Evil Hermione, and Traitor Marietta

[lanval1015]

No: HPFGUIDX 154971

> Magpie:
> Could be a cop out, true.:-) 

Lanval:

I think a LOT of scenes and sub-plots in HP can be 
explained precisely with such a 'cop out': "oh, JKR had to write it 
that way, in order for x to happen, or y not to happen... :) 



> Magpie:
 There seemed to be the suggestion that since we 
> don't see it, maybe there was some other reason.  I think that 
since 
> this is a minor character there's little reason not to go with 
what 
> we've got, even if it's told and not shown.  If that's later 
proved 
> wrong I'll change my mind on it.

Lanval:
You think there's more to come, then? That we're not done with 
Marietta, and may find out more about her situation? Interesting 
thought!

See, I thought that the concept of betrayal is a huge one in the 
book, and it seems to be important in a personal sense to the author.
Marietta as a character was not of exceptional importance; the 
concept of betrayal was.

Of course this opens up so many other questions, some of which have 
already been brought up. What about Peter's betrayal? What about 
Snape betraying LV (or DD?), what about R.A.B.?



 
> Magpie:
> I never meant to imply that was what it was. I agree with the view
> that the rules endanger their grades and are harmful to their
> future. What I am saying is that the fact that Hermione sees the 
big
> picture does not mean that everyone who shows up at the Hog's Head
> sees it that way. They all eventually decide to do something that
> risks their expulsion in joining the DA. Some of them might have 
> truly thought that through and some might not have.
> 
> I feel like I'm coming across as arguing against the DA, which I'm 
> not. I don't think Marietta was right to turn them in.

Lanval:
Oh, I didn't think you were. I just thought that you might have been 
downplaying the importance of the DA a bit. Let me try and explain. 
There are two arguments floating around the discussion thread:

1. The DA is just about kids going against new rules they don't 
like. Marietta disapproved. She turned them in; big deal. So she 
thought they'd get detention, maybe get expelled. Oh well.

2. Marietta felt the DA to be a distinct threat against her personal 
beliefs, against her family, against the ministry -- after all, they 
were *gasp* trying to learn how to defend themselves against 
dementors, the executive powers of the ministry. I think it was even 
suggested that this amounts to training to fight the police in RL.

Well, it can't be both, can it? Either Marietta is very deeply 
concerned that the DA is a threat, or else she sees it as kids doing 
things behind an unpopular teacher's back. Neither scenario excuses 
her, but they are so far apart that they can't, IMO, be combined 
into one argument by those defending her possible intentions and 
motives (mind, I don't think anyone here is defending her treachery 
per se).
 
> 
> > Lanval:
> > So there are two entirely separate questions here: how do we 
judge
> > Hermione's hex, and its effect on Marietta, and how do we judge
> > Marietta's betrayal.
> 
> Magpie:
> I agree. And whether we feel sympathy for Marietta or Hermione is
> yet another issue, I think. If Marietta had shown herself to be
> deeply morally conflicted, as you said, she might have been more
> sympathetic. But she still would have done the same thing. 

Lanval:
See, I doubt that. It's possible, but I think of Marietta as neither 
bright enough to see the Big Picture, nor all that morally 
conflicted. She strikes me as both indecisive and petulant, and a 
bit shallow. (Hard to say; she gets so little page time. But if a 
character is not majorly important, then perhaps the author chooses 
to show only the relevant bits? We'll see; perhaps you're right, and 
we will find out more.)

But my personal impression is that she ratted out of spite, out of 
jealousy that Harry was still occupying so much of Cho's mind, and 
out of a desire to get on Umbridge's good side.


> Magpie:
Had
> Hermione been shown to feel horrible that the hex lasted as long as
> it did perhaps she would seem more sympathetic than she does now to
> some, but that wouldn't really change what she did.
> 

Lanval:
Yes, exactly. And I do agree with those who think that Hermione 
knows how to lift the hex. Likely it's connected whith the parchment 
itself, though. What happened to it, anybody remember?




