[HPforGrownups] Re: Evil Hermione/Celibacy

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 154868

> Alla:
>
> I am sorry, but NO it is not an imagination. Rebecca brought a VERY
> extensive canon upthread that to me has a very clear implication
> that the main purpose of the DA is to teach themselves defense to
> oppose Voldemort (tyrant that is), if you have other interpretation
> of that canon,

Magpie:
I'm not talking about the kids' desire to fight Voldemort, I'm pointing out 
that the analogy being made is intentionally exaggerated. Marietta is a 
student in a school telling the headmistress of a secret group. 
Umbridge=occupier, the DA=French Resistance and Hogwarts=France.  If this 
really were a story of the French Resistance in WWII we wouldn't need to 
have to imagine it was more like that to explain Hermione's OTT punishment. 
(The DEs operate more like a real secret movement, imo.)

> Alla:
>
> No, to me it would not have complicate matters, just as to me it
> would not have complicated matters to bring in Cedric parents for no
> other purpose than to show more grief.
>
> If Marietta went to her mother, I would saw conflicted girl, someone
> who is concerned about her family and who is between rock and the
> hard place.

Magpie:
Cedric's father appears in one scene, as you said, to show grief and make 
his death more real by showing his family.  JKR isn't trying to set up 
sympathy for Marietta.  She just needs her to out the DA.   JKR went the 
most obvious way for a good scene.

Alla:>
> For all I know now the only reason Marietta went to Umbridge was to
> get her place on Inquisitorial squad and THAT is disgusting to me.

Magpie:
Cho tells us she was conflicted at least partly due to her relationship with 
her mother and Rowling shows us Marietta being uncomfortable from the very 
first meeting.  That's all we get.  I see no reason to not believe this or 
imagine her angling to be in the IS, which we would have seen.  Whether one 
has sympathy for Marietta's position or not I don't think is important, but 
given that the story was two books ago I don't see why one would reject the 
only motivation we ever get for the character, especially in favor of one we 
never get.  I think JKR leaves it open for us to have empathy for Marietta 
or not--leaning heavy on the "not" since Harry has none.  But even Harry 
doesn't deny Cho's explanation.

Lanval:
A mere few days later, the DA most certainly was illegal, and therefore more 
secret than ever.
THAT would have been the time for Marietta to decide whether she wanted to 
continue.

Magpie:
Which just would have meant she got marked and they got outed a few weeks 
earlier.  I don't see why that would matter in the context it's being spoken 
about here.

The disagreement about whether or not this is a "secret organization against 
a tyrant" is one, imo, of metaphor.  Yes, Umbridge is a tyrant of a 
Headmistress.  So could Snape be described as being a tyrant in Harry's 
Potion class, I think, but how far does the metaphor go?  Hermione's being 
excited to see herself as fighting against a tyrant doesn't mean that's the 
way all the kids literally see it, and the problem is that it goes back and 
forth--even Hermione pulls back when talking to the other kids.  Yes, the 
kids are worried about being found out--but not for the same reasons one 
would worry about being discovered by occupying Nazis in France, right? 
They'd worry about school punishments, letters home, suspension, maybe even 
expulsion.  The normal things you'd worry about in dealing with a strict 
headmistress in school.  They're disobeying the new school rules.

Lanva:
So to say that Marietta MUST have been raised in the firm belief that the 
ministry can do no wrong, that she really had no free will in this matter, 
strikes me as nothing but speculation. For all we can guess, her parents may 
have told her to stay out of trouble from
fear.

Magpie:
She certainly has free will and we definitely have no reason to think she 
believes the Ministry can do no wrong.  We do only know that her mother 
works for the Ministry and that, according to Cho, this was part of why she 
had a problem with the DA.  I think the indications are that it's not just 
about her disobeying her mother--she's never comfortable with the DA that I 
remember.  So I think it's implied it's not her mother but also Marietta who 
doesn't like the DA.

Lanva:
Marietta could have told Hermione she was uncomfortable with the DA, and 
that she wanted out.

Magpie:
Only she didn't want out and she didn't need someone to confide in (she 
seems to have already been talking to Cho).  She wanted the DA outed and to 
put a stop to it, and that's what she did.  How important it is that we have 
sympathy for her is another question--maybe a very interesting one!

Lanva:
Does anyone find it a mite strange, btw, that no one in the WW seems to feel 
even a fraction of the discomfort and indignation expressed on this group, 
about Mariettas continuing disfigurement? ...
or if he has, the author has yet to see a reason to mention.

Magpie:
Not really strange given the way these things usually go.  The author does 
see a reason to keep bringing up the disfigurement, which I hope is 
significant.  There have been things in the past that seemed like nobody 
thought badly about until later on when it turned out there were people who 
did feel strongly about them.


