Hermione as Stategist (was: Harry as Leader (was: What has Harry learned?)

[mz_annethrope]

No: HPFGUIDX 127464


Vivamus wrote:
> Hermione shows an interesting dichotomy when it comes to 
understanding
> others, doesn't she? On the one hand, she seems to have a solid 
grasp of
> what others are feeling, even when that is very complex (such as 
her
> explanation of Cho's feelings to Harry in OOtP.)  On the other, 
what others
> are feeling doesn't seem to connect inside her head with the fact 
that HER
> reality may not be the same as someone ELSE's reality.  [examples snipped]
> 
> I see this all as a reflection of her character that you describe 
so well.
> Her mind is orderly and logical, so she really doesn't understand 
why
> someone should see anything differently.  If they do, she just has 
to
> explain things and they will change -- just as she thinks she 
would, if she
> didn't understand something and it was explained to her.   It 
never occurs
> to her either that the assumptions may be different, or that one 
can make a
> "right" choice that isn't logical, or even that one has the 
*right* to make
> a choice that isn't logical (or doesn't seem so to her.)

mz_annethrope:

Great analysis. It's an interesting dichotomy indeed and I don't 
find it entirely believable. Hermione is a true creature of the 
Enlightenment. For her the human mind, in the form of reason, is the 
point of departure for all knowledge. She separates subject from 
object (the environment can be analyzed as something external from 
the human mind) which allows her to analyze some one else in 
supposedly "objective" fashion. So how can she come up with an 
intuitive response to some one she doesn't seem to know very well, 
and who is so different from her? She doesn't seem to be able to do 
it with Luna.

I suspect the author simply needed some one to tell Harry what was 
going on, and that some one as usual happened to be Hermione. She 
could have a source. Ginny probably knows a lot of the school gossip 
and Hermione could have heard it from her. 

Vivamus:
> What worries me in what we saw in OOtP about Hermione's strategy, 
is that
> she hasn't really figured out yet that they are in a war, and the 
price of
> losing is the freedom of the entire world, wizard and muggle 
both.  When she
> does, I'm sure she will explain it to the others, but it had 
better be soon,
> or kids doing jelly legs and tarantalegra against AKs are going to 
be very
> messily slaughtered.  It's one thing to play fair, but there are 
times when
> combat rules need to take over, and combat has nothing to do with 
fair or
> proper or nice.

mz_annethrope:
No she hasn't yet figured out they are in a war. We don't really 
know about how aurors fight the DEs (JKR doesn't much describe their 
tactics in OotP and presumably they no longer have special authority 
to use illegal curses). Winning a battle may have less to do with 
the particular curses and more to do with the aptitude of the 
fighter. Harry, for example, is able to respond successfully to 
Voldemort with "Expelliarmus," but in OotP he stands around 
stupidly. Reaction speed, concentration, and ability to protect 
oneself seem to count at least as much as the spell used. That said, 
I agree that they'll need to be able to use longer lasting and more 
debilitating curses.

There's also an ethical issue. These are kids fighting, and I doubt 
JKR is going to say it's ok for underage witches and wizards to 
fight in wars when it is not ok for muggle children. How old do you 
have to be to join the British Army? I suspect she's lowered coming 
of age from 18 to 17 to allow 7th year students to fight legally. 
I'm not expecting full fledged battles with students before that 
time.

mz_annethrope