Views of Hermione

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 160512

Tesha wrote:
> > <HUGE SNIP>
> > 5. I also believe that you are taking apart story lines to prove 
> your points. Hermione had to make the polijuice potion because JKR
needed an excuse for the 3 to become familiar with the bathroom where
2  would later enter the CoS.
> 
Alla responded:
> 
> It made me chuckle. That **is** what we do here among other things, 
> you know? :)
> 
> Yeah, JKR needed Hermione to brew polijuice to move story along,
just as JKR needed Dumbledore to leave Harry with child abusers and
take him from the appointed guardian. <snip>

Carol notes:

Alla is right. That's what we do here. We examine plot and character
and try to arrive at reasonable conclusions about existing scenes and
characters, and we theorize and speculate about future books, now
sadly reduced to one. It's supposed to be fun and educational.
Unfortunately, sometimes we take it a little too seriously. I'll try
not to do that here.

The Polyjuice scene as a plot device does a lot more than introduce
the bathroom (or should I say restroom, as I think that's how the
American editor should have rendered "toilet"--there's no bath
involved) with the plumbing that leads to the Chamber of Secrets,
important though that is to the plot of CoS. It also introduces both
Moaning Myrtle, Tom Riddle's first victim (who will be useful to Harry
later) and Polyjuice Potion (courtesy of Snape, who mentioned it and
"Moste Potent Potions" in class), which will play an important role in
GoF and HBP. It provides a (not altogether ethical) means by which Ron
and Harry can spy on Draco (and find out what he doesn't know), and it
provides a vhicle for character development (I think this is the first
time we see Hermione not only willingly breaking rules but initiating
the rule breaking and encouraging the others to join her. 

So certainly the Polyjuice brewing is a plot device, but it does a lot
more than move the plot forward to the eavesdropping scene or
introduce a character, a place, and a potion that will be important
later. It also shows the characters in action, and part of the fun of
this group is analyzing the motivations, character traits, and
relationships that the scene reveals--the interpretation of which will
of course vary according to various readers' perceptions of the
characters in general and our own ethical and moral preferences and
standards. Now granted, it would have been much less fun if Hermione
had remained a rule enforcer like Percy. She could never have become a
full-fledged member of the Trio, making a very important contribution
to the solution to the mystery by figuring out that the monster was a
Basilisk and that it was traveling around the school through the
pipes. I don't approve of her rule-breaking, or that of Harry and Ron,
nor do I consider it a good example for twelve- and thirteen-year-olds
in general to follow (not that they need encouragement to break rules
and push limits at that age), but it certainly makes her a more
interesting and complex character. 

Alla wrote:
<snip>
> What I **am** saying though that this is investigation to catch the
> murderer of muggle borns ( real and/or potential one) and as such, I
> fully excuse any rule breaking resulting from it. <snip>

> Sorry, but the fact that those guys **are** DE children does matter
to me in deciding whether they deserved what happened to them. IMO of
> course.

Carol responds;
But the fact that Crabbe and Goyle are DEs' children has nothing to do
with their being given sleeping potion, locked in a closet, having
their shoes removed and their identities borrowed. Nor is it their
fault (or Draco's) that their fathers are DEs. I can see you approving
of the hexes on the Hogwarts Express because Draco and his cronies
initiated it, but in this case Crabbe and Goyle are guilty of nothing
more than being Draco's, erm, body guards and a pair of gluttons. I
don't see how it can be right to punish them for being who they are
any more than it was right for James to torment Severus in the
Pensieve scene when he's done nothing except be himself, which he
can't help being.

It seems to me that you're not only holding the Gryffindors to a
different standard of behavior than the Slytherins, you seem to be
saying that the end justifies the means. If that's true for HRH,
surely it's true for Dumbledore as well (and for Snape, if he's DDM)?
Frankly, I don't see much difference between Harry and Ron
eavesdropping (spying) on Draco and young Severus eavesdropping on the
Marauders. In both cases, a kid (or kids) is trying to discover
information that will get another kid (or kids) in trouble. Both
believe the other is doing something seriously wrong. The difference
is that Severus didn't use Polyjuice Potion (which he certainly knew
how to make by fifth year) to spy on the Gryffindors in their own
common room, nor did he drug anyone to borrow their identity. What HRH
do in CoS is a little too close to what Barty Jr. does to Mad-eye
Moody in GoF for my comfort (same action carried to an extreme).

At any rate, it seems strange to me that "the greater good" can be
used to justify HRH's rule-breaking, even when it accomplishes nothing
as in this instance, but not to justify DD's leaving Harry with the
Dursleys, which may well have saved his life (and certainly provided
him with some survival skills like dealing with bullies that he
wouldn't have developed otherwise, even though, of course, that was no
part of Dumbledore's plan).


> Alla:
> 
> Main point that Hermione does not really care whether the person 
> deserves it or not?
> 
> Okay, could you give me an example, where Hermione harmed somebody 
> who did not deserve it, somebody who was not suspected of DE or DE 
> related, murderous activities? 

Carol responds:

Ron, maybe? She attacked him with her charmed birds because she was
hurt and jealous of his snogging with Lavender. Granted, he was not on
his best behavior (he can be unkind, as Luna says, and hypocritical,
as Ginny says), but surely he didn't deserve to be attacked by a flock
of birds, which could have pecked out his eyes or scarred him for life.

Alla:
> If you argue that Hermione is a bit too ruthless in making herself a 
> judge, in deciding that she knows best, always, I somewhat agree,
not all the way, but agree.

Carol: 
I don't know about anyone else, but that's pretty much the way I see
her. I wish she'd stop taking matters into her own hands, especially
the judgment and punishment of others. I also dislike the way she
dismisses Luna's views and ideas and her complete absence of empathy
for Lavender when her rabbit Binky died. But she does seem to
understand Cho, oddly enough, and she has certainly helped Harry on
numerous occasions.  I give her credit for being smart, loyal, and
courageous. Unfortunately, she's also, as Snape says, "an insufferable
know-it-all," and she's gone beyond rule-breaking to rule-making and
rule-enforcing. As Ron pointed out way back in SS/PS, she can be a bit
scary sometimes.

Carol, whose post was interrupted by a phone call and consequently may
not be entirely coherent