[HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione must be stopped, ...-Hermione's Crimes

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 149409

>> Magpie:
>> There's an important difference in the things Ceridwen is talking
>> about and what you're describing here--something different enough
>> that JKR never puts Harry in this situation, imo.  Harry, in all
>> these scenes, is saving someone.  He's worried a person is in danger
>> or the world is in danger so throws himself into danger to stop it.
>> He's risking himself. In the Hermione scenes Ceridwen is talking
>> about she's being judge and jury and meting out punishment to
>> others.  It's not that Hermione ought to let adults handle it--it's
>> not up to any random adult to do these things either.  It's her
>> thinking she has the right to decide what justice is and administer
>> it.

> bboyminn:
>
> I can't help but notice that you are very selectively missing the
> point. This is about 'right' and 'wrong'.
>
> If Hermione did the 'right' thing in turning Rita over to the adult
> authorities, then the effects would have been crushingly devestating
> to Rita. It would have been prison and the ruin of her career. That is
> no small thing.

Magpie:
I'm not intentionally missing the point, I can at least say!  I think we're 
just making different points.  Hermione discovered something her enemy was 
doing that was against the law, but not morally wrong or harmful (imo, and I 
think in Hermione's opinion, given she doesn't seem to think the Marauders 
belonged in prison).  She uses this to her advantage in capturing and then 
blackmailing said enemy to make her behave more to her liking.  I don't 
think that just because Azkaban is the law here that that make it the 
"right" choice.

It's not like the choice is either blackmail Rita or send her to Azkaban. 
There's also different degrees of letting Rita go free, from just reminding 
her that someone knowing her secret means she'd better watch her step 
because she's vulnerable to forcing her to write pieces praising Hermione 
and handing over half her salary.  I don't think you can label throwing the 
woman in Azkaban the "right" thing just so that Hermione needs to do any 
"wrong" by comparison.  Even in your own example Azkaban isn't the right 
thing, it's the thing that's cruel and so wrong in the true sense of the 
world (hence the quotes around 'right').

So my view on what Hermione does is the same as it's always been: she does 
not do something so cruel as sending the woman to Azkaban. She does 
something potentially less harmful to Rita and perhaps more personally 
satisfying--and later more personally beneficial--to her.  To me it's a 
sticky moral point in the book worth exploring.

Steve:
> Further, Hermione isn't backmailing Rita for personal gain. She is
> trying to stop Rita from telling lies. That's hardly blackmail in the
> traditional sense; 'be a good moral person, or go to prison'. Isn't
> that the same 'blackmail' that all laws put on all citizens?

Magpie:
The fear about Hermione's actions, for me, is not that she's getting Rita to 
do things that only benefit Hermione, but that you can get into trouble 
thinking that you can force people to live up to your own moral standards. 
"My personal gain" and "the good of everyone" can get very blurry, 
especially if you see yourself as saving the world, or you're a teenager who 
knows what's best for the world.  As I have described that the very real 
danger of pulling stuff like this is that you make enemies and can lose your 
perspective. "The Noble Blackmailer" isn't a hero you see too much for a 
reason. Personal freedom means that sometimes people do things wrong. I 
wouldn't be okay with somebody blackmailing me to make me a more moral 
person.

Hermione's clever here, she's ruthless and efficient and she takes care of 
someone who's written things she didn't like in the newspaper--some of which 
were true, some of which were false.  I give her credit for it and 
acknowledge that some good came of it.

I'm snipping the rest of the examples because I think they run into the same 
problem.  I do not consider "what a teacher says" or "going to a teacher" to 
be automatically "the right thing" in a moral sense.  And I think the 
examples still fall into the distinction that *I* made, which is just 
different than the distinctions you are making.  You see it as the 
difference between doing what an authority tells you and what you feel is 
right yourself.  I see it as the difference between protecting and 
punishing.  The fact that Hermione did not go to an *adult* as I've said, is 
not an issue for me.  Umbridge was an adult.  Voldemort is an adult. Going 
to them isn't right.  Going to an adult may often be the responsible thing 
or the smart thing, but it's not always more *moral* than acting on your 
own.

Steve:
> Any moral absolutest position is flawed. In the real world, and even
> more so in the fictional world, true morals dictate that sometime the
> 'wrong' thing is the infinitely RIGHT thing to do.

Magpie:
Exactly.  The difference only being that you seem to be putting following 
authority in the supreme moral place so that not doing that is doing 
something wrong, but I don't agree.  I have never disagreed with the idea 
that sometimes moral laws go against society's laws and that people will 
hold the former over the latter--nor am I, I don't think, any sort of moral 
absolutist (I definitely don't believe in morality derived from authority). 
I respect Hermione's following her own moral conscience.  I just don't 
always have to think what she does is 100% perfect or could not be 
problematic later--following your own conscience is a big responsibility.  I 
think it's good to think about this stuff if you're going to make decisions 
like that.  When Harry saves the stone and saves Ginny and saves Sirius, he 
does not put anyone in his power.

