Hermione's parents/Malus Prohibitum/Unforgivables from a Different Angle

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 174380

>  Magpie:
> > The problem is Hermione deciding on her own to rob someone else of 
> > their lives without their consent or even thinking of it as far as 
> > we know, not that she would rather never see them again than have 
> > them murdered. 
> 
> Lisa:
> 
> But that was the point of my post that you quoted:  we don't know 
that 
> she decided this on her own.  All we know is that it was done.  She 
> could've given them a choice, just like the Dursleys were given a 
> choice.

Magpie:
The implication is clearly that she did it on her own. Given the way 
her behavior has been up until this point, if she actually discussed 
this with her parents it would have to be said--and obviously she 
*would* have said it. She doesn't. She just says she did this. The 
idea that her parents agreed to her form in this plan makes it even 
more ridiculous--two normal people agreed to have their mind wipes 
potentiallyfor their entire lives? To not remember they had a 
daughter? To have her go off and maybe die with them never mourn her 
because they forgot they had her? No one would agree to that. Clearly 
Hermione's the only person whose been consulted on what she can or 
can't live with. She'd have to have just decided it for them--
something that she has a long history of doing (what she has *no* 
history of doing is discussing this sort of thing before doing it, and 
considering other peoples' opinions to be that important in situations 
like this).

Lisa:

It would've only taken a sentence to say how Harry got the Marauder's
Map back after Moody borrowed it, but it happened, whether we were told
about it or not. Like you also said, Hermione's not one to explain --
just as you think Hermione wouldn't have explained anything to her
parents (sure makes her sound cold and calculating and hateful to me),
I think she would've explained to them ... but I don't think she'd've
necessarily told Harry & Hermione every last detail of the painful
experience of convincