The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?)

[huntergreen_3]

No: HPFGUIDX 112730

Tonks wrote:
>>And to answer Hunter Green: I think the difference between what
Marietta did and what Wormtail did is a matter of degree. The basic
action was the same.<<

HunterGreen:
And I still disagree. Wormtail willingly joined a group that had the 
GOAL of fighting a specific impression. Marietta was going along with 
the crowd to join a DADA group, which LATER became against the rules 
and LATER became an 'anti-Umbridge/anti-Ministry' group of sorts. I 
know the group was never supposed to be 'advertised' to Umbridge, but 
it wasn't supposed to be fighting her, at least not from what 
Marietta was led to believe. 

Tonks:
>> It is the personal and moral weakness that is the same for
both characters. The consequences of their actions are worlds
apart, yes, but the seed from which both developed is the same.<<

HunterGreen:
I don't think it was moral weakness at all. It was clearly moral 
weakness in the case of Wormtail, of course, he chose to betray the 
order even though he knew it was wrong. I don't think Marietta 
thought it was wrong to betray the DA; I think she thought telling 
Umbridge was the right thing to do. She knew of a group of kids who 
were breaking school and Ministry policies, and thought it was wrong 
to keep that a secret. We, as readers, know that the group isn't 
causing any problems and the only reason its illegal is because of 
Ministry paranoia, but does someone loyal to the Ministry see it that 
way? I think she did what *she* thought was right, which took quite a 
bit of moral strength (although she was severely misguided, and it 
would have been better if she had at least spoken Harry or Hermione 
first about her concerns).

Tonks:
>>Also, after the kids signed the paper "there was an odd feeling in
the group now. It was as thought they had just signed some kind of
contract." (p.347)<<

HunterGreen:
It may have *felt* like it, but the fact that its mentioned "*as 
though* they had just signed some kind of contract." (emphasis mine) 
would imply that its NOT a contract, otherwise that statement doesn't 
make sense.

Tonks:
>>As to Hermione, it would have been courteous of her to tell the
others about the jinx. It is typical Hermione behavior to assume
that what she does is the best thing without taking counsel from
anyone. She must have had some concern that someone might tell or
she would not have done it.<<

HunterGreen:
Yes, well, I think it being typical of Hermione is what the thread is 
about. On occasion she can be very ruthless. In this case, I don't 
think it was fair, but I agree that its in her character to do 
something like this.

Tonks:
>>But lets look at the lesson here:
What might be a motive for the author to not punish Hermione?
Maybe the lesson is that one is expected to do the right thing, not
because you are threatened if you don't, but because it is the right
thing. One is expected to have an internalized sense of values as
opposed to one imposed from the outside by someone else.<<

HunterGreen:
But she was acting on an internalized sense of values, just a 
different set of values than Hermione. That's the thing with values, 
everyone has different ones. Especially in this case, where to obey 
or disobey authority is so subjective, varying from person to person, 
mostly based on the experiences they've had, and (as evidenced by 
Seamus and Neville) their family.