Hermione's Hypocrisy?(long)

[sophierom]

No: HPFGUIDX 129156

> > Sophierom:
> >
> > 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.
> <snip>
 
> Chys:
> 
> *butting in on an odd note* I agree with this, but in DD's own
words-
>  "Indifference and neglect often do more damage," on his treatment 
> of  -Harry-  that year. He ignored him completely and didn't quite 
> know how that had affected him, even if he did do it with his said 
> good intentions; what was it, fear that he'd be spied on and Harry 
> posessed? I don't think he gave much of an excuse. 

Sophierom:

Interesting connection! Yes, I think Dumbledore needed to listen to
his own advice there. Although he was using that phrase to talk about
wizards and other magical creatures, I do think you're right; he could
easily have been using it to talk about his own mistakes with Harry.

Chys:
On Hermione being 
> blunt, I think it's just how she goes about things, the direct 
> approach. She sees the slavery as wrong and wants to do something 
> about it, even if it is for selfish reasons, of which I am not 
> certain, but I think she would be good as an adult in the fight for 
> magical creature's rights, no matter her aim (selfishness?) as a 
> child. I think Harry's friendships with so many other races has 
> influenced this somewhat.
> 
> Now that I have gone back and finally reread this section, I don't
see 
> how being nice to Kreacher would have changed things much in the
long 
> run anyway- it seems like a long shot, and a weak one at that. If
they 
> would have set him free to start with, he would have gone straight
to 
> Lestrange anyway, and told her that Sirius was at his house and had 
> set him free (for it's Sirius that would have to set him free as 
> Sirius is his master. Harry couldn't just give Dobby his sock and
set 
> him free, he had to trick Malfoy into doing it.) *sigh* With
Kreacher 
> it seems to be a no win situation. I think if he's still alive in
the 
> next book, Harry will ream him a new.... ah, yes.
> 
> *butting out now*


Sophierom:

I agree that, even had Sirius and the others been kind to Kreacher,
the house-elf wouldn't have changed at this point in his life. But I
do think Dumbledore wanted them to be more than kind (and this is also
where Hermione failed, as a_svirn has pointed out): no one (except
possibly Harry and Dumbledore) understood Kreacher's perspective.  Ron
thought Kreacher was "nutters," Hermione thought him "strange," and
Sirius didn't take him seriously. If he had, then he wouldn't have
flippantly ordered him to get out of his sight at Christmas.  

So, I think Dumbledore's larger message in this speech at the end of
OotP is that wizards have to respect house-elves  (perhaps this means
being kind AND recognizing Kreacher's inherent danger; to ignore
Kreacher's ability to cause harm would be to think him too weak to do
any damage).  Had Sirius respected Kreacher enough to see him as an
adversary, then perhaps he'd have been more careful with the house-elf
and Kreacher might never have had the chance to report to Narcissa.

The debate about Hermione and Kreacher does not, for me, center around
whether or not Hermione succeeds in respecting the house-elves; as
others including a_svirn have shown, she ultimately does not respect
them in the way she should.  For me, it's about Hermione's intentions
and her ultimate goals. I think Hermione sincerely wants to help the
house-elves (and not for personal gain). But I think, at this point in
her emotional development, she can't help them because she's unable to
see past her own concepts of respect and freedom.  If she's ever able
to see the house-elves' perspectives, then SPEW will be an
organization to take seriously (though I do hope she changes the name!
;-D)

All the best, 
Sophie