Marietta and the DA

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 121376


Kethryn wrote:
"It's like this, if I knew there was a traitor in the US selling
secrets to the fill-in-the-blank of your choice here, I wouldn't
hesitate a second to ensure their capture, legally or otherwise."

Del replies:
This analogy isn't quite correct, in that Hermione didn't *know* there
was a traitor, she suspected someone *could* turn traitor, which is
widely different. If you know there's a traitor, then your intent
should rightfully be on identifying them. But if you suspect that over
time someone might turn traitor, then your intent should be on
*preventing* that betrayal. Devising *only* a way of making the
traitor's identity known once he's betrayed is doing only half the job
IMO.

To use another analogy : let's say I know that someone I know is
mixing up with the wrong crowd a tad too much, and I suspect that
someday he could be influenced into doing something wrong. I'm not
going to just wait until he does do something stupid and then deal
with the consequences. No, I'm *also* going to try my best to
*prevent* him from doing something stupid : I'm going to talk to him,
I'm going to keep an eye on him, I'm going to lay down rules if that's
in my power (say, a parent dealing with a child) and then *enforce*
those rules.

The only thing Hermione did was lay down a single rule ("we agree not
to talk to anyone about it") but she even failed from enforcing the
rule. She could at least have told, once everyone had signed, that
there would be consequences for anyone who betrayed their word. But
she didn't do that, or anything else, to *prevent* any betrayal. In my
world, that's called *asking* for troubles. And she got them.

Del