Steve:
> "In a corrupt Fascist society, the people fear the government. In a
> free open democratic society, the government must always fear it's
> people."

Just passing it along.

Magpie:
We both, it seems, already agree on the point you're making here, and so 
think it is unmerciful for Rita to be thrown into Azkaban.  You also made a 
case for "be a good moral person or you'll go to prison."  Don't fascist 
governments like that sort of thing?  I mean, there's no reason to always 
assume Hermione's never going to be the one making or enforcing the laws. 
>From people I've spoken to who have trouble with these kinds of scenes with 
Hermione, that's more the line they think on, not that Hermione was wrong 
for going to a teacher.

Luna:
I don't remember saying that Hermione was morally above other characters or 
that Jo was placing her above other characters. All I was doing is 
explaining the facts:

- Some characters were punished
- The character imparting the punishments was Hermione
- These are characters in a book written by JKR.

Which leads me to the conclusion that:  the person writing the books chose 
Hermione as a vehicle to impart punishment to those characters that she 
reckoned deserved it.

Magpie:
I agree that she is using Hermione as a vehicle to punish these characters 
here.  I just don't think that means it's pointless to consider these scenes 
as something other than that as well--to do otherwise suggests JKR isn't 
writing the scenes well.  Especially since I think these books seem to 
encourage us to think about ethical questions even at times like this.  In 
fact, that speaks to the point of the thread.  If it's good for Hermione to 
use her own conscience, surely it's even better for the kids reading about 
her to do that. I would never question that JKR considers Rita and Umbridge, 
for instance, worthy of punishment.

Luna:
Had Hermione played "by the rules" and done the "ethical thing" Harry would 
have been cruciated stupid, Rita Skeeter would have been
sent to Azkaban (then who would have written Harry's article in OOP?), and 
Harry with other 25 students would have been expelled from school and 
possibly sent to Azkaban just for wanting to have a
DADA study group to pass their exams. Wanting to pass your exams, is it a 
crime?

Magpie:
There's that use of the word 'ethical' when what you mean is 'submissive.' I 
think I've said that I did think it was right for Umbridge to be stopped, 
for the DA to form, that manipulation is sometimes necessary.  Obviously 
Hermione doing nothing isn't the "ethical" choice, and I didn't say so, so 
it seems like a strawman.  Really I just see more to ethics than a choice 
between "allow evil to happen" and "s/he got what he deserved and that's 
that."

Luna:
Hermione happens to be a human being (at least in the books) who can have 
feelings and, as many people do, can't help to act on them.

Magpie:
Yes, I know that.   Nor did I say that she should be punished for her 
actions-I believe I got into this thread by stating the opposite. But what 
is significant about her being a human being who has feelings she can't help 
but act on?  It seems like you're defending her from some sort of attack I 
haven't made.

Luna:
Luna: Giving an advice to a friend... Now, is it called being manipulative? 
Now I start to see why you see Hermione as being so manipulative.

Magpie:
::sigh:: I can't say I'm surprised at this response.  You asked me for 
examples of Hermione being manipulative.  Manipulative means to influence or 
manage shrewdly or deviously.  These are examples of Hermione fitting that 
definition.  She is not actually doing the manipulating with Harry/Ginny but 
because it was an example of her ability to see situations this way, and 
Harry and Ginny actually refer to her as having done some good for them 
there, I figured I would include it.

It's a neutral, accurate (imo) description of her actions, not an insult to 
a friend in need of appeals for sympathy, justifications and more flattering 
language.

Love making us do stupid things, dear, for instance, does not make it 
suddenly not shrewd and devious management for Hermione to invite McClaggen 
to a party to make Ron jealous after considering which boy would make Ron 
the most angry. Or this:

Luna:
Honestly, I see Hermione wanting to pass an exam and helping Harry to tell 
the world about LV return...  Why should I be shocked to see an inteligent 
person being able to make a plan and carry it out or knowing how (some) 
other people behave. How is she supposed to be? Someone who has no ability 
to plan or to foresee someone's reaction? This sounds to me like someone 
who, well, is not very normal or
healthy.

Magpie:
I'm analyzing a fictional character, not saying she "has to be" any way at 
all.  I didn't say you had to be shocked or that Hermione wasn't helping 
fight Voldemort or pass her exams.  This, to me, sounds like talking about 
Hermione like a flesh and blood human being.

-m