Am I the only one...

[Milz]

No: HPFGUIDX 135018

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" <zgirnius at y...> 
wrote:
> 
> > Milz responds:
> > Exactly and that's what limits her in terms of intelligence and 
sets
> > her in a different league than HBP and Fred and George. Fred and
> > George are able to invent new jinxes or devise things by practical
> > application of their magical knowledge. Even Hermione has to 
admit 
> in
> > HBP that some of the jokes and jinxes are use a very advanced 
magic.
> > Yes, she can recognize it's advanced magic, but that's about all.
> 
> zgirnius responds:
> Actually, she does more than that. In OotP there is the scene where 
> F&G are demostrating the Headless Hat (or some such, hat that makes 
> your head invisible.) Hermione observes this object, asserts that 
> they have cleverly extended the physical range of some invisibility 
> charm (she sepcifies which one, I do not have my copy with me...), 
> and goes on to predict (correctly) that the effect will not be very 
> long-lived. Sounds to me like she knows exactly what advanced magic 
> was used, how, and can use her theoretical understanding of how 
this 
> must have been done to make a correct prediction. 

Knowing how something is done after seeing an example of it is very 
different from creating something de novo. What Fred and George do--
manipulating and altering jinxes and hexes to get certain results is 
very different from looking at an end product and speculating how it 
works.

>Not regurgitation 
> at all. I also think that if F&G had consulted her about their 
> problem with the nosebleed nougats, they would have saved 
themselves 
> weeks or months of research. (Lee Jordan eventually suggested they 
> try essence of murtlap...which he learned of from Harry, which he 
> knew from Hermione...) Not that she would have helped them, mind 
you, 
> but it;s not becasue she lacks the *brains*. She just doesn't value 
> it.
>
Never said Hermione lacks intelligence. I've stated that she's not on 
the same plane of intellect as HBP or Fred and George.

But you bring up another problem with Hermione: she allows her biases 
to get in the way of the advancement. Again, this is an example of 
not thinking outside of the box. In terms of research and innovation, 
if you stay within the confines of that box, you limit yourself and 
your research. In other words, stagnation. And stagnation is contrary 
to advancement. That's why she isn't on the same intellectual plane 
as the Weasley Twins or HBP. She doesn't push the boundaries: she 
stays well within them. There's nothing wrong with that.  History 
celebrates the innovators and creators---those who dared to push the 
boundaries of the accepted---and calls them "the greats of" their 
fields.

> I agree that Hermione is less *something* than Fred and George, but 
> it's not scientific creativity she lacks. She lacks any marketing 
or 
> entrepreneurial savvy. If someone convinced her that the creation 
of 
> one of F&G's novelty items was worthwhile, she could come up with a 
> way to execute the idea magically. But it would not occur to her on 
> her own to try.
>

You can't make that kind of assumption. Because she does lack 
scientific creativity. Again, knowing her actions in the books (not 
our biased interpretations of it), would Hermione have been able to 
create the polyjuice potion if it never existed in the HP world? 
Probably not, because she hasn't demonstrated that she can 
extrapolate and apply knowledge pragmatically.
 
> She is, however, able to create new magic to meet her own needs. 
The 
> prime example I would cite is also from OotP, the "Sneak Spell", if 
> you will. This is a bit of magic that is new, and seems to involve 
> three different sorts of spells. First, a charm or something on the 
> piece of paper, which has the effect of creating something like a 
> binding magical contract among the signers of the paper without 
their 
> knowledge or consent. This contract/whatever, once created, has a 
> life of its own in that it can determine if the contract is 
breached 
> and apply the penalty automatically, without any further conscious 
> effort by the caster. Finally, the penalty itself is a jinx. We do 
> not know the name of this jinx, and I assert that is because the 
jinx 
> *has* no name, it is Hermione's own invention. Why? Well, possibly 
> Dolores does not have the savvy to counter any known jinx, but 
would 
> you want to bet Marietta did not visit St. Mungo's over the summer? 
> They couldn't help her either. Hence, I claim there is evidence to 
> suppose this was a novel and potent jinx. Note also that jinxes and 
> hexes are studied in DADA, which is Hermione's weakest subject. 
> (Actually, I don't believe this is so. I would bet the E in DADA 
was 
> the result of a flubbed practical. The practical does not ask for 
> creativity, but steady nerves help...this *is* an area of weakness 
> for Hermione.)
>
Alot of assumptions there. Until Rowling says "Hermione devised the 
Sneak Spell", we can only base her actions on what we know of 
Hermione from PS/SS to OoP: 1. she reads alot. 2. she studies alot. 
3. she's a walking encyclopedia. 4. she hasn't demonstrated any 
aptitude for development of de novo spells, hexes, jinxes, etc.

>   Milz responds:
> > Hermione's examination of the book was merely a spell. However, it
> > would have shown a more `answer seeking' side of her if she had 
> indeed
> > tried to figure out why HBP notations worked. But we don't get 
that
> > from her. Instead we get the "follow the rules, if it's not in the
> > official version, the information isn't valid" attitude----
> 
> zgirnius:
> The spell was not about the contents of the book, but its nature, I 
> imagine. After SS, Hermione was naturally suspicious. I think 
> Hermione was concerned the book might be more than just a book. The 
> spell was to ascertain that no, it was *just* a book with some 
notes 
> in it.
>

My point is that it's a superficial examination that relied on magic, 
not observation and study (ie: brain power). Did Hermione pick up the 
book and look through it to see signs of ownership? No. Did she read 
through the notes or a sampling of the notes to see if anything in 
there was potentially harmful? No. And if she had done this, it would 
have given Rowling the opportunity to show that Hermione can 
pragmatically apply her booksmarts. 

> I think she did not want to investigate the book further for the 
same 
> reason posited by another poster, ie ego. Also, it's Harry's book 
and 
> he certainly has no interest in figuring out why it works.
>  

I think she didn't want to investigate the book because it would have 
ended the book about 200 pages sooner. But the point remains, this 
shows a lack of curiousity, which is a critical quality in those who 
are truly innovative and creative. 

> > Milz responds:
> > Way back in PS/SS, Rowling
> > teaches us the use of a bezoar.  Does Hermione retain that
> > information? No. A person who "really knows their stuff" will be 
> able
> > to recall small details like that and apply that knowledge.  
> 
> zgirnius:
> She certainly still knows what a bezoar is, she even knows when she 
> learned about it (Snape's first lesson). (SHe points out to Harry 
he 
> did not need the HBP to tell him this-he *should* have already 
> learned it from Snape). In the antidote lesson, she was not pressed 
> for time to save someone's life-she was engaged in practicing the 
> application of Golpalott's third law to the creation of antidotes 
for 
> mixed potions. A skill that is not useless, a bezoar does not save 
> one from *all* poisons. Slughorn (justifiably) gave Harry the 
benefit 
> of the doubt in that class, but this does not make Hermione's 
> solution *wrong*, or even uncreative.
> 
But she neglects the bezoar nonetheless. She takes it out of her 
possibilities, which is something that isn't done by people who are 
truly innovative and creative. Because once  limitations are imposed, 
the creative process stops. And that is why she isn't on the same 
intellectual plane as the Weasley Twins, HBP and muggles like Issac 
Newton, Linus Pauling, Thomas Edison, etc.

Again, no one is arguing that Hermione is as dumb as a rock. However, 
she hasn't shown the brilliance of an Edison, or a Newton, or a 
Pauling, or a Pascal or a Weasley twin.

Milz