> HunterGreen:
> Hermione says it herself, there is NOTHING in the rules against 
study 
> groups, she just thought it would be a good idea not to *parade* 
what 
> they were doing. But it wasn't against ANY rules at that time, and 
it 
> certainly wasn't anything that would get anyone expelled. Why the 
> parchment then is a good question. Imagine if Marietta (or anyone 
> else in the group for that matter) told on the group before it was 
> even against the rules. Would that warrant having "sneak" written 
on 
> their face for *years*?

Lanval:
As I've said several times, no. Not that we know it will last for 
*years*. Somehow I got the feeling that the pustules had begun to 
fade in HBP; the balaclava being replaced by a layer of make-up 
seems to suggest as much.

About the rules: they all seemed very well aware that the only 
reason this meeting (and the purpose of it) was not illegal was 
because it had not crossed Umbridge's mind YET to actively forbid 
it. From what went on in the DADA class, it's crystal clear that 
Umbridge was greatly opposed to the kids learning practical spells --
 no matter *who* taught them, or under what circumstances. Everyone 
realized that. Hence the nervousness. 


> 

> HunterGreen:
> Secret, maybe, but not illegal or something she'd get expelled 
for. 
> At that time, when she put her name on the parchment, there was 
> nothing Umbridge could do to them for joining the group (and 
that's 
> proved by the fact that although she did know that the meeting 
> happened and who exactly was there, nothing happened to any of 
them, 
> since there was nothing she COULD do at the time). 
>

Lanval:
Only because I think Umbridge had insufficient intelligence. She 
didn't know much beside the fact that several kids had met in the 
Hog's Head, and discussed forming a club, and she knew about the 
purpose it would serve. But Willy Widdershins wouldn't have known 
the student's names, right? Perhaps he just *said* to Umbridge he 
heard every word, and missed certain things.

So she fired a broadside, and outlawed ALL clubs and organizations, 
unless specifically cleared by herself.



> HunterGreen:
> But even if she didn't continue, her name was still on the paper, 
now 
> wasn't it? And she knew the meetings were still going on, she 
still 
> was still involved whether she went to the meetings or not.
> 
Lanval:

Surely she could have spoken to Hermione?
But that's an interesting point. If Marietta wanted out, she 
certainly would have wanted her name off the list. But Hermione was 
stuck too, wasn't she? Marietta already knew too much. Wonder if 
there was a way Hermione could have taken Marietta's name off 
without releasing her from the promise.
 

 
> HunterGreen:
> Marietta's mother was also helping police the fires. If someone in 
> her family wasn't for the ministry, that would be a rather odd 
> pairing with her mother. 
>

Lanval:
Thanks, I'd forgotten about the fires. However, this isn't solid 
proof of their conviction. Arthur works for the ministry as well, 
and Kingsley Shacklebolt gives a decent show of searching for 
Sirius, knowing he's at Grimmauld Place.


> HunterGreen:
> Yes, she was certainly old enough to see things differently than 
her 
> parents, but that doesn't mean she DID. Of course she had a choice 
in 
> the matter, and apparently she chose to believe her parents and 
the 
> ministry. Why else would she go to Umbridge? Just to be 
vindictive? 
> Cho, by the way, has a personal reason to defy the ministry 
(Cedric's 
> death, of course) and the Weasleys have their parents on the side 
of 
> Dumbledore, so 'disobeying', in their case, is much different. (a 
> better example is Percy. He may have been wrong, but he did stand 
> behing what he believed, even against his family).
> 
Lanval:
Perhaps this is where the readers are supposed to see the difference 
between, say, Sirius, who grew to realize that all he'd ever been 
taught as a child was wrong, and Draco, despite the fact that his 
family does much worse than the Blacks, still appears to be stuck in 
his ugly bigot mindset? 

Marietta blindly follows authority; Percy chooses new authority over 
the old (his parents), and embraces it with uncommon fervor. Luna, 
much as I love her, doesn't do much in the department of Think-for 
Yourself either; she buys into her dad's paranoid reasons to 
distrust the ministry with far too much ease.