> Rebecca:
> Umbridge to reveal it rather than go to her mother. She didn't reveal it
> to
> her head of house, either - she went directly to Umbridge.  Not indicative
> of someone who was conflicted or thought they "did the right thing,"
>
> Magpie:
> You're not the only person to say that and I don't get it.  Isn't it just
> kind of randomly complicated to bring in Flitwick and minor character's
> parents?  We know what Marietta's mother's position is.  Her choice,
> especially given her mother's job, is either to tell or not--meaning tell
> the Headmistress.  It's pretty straightforward, as JKR tries to keep
> things,
> I think.  Just as Hermione chooses to either give Harry's Firebolt over
> for
> testing or not.  However long Marietta waffled and so refrained from
> telling, her decision was always going to be to either keep quiet or tell
> Umbridge.  Telling her mother, for instance, just gets the same result
> with
> less dramatic effect for the author.
>

Rebecca responds:

It's actually a bigger picture than that, I think. Conceptually, would I 
conform to a law or edict I thought repressed:

Magpie:
I realize that Umbridge's rules are strict and aimed at controlling things I 
don't think she has any right to control personally.  But we're still 
talking about how the woman runs a school.  That's all she's running.  I 
certainly agree with her abuse of power as a government official as well, 
and that her abuses of power as a person.  Sending the Dementors after Harry 
is murder, for instance.  But I don't see that this changes what Marietta's 
choice is when it comes to telling on the DA.  I think her choice is the 
wrong one, but it still comes down to either turning in the school 
rule-breakers to the new Headmistress or not.

I do see the danger in Umbridge's running a school (how she runs the school 
is the way she would like the whole world to run) and see good reason to 
resist it.  But at the same time schools are allowed to restrict rights not 
restricted in society.

Rebecca:
As a daughter who knew one's parents were worried about upsetting Umbridge, 
wouldn't one warn one's mother than you were going to tell Umbridge rather
than let her find out this way, through her job?

Magpie:
Not necessarily.  What's wrong with doing it this way--I mean, from 
Marietta's pov? It seems like she's making her own decision here, not just 
trying to help her mother not upset Umbridge.

Rebecca:
Marietta could just have chosen not to go to the DA meetings and kept quiet, 
or if she were concerned
for her friends told her mother and/or her head of house.

Magpie:
What if her concern was that she wanted to put a stop to the DA?  She didn't 
want to keep quiet--she had been doing that, so presumably no longer wanted 
to do that.

Rebecca:
The situation is very similiar, IMO, to what occurred with the Nazi regime - 
informants, some relatives of those working in government, ratting out other 
parties. Neighbor and friend  pitted against neighbor and friend. Trust 
betrayed, as revealed in the countless accounts written and relayed by 
Holocaust survivors. Cho's making excuses for her friend later in the book
denotes "burying ones' head in the sand" to me about such choices and a 
recent post by Dan here says it all:  JKR is writing about life and death 
choices, even in the subtle and sublime.  Rebecca, who includes Dan's post 
link in case anyone wants to read it again

Magpie:
Yes, I think I remember Dan's post (didn't agree with parts of it so I'm not 
going to refer to it as how things are or should be in the world or in the 
Potterverse) , but what JKR maybe wants to set up is not necessarily what 
she did.  I'm not ready to just dismiss Cho as burying her head in the sand 
because she has a different pov to Harry Potter and Hermione Granger, as 
Marietta's friend.  I think what Marietta did was wrong, but I don't think 
what Hermione does is always right and I am not going to agree to a false 
binary where it's either one or the other.  Everyone in the books tends to 
make a habit of making excuses and justifications for their friends while 
condemning others easily.

Gerry:
If Hermione is a
budding Umbridge, consequently that makes Marietta a budding Peter 
Pettigrew.

Magpie:
Funny I was just thinking that.  Specifically I was wondering why Marietta 
doesn't seem exactly like Peter.  Is it just that she's not a big character? 
Part of it is that she's not friends with most of these people.  She's only 
friends with Cho.  And while Sirius and Remus see Peter as simply being 
cowardly, Cho seems to see Marietta's actions differently.  Perhaps they are 
somewhat different.  It may just be that it was so obvious Marietta was 
never fully on board the DA I couldn't believe she wasn't sent off 
immediately.

Gerry:
Gerry, who thinks that Marietta never approached Hermione to ask to take the 
pimples off her.

Magpie:
Yes--and there could be a number of different interesting explanations for 
this...

Tonks:
These only children in the books are all sons. I don't see any other way to 
interpret it.

Magpie:
No other way?  Really?  Here's an alternative: only children mean fewer 
characters for Rowling to juggle.  That's how Hermione became an only child. 
Luna has no siblings that we know of, nor do Pansy or Parvati or Tonks.

Sirius seemed to be an "only son" until we learned he had a brother, as did 
Dumbledore.  If a kid's in danger it's more poignant if they're an only 
child (thus Narcissa crying over her "only son").  Barty Crouch's story 
would be a bit complicated by extra siblings too--one son makes for an 
easier sacrifice on Mum and Dad's part, and the end of the family line as 
well.  With most of these kids it seems much easier to see it as just easier 
to deal with fewer kids.  Yeah, maybe it seems convenient that all the DEs 
we know of have only one son, but then it's equally convenient they're all 
in the same year at school.

-m