[HPforGrownups] Re: Marietta and the DA

[Amanda]

No: HPFGUIDX 121432

replying back to SSSusan and Del people in the same thread...sorry for the
lateish replies, hockey game tonight...but it is very convenient that I
managed to write one arguement that counters, neatly, both of yours *G*



Kethryn:
> > > If it were me, I would do exactly the same thing as Hermione in
> > > this case. It would be useless to tell people that something
> > > bad would happen if they signed the form and then blabbed;
> > > those people that would be inclined to blab would somehow find
> > > a way not to sign the form.

SSSusan:
> > Wouldn't it make MORE sense to tell them something bad would
> > happen if they signed & then told, to *let* those people "find a
> > way not to sign"??  That way you've got no one in the group who
> > might betray you later, no one in the group you're allowing to
> > continue to come to meetings and gather intel on you.  AND if
> > they walked without signing, you'd know who to be watching!
> > You'd know there were people who didn't think this was such a
> > good idea, so you'd better be careful how much detail you let
> > out.
> >
> > In short, letting them go without signing would equal damage
> > control in my book.

<snip and insert from another email>

> 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.

<snip>

Of course it makes more sense to me to do it that way.  But, I am an adult
and have adult experiences behind that.  Hermione is the daughter of two
muggle dentists...it's not like she was raised by Jack Bristol of the CIA.
I do have to admit that it is very human (and young) to want revenge on
sneaks/oathbreakers but we have all done it at one time or another.  I think
Hermione knew she would not be able to control the possible dissentors in
the group and took the best counter measures that she could come up with.
Note, that was counter measures and not preventative ones...it is actually
very hard to do preventative measures, even with a smallish group, in terms
of  ~ponders what term to call this~ monitoring other people's behavoir.

Had she told them she hexed the paper after they signed, I would lay even
odds that Marietta would have told Umbridge about the curse (after all,
telling people about the curse was NOT part of what they signed), gotten it
lifted, and then squealed like a pig and no one in the DA would have had a
clue that she ratted them out.  Ergo, it only makes sense not to tell anyone
about the curse itself and that justifies her actions completely in my own
mind.

Actually, if you want to talk about where Hermione starts to tread in very
dangerous waters, the coins that she made for the DA, in my mind, are the
closest I have seen her come yet.  And, yet, I can't quite figure out why
that bothers me the most out of all that she has done.

Kethryn