Umbridge as tyrant / Twins leaving Hogwarts/ Why I hate Hermione

[Charles Walker Jr]

No: HPFGUIDX 160757

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:
> Magpie:
> I said she was taking away rights *as students* which she still
is.  She's
> got her own agenda for how classes will be taught, and for DADA she
wants
> theory rather than practical spells.  The objections to this are
valid, but
> she's still teaching DADA.  Durmstrang teaches the Dark Arts and
Hogwarts
> only teaches defense.  That's also a choice of what or how a
subject will be
> taught.
>

Charles:

So all these students who will have no idea how to defend themselves
will do what as adults? This "choice of [...]how a subject will be
taught" as you so spinningly put it will interfere with their right
to defend themselves as citizens *outside of* and *after* Hogwarts.

> Charles:
> > Next, we have the fact that all mail incoming and outgoing is
being
> > read by her or her IS. That means that the entire student body of
> > Hogwarts is effectively cut off from their parents.
>
> Magpie:
> It's giving them fewer rights as students, yes.  I didn't deny the
parallels
> to a tyrranical ruler.  I just pointed out that the stricter rules
she's
> enforcing are rules for students in a school.
>

Charles:
She's also interfering with the *parental* rights here as well.

> Charles:
> Harry is
> > subjected to torture for speaking his mind. There she has taken
away
> > his freedom of speech.
>
> Magpie:
> Yes, I know what Umbridge's agenda is. I said she's acting as a
teacher in a
> school.  Snape abuses his power in his class also.  I'd also note
that when
> Umbridge punishes Harry with her quill she's not headmistress and
Harry
> could have objected to that to Dumbledore and chose not to.  I'm
not
> defending Umbridge's decisions with the students.  I just said
she's doing
> it as a teacher and a headmistress.  She's running her school like
a
> totalitarian state; she's not running a totalitarian state.  And
her
> attempts at control result in chaos and less control for her.
>

Charles:
She is acting as a teacher in a school, but as part of a wider
political agenda to bring more power to the ministry. Look at the
argument in career advising-Hogwarts is not only a school to
Umbridge, it is a path to creating power, for herself and Fudge. What
I'm saying here is that you are playing down the farther reaching
nature of her actions. Remember that she is still "Senior
Undersecretary to the Minister" I'll give you that Umbridge is
not "Der Fuerher" (sp?) -but I'd certainly say that she's like
Torquemada. Remember too what Fudge's reason for putting her there is-
to attempt to destroy Dumbledore. Her ineffectiveness does not excuse
her actions or her intent.


> Magpie:
> Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of students in the real
world
> haven't been punished for "the content of their opinion" when it's
> considered to disrupt class. I have the same objections to that as
I do to
> it when Umbridge does it, but of course Harry retains the right to
speech in
> the world, since he gives an interview to the press.
>

Charles:
I certainly ran into that particular problem when I was in high
school, but-living in the real world far from the totalitarian state
that Fudge is trying to set up- I used my rights to get the teacher
overturned. Harry did go to a higher authority-McGonagall- and was
told that his punishment was right because Umbridge was the teacher.
One of the biggest problems I have with people saying that the
students should go to the authority figures at Hogwarts is because
that tends to be an ineffectual action.

> > Charles:
> >
> > "Just drop out" Hmmm...let's think about the circumstances here.
> > Their dropping out was a flight from torture after aiding fellow
DA
> > members to defy Umbridge. They created a swamp in a corridor that
> > Umbridge couldn't remove, and therefore caused a problem for her
and
> > a certain one of her collaborators.
>
> Magpie:
> Yeah, they dropped out.  They left.  Dramatically and with a last
> nose-thumbing at Umbridge, and they left school.
>

Charles:
Again, nice spin. Like I said, they participated in an act to
frustrate Umbridge, they did not just skive off. Even if they had not
been involved in helping Harry et al to get around Umbridge, they
were in increasing danger and they knew it. I'm not denying that they
dropped out, my problem was "just dropped out" -the connotation of
merely leaving and ignoring the context because it didn't fit your
argument.

> Charles:
> > How are they carrying the battle to new heights and territory?
Look
> > at the description of their shop at the beginning of HBP! They are
> > doing something very improtant. In a world full of fear they are
> > doing their damndest to raise morale-right down to a giant poster
> > taunting Voldemort. Remember that much of Moldybutt's power is
> > through fear, and they are trying to alleviate some of the fear in
> > the populace-a dangerous and necessary bit of work.
>
> Magpie:
> They're running their joke shop like they always wanted and
planned, and
> they're making money selling their products--and will probably
continue to
> do so after Voldemort's gone.  They didn't join the Order.
Sometimes their
> goal helps one side, sometimes the other side.  And I think they
just think
> U-No-Poo is funny.
>
Charles:
Possibly. But they certainly know that it is an insult to Voldemort.
It is blatant. And where is your canon saying that they did not join
the order? We really don't see much about the order in HBP except for
those who are posted at Hogwarts, and of course Lupin's mission to
the werewolves, but we do know that they were only denied membership
in the order because they were still at school. Remember that they do
have staff, so they may indeed be participating in a larger manner
than that which is explicitly stated, even though we don't see it. I
think we may see what missions the order has in store for Gred and
Forge in the next book.

> Charles:
> > Charles, who is still startled that someone could try and defend
> > Umbridge.
>
> Magpie:
> I'm startled--though I shouldn't be anymore--that I'm considered to
have
> defended Umbridge. What I said was that she was a headmistress
enforcing
> rules in a school.  I didn't defend her at all. I even acknowledged
the
> parallels to a tyranical leader in the world. Just because I'm not
convinced
> by certain imo too flattering spins on the behavior of the good
guys does
> not make me a defender of Umbridge.  Ironically, this thread
started about
> Hermione, whose behavior I often have the same problems with as I
do with
> Umbridge.
>
Charles:
But you yourself were trying to play down Umbridge's actions as less
tyrannical than a dictator's. That in and of itself is a form of
defense. I myself have problems with Hermione, but spinning
Umbridge's behavior down and Hermione's up will not make them equal.
That being said, I will give you that there are similarities. Both
will ignore rules themselves while forcing them on others-and both
come up with ineffectual plans that are hazardous. But similarities
don't mean that they are equivalent.

**deep sigh**

Ok, I've defended Hermione again for the umpteenth time. Now I'm
going to interject the reason that I don't like her. The *entire*
reason she is upset by the potions book is because Harry does better
than her in class. She's po'd before she even knows why Harry's
potion is coming out better, she's just pissed that someone topped
her academically. She then starts on a systematic campaign of nagging
and research throughout the year to get him to stop using it. This in
turn spurs Harry and Ron's defense of the book and is one of the
reasons that Harry starts to trust the book too much, IMO. And I feel
her "I told you so" after DD's death deserves a swift kick.

Charles, who finally had to do something to get the taste of
defending Hermione out of his mouth.