[HPforGrownups] Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione)

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 160522

Cyril:
> However, the one difference that I see is that Molly is not afraid to
> discipline her children (and her husband) when required. She holds
> them accountable for their actions. As a mother, she rates far higher
> than anything else Narcissa is ever shown to do. But she is also
> beside them when required. Can't ask anything more from a mother.

Magpie:
Actually--while I agree with your post, we can't actually say whether 
Narcissa doesn't discipline Draco since we don't see them at home.  Draco 
has been raised to be horrible in many ways, but he seems to have clear 
limits set by his parents.  I don't imagine that lack of discipline is an 
issue in that house.  It may seem that way to us because Draco isn't 
disciplined for things *we'd* like to see him disciplined for, but that 
doesn't mean he's not punished if he does think out of line to them. 
Narcissa might describe Molly as the non-disciplining parent.

> Magpie:
> Isn't this essentially what Percy counsels Ron to think about in > OotP in 
> his letter--don't hang out with Harry because he's trouble? > (Choosing 
> friends in the books is often judged based on the default
> idea that the Trio is the correct choice, but that's imo, equally 
> impractical as a guide.  <SNIP>

Alla:
Is it? I thought that Harry refusing Draco offer of friendship in PS/SS  and 
choosing Ron as the good kind was one of the main themes in the books.

Magpie:
Harry does choose Ron over Malfoy, but I'm talking about the advice that if 
you're friends with someone that is suspicious, you should dump them for 
your own good or face consequences. I don't think the themes of the book 
come down quite so simply to not choosing to be friends with Malfoy.  (I 
tend to see Harry's choice against Malfoy the way I do his choice against 
Slytherin.  Not something that was ever really a temptation.)

Alla:
I completely disagree. I believe it is received differently precisely 
because of the guilt.

Magpie:
I respect that you receive it that way, but that's not always the way it's 
judged by characters in canon or by all readers.

Alla:
So Malfoy turned out to be innocent of being Slytherin heir, but did he 
turned out to be innocent of let's kill Muggleborns? Not IMO.

Magpie:
But being a racist or saying a racist thing isn't a crime--they knew he was 
pro-LV already.  Now, in this case I think I can see your point--since Draco 
was openly saying he wanted Muggleborns dead that was considered a reason to 
suspect him of being the involved (by these kids).  But he did turn out to 
be completely innocent of the crime in question.  (Off topic, but I'm having 
flashbacks to a sort of similar discussion about an X-Files episode in that 
fandom.)

Alla:
As I said above, I do not think we know everything of Snape v Marauders, but 
as action what he did is pretty similar to what Trio did IMO all that 
differs are intentions, maybe.

Magpie:
Yup--and the Marauders were actually guilty of something serious.  His 
spying on them is still considered a bad thing by some of the people 
involved.

Alla:
No, if you hang out with that kid, you are to be expected of others 
suspecting that you have same views as that kid, IMO and Crabb and Goyle 
gave me little reason to think otherwise.

Magpie:
They probably do share his views; but having views is not a crime.  Crabbe 
and Goyle weren't suspected of a crime.  They were just being used to get to 
Malfoy, because they were bad sorts too.  I don't remember it even being an 
issue to consider.

Cyril:
At the end of the day, Hermione has good intentions (the big picture),and 
that does make some of activities she does questionable. But I see no reason 
yet to question her intentions.

Magpie:
Actually, I do sometimes.  I don't have a problem with the intention of 
catching the Heir, of course, but her intentions aren't always particularly 
good either.  Her intention to make the House Elves free, for instance, is a 
good intention to her, but her plans to trick them into freedom do blatantly 
involve going against their wishes.  Her wanting Ron is basically a good 
thing, but her taking Cormac to the Christmas Party was badly intended. I'd 
class her Confundus the same way.  Sure we could say her intention was to 
help Ron, which is good, but her intentions towards the other guy were bad. 
Similarly I can't really see her actions towards Rita as done out of good 
intentions for the world at large.  I also think it's okay to note that she 
gets off on her plans working, and that's a big motivation as well.   So 
it's not always a case of her just doing whatever she can in a crisis for 
others.  I think she's angered when things aren't the way she feels they 
should be.

