its inhumanness. It's something you 
encounter much more often in the real world than 
> Voldemorts.
> Anyway it's cruel and sadistic and wrong, but it's hard to call it 
evil 
> in the same way one would call Voldemort evil. It's not the same 
> thing, at least not in Harry Potter. Evil is Voldemort. Umbridge is 
> ruthlessness. Umbridge is sadism. Umbridge is cruelty. 
> Umbridge is the lack of compassion. Umbridge is selfishness. 
> Umbridge is hunger for power. Umbridge is everything we 
> identify as evil or ingredient for evil, but she isn't Voldemort. 
The 
> difference between her and Voldemort is the intention. Umbridge 
> believes that she can do good, that she is doing good, that what 
> she does is constructive, that she is the epitome of morality. 
> What stops Umbridge from being evil and what keeps her 
> human is her belief that she does good. Her morality is totally 
> screwed up, but if you screw up your eyes and read OotP 
> upside-down, you might realise how - from her point of view - 
> she is doing the right thing and nothing but the right thing. And 
> you might also see how she believes that the means justify the 
> ends.
> 

I don't think that Dolores thinks she is doing good. I don't think 
she thought she was doing the right thing by sending Dementors after 
Harry, for instance. I think she acts throughout the book with a 
complete lack of morality, intent on achieving the political goals 
she wants, that have no reference to morality at all. 
You are right that Voldemort is evil on a different level than 
Umbridge, but IMO it's not because she does what she believes to be 
good. As I see it, it's because she doesn't have a positive 
*ideology* of evil, as Voldemort has. She doesn't care for morality 
the least bit (this makes her the most evil non-DE character so far, 
IMO), but she hasn't gone so far as to positively, consciously, 
reject the notion of morality. 
I think of Voldemort as *human* evil carried to it's logical end. 
Good people do wrong and repent it, most people do wrong and 
rationalize it, Umbridges do wrong and don't care about it, 
Voldemorts rejoice in it. 


Naama