> HunterGreen:
> I don't see it that way. Umbridge even said she had to 'question 
her 
> further'. Marietta didn't know there was a hex on the parchment, 
so 
> there was no reason for her to omit details unless she felt guilty 
or 
> conflicted about what she was doing. Personally, I see it as 
> something she had to brace herself to do. 

Lanval:
Well, your guess is of course as good as mine. We don't know exactly 
how Marietta felt as she was making her way to Umbridge's office.


> HunterGreen:
Again, I am not trying to 
> say that was she did was right in any way, but that she herself 
was 
> not trying to be evil. She wasn't bribed by Umbridge, she didn't 
skip 
> up to her and say immediately that there was a secret organization 
in 
> the school. Marietta doesn't seem to pleased with herself after 
the 
> fact either, and I have trouble believing that she was THAT 
> distressed over the hex appearing on her face (though, perhaps 
that 
> was just what it was),

Lanval:
Really? I believe she was extremely distressed. I also see no 
evidence that Marietta is not 'pleased with herself', as in 'sorry 
for what she did'. No, she's in shock because everything went so 
spectacularly wrong! IMO, she likely thought it would be a piece of 
cake -- go see Umbridge, tell, get a pat on the head and a cookie, 
and go back to her common room. What she planned to tell Cho 
afterwards.... who knows. Instead she ends up in DD's office, with 
several teachers and ministry officials, Umbridge, Harry... as the 
unhappy center of attention. And with an ugly sneak mark (which btw 
does clearly not cause her physical distress; Umbridge remarks that 
Marietta had to SEE it in the mirror first to notice.)all across her 
face. 

Which is I think the reason she refuses to talk to Fudge: she may 
well be scared to bits that further disfigurement would happen. 
Umbridge supports this later, when she tells Marietta to nod or 
shake her head, should she fear the spots getting worse.

As to the impression some have that Umbridge tortured her, or was 
unkind to her before the scene in DD's office: Umbridge admits to 
trying out counterjinxes on Marietta, which tells me that she showed 
some concern for her, and perhaps felt quite grateful to the girl. 
Only when Marietta stubbornly refuses to be Umbridge's star witness 
does Umbridge go into Rage Mode.



> Oh, and as to the assertion in other posts that Marietta's actions 
> are similar to Peter's, that a REALLY extreme way of putting it, 
> don't you think? After all, no one was going to be MURDERED by 
> Umbridge, and there's no doubt in my mind that Peter knew what he 
was 
> doing was completely wrong. Whereas, I think Marietta thought she 
was 
> doing the right thing. 

Lanval:
That remains debatable. Of course Peter's actions had worse 
consequences, but that's not the point the author is trying make, 
IMO.

> 
> Also, as an aside, I have always thought that a mass-expelling of 
> everyone in the DA would not work as neatly as Fudge and Umbridge 
> think it would have. By that point, I think, they were losing some 
of 
> their credibility in the WW, and if it came out that twenty-eight 
> students were expelled for practising DADA spells (including 
Amelia 
> Bones' neice, and famous aurors Frank and Alice Longbottom's son). 
> They were building Harry up all year as a liar, and some of the 
> others (like the Weasleys and the muggle-borns) would be tossed 
off, 
> but the others, well, I doubt the idea would be immediately 
embraced 
> that it was justified to expel 10% of the school (going with the 
> assumption that there are 280 students).
>
Lanval:

:) You know, every time I read something in the news about yet 
another scandal concerning our current administration, I think: this 
is it, they can't POSSIBLY get away with this... and every time they 
do.

Fudge & his minions control the media, the school, the judicial 
system. No doubt many do not believe everything they read in the DP, 
but it's enough that some do, some have doubts, and many are afraid.

I think Fudge would have pushed for the expulsion, excpet perhaps of 
those kids whose parents were in good standing with him, or might 
pose a danger to him.

Lanval