Hermione's Hypocrisy?(long)

[sophierom]

No: HPFGUIDX 129113

Sophierom closed her last email with: 
> Thanks for the very thought-provoking debate! 
> > 
> > All the best,
> > Sophie

> a_svirn responded:
> 
> It sounds as if you are going to close the discussion, but I am not 
> ready yet! Maybe it's immature of me ;-)

Sophierom now: 

Oh, no, I wasn't trying to close the discussion.  I just wanted to
make sure that you understood that I was enjoying the debate.  I hope
I know better than to try to get the last word in this group! ;-D


> a_svirn:
> 
> How else you can judge one's character if not through one's 
> interactions?  It's not like we are capable of Legilimency


Sophierom:

What, we're not capable of Legilimency? :-D  What I meant and didn't
express clearly enough is that we can't judge Hermione only on her
interactions with the Kreacher. I think Mira explained this quite well
in post 129110; her interactions with others are important for
understanding her character, as well.  

And in any case, you keep arguing that Hermione doesn't treat Kreacher
like a person but as a pet.  May I again point you toward this example
from canon: 

**

Kreacher: "...and there's the Mudblood, standing there bold as brass
... and there's a new boy, Kreacher doesn't know his name, what is he
doing here, Kreacher doesn't know ..."

"This is Harry, Kreacher," said Hermione tentatively. "Harry Potter."

Kreacher's pale eyes widened and he muttered faster and more furiously
than ever.  "The Mudblood is talking to Kreacher as though she is my
friend" (OotP, Am. ed., 108).

**

Hermione actually introduces Kreacher to Harry.  She uses his name;
she speaks to him respectfully and answers his question, even after
he's just called her a Mudblood.  I don't know too many people who
introduce their pets to their friends.  I do know people who use
introductions as a way to establish an equal playing field. And this
is why Kreacher is so disturbed.  "The Mudblood is talking to Kreacher
as though she is my friend," he says, and then he worries what his
Mistress would think of him keeping such company.  He's not worried
that old Mrs. Black will think the Mudblood is treating him like a
pet; he's worried that she's trying to establish equality between the
two of them.

>  Sophierom in a previous post:
> 
> <snip>
>  As someone who works with teenagers,
> > I know that it's all too "cool" to be apathetic.  It would be 
> easier
> > to be like Ron, who shrugs and says "nutters." 
> 
> a_svirn:
> 
> Actually I don't think that Ron's being is apathetic. I think that 
> his or Harry's attitude to elves much more mature, in fact, than 
> Hermione's, because they, and especially Harry, do see elves as 
> persons. I think it's through Harry, not through Hermione JKR is 
> trying to convey her message. 

Sophierom:

I agree with you that Harry does the best of all three teens in
dealing with the house elves. You and Betsy (in post 129106) both make
   fabulous points about Harry's natural empathy.  

But I continue to disagree with you about Ron.  I see no canon
evidence that he empathizes with the house-elves; what I do see is
that he teases Hermione for taking action and that he thinks
"spew" is
stupid and pointless.  If you can provide counterexamples, I'd be
happy to reconsider my opinion because I really do like Ron and would
love to think better of him.  But when it comes to magical creatures
(not just house-elves, but goblins and werewolves, too, IIRC from PoA
and GoF), he shares his culture's prejudices.  

> > Sophierom previously:
> > 
> > Again, playing devil's advocate ...;-D  Ripe age of 15? Sirius is 
> more
> > than twice her age, and he's not empathetic. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> 
> Well, Sirius is not empathetic period, so he's not a really good 
> example. Had he lived a hundred, he would still have been less than 
> empathetic.

Sophierom now:

I agree that Sirius is not an empathetic character; I chose him for
comparison, however, because you compared Hermione to him in the first
post, arguing that Sirius "acknowledges" Kreacher's feeling (post
129035). 

In fact, Dumbledore refutes your argument at the end of OotP: "Sirius
did not hate Kreacher," said Dumbledore.  "He regarded him as a
servant unworthy of much interest or notice.  Indifference and neglect
often do much more damage than outright dislike....The fountain we
destroyed tonight told a lie.  We wizards have mistreated and abused
our fellows for too long, and we are now reaping our reward" (Am.ed,
833-834).

Whether Dumbledore approves of Hermione's "blunt" methods or not, he
certainly approves of action:  "Indifference and neglect often do more
damage," he argues.  Of course, you may disagree with Dumbledore.  But
my entire argument is that Rowling does not see Hermione's actions as
hypocritical; misguided, perhaps, but still well-intentioned.  If
Rowling's critical of anyone, it's the wizards who have accepted
the status quo for too long.  As Dumbledore warns, the wizarding world
is "reaping" their "reward" for their apathy and indifference toward
other magical creatures.  I think in Book 6 we're going to see more
discussion of magical creatures and whether they choose to ally
themselves with the DEs, the Order, or remain neutral.

Thanks again for such interesting points, and I say this not as a way
to end the dialogue but as a sincere show of gratitude for the
discussion.  

All the best,
Sophie