Cyril:
It is easy to slam Hermione for her actions, but we forget some basic things 
when we do that:
a) They are in a war - no sugar coating that fact
b) Her best friend is the biggest target (arguably second to DD?)
c) She, as a Muggleborn, is being denied participation in the WW by
LV's diktat's, even to the point of possible death.

Magpie:
Actually, a) isn't always true. The "war" didn't even officially begin in 
canon until the last chapter of Book V.  "They're in a war" seems to get 
used a lot to refer to schoolyard fights in this series that don't always 
have to do with the war.  Like, whenever the good guys put the smack down on 
someone it's always a war and the other person's an enemy combatant. 
(Strangely, I don't think I've ever heard this as a defense for the other 
side.)  Hermione's best friend is a target, though, and obviously she 
herself as a Muggleborn is a natural enemy of Voldemort. But I think even in 
CoS solving the mystery was a big appeal.

Cyril:
a) Spiking cupcakes (how different from spiking punch at a high school 
party). b) Using polyjuice potion - well in the WW, use of the Polyjuice
potion is not considered as Dark magic or criminal activity (at least I see 
no canon to that effect). c) Placing a hex on a parchment to which they have 
all signed. Well, I do not see why she has to spell out that there are 
consequences of breaking a magical contract. d) Not releasing Marietta by 
reversing the spell. I must admit that there has been good argument for her 
inability to do so, namely that Marietta has to apologize to the DA before 
the same may even be
possible.e) Leading a teacher into danger.
e) Her general tendency to step on toes, and seeming lack of concern for who 
gets impacted by it. Well, I do believe that she sees some of the possible 
impact, but they are far outweighed by the intentions and objectives. It is 
a war, after all. And you cannot make an omlette without breaking the eggs.

Magpie:
This just isn't the way I balance things out. It basically starts out with 
Hermione counted as being against the bad guy, and then explains how all 
these supposedly questionable actions are pretty good anyway. So she hasn't 
really done anything wrong and if she did it's because it's a war.  But I 
don't really think everyone arguing for a more negative view of Hermione are 
slamming her.  They're just really considering the ethical implications of 
what she does at these times.  I don't even think we're calling for some 
kind of punishment for her.

To me it seems more like just discussing ambiguous moral situations where 
different people are going to respond differently.  I'll bet if CoS had 
never been written and you just presented a group of people with generic 
facts of this incident, you'd get the exact same discussion.  We genuinely 
have different ethical concerns when looking at the same set of facts.

Cyril:
To add a couple of things, in her favor (if you still need more) - she 
applies her personal rulebook even to go against friends, or for non-friends 
(enemies sounded too harsh) a) For example, she reported Harry's Firebolt 
broom to McG in POA. Did
it hurt Harry - sure, Intention - harry's safety.
b) Almost reported the Map in POA - was emotionally blackmailed into not 
doing so.
c) Felt need to report the reason for Montague's disorientation - just so 
that he could be better helped.

Magpie:
She applies the personal rulebook to her friends when she wants to, and 
throws the rulebook away when she wants to.  (It's not like applying rules 
to her friends is generally a sacrifice for her--she loves bossing people 
around.  She's not Young!Lupin.)  She reported the Firebolt because she 
feared for Harry's safety.  I'd consider that a wise move for something 
important to her.  She doesn't report the map, which there was little 
ethical reason to do, imo. So there, yes, she went against her instinct to 
follow rules for rules sake as I remember it, maybe because her friends 
would truly have been angry.  And she didn't help Montague, which to me is a 
clear case of doing the wrong thing.

Cyril - with the opinion that he/she who has done no wrongdoing should cast 
the first stone (copying again blatantly <g>)

Magpie:
That would make for a pretty boring discussion! We couldn't judge 
Voldemort's actions either.  Personally, I like to think my lifetime of 
wrongdoing makes me more qualified.:-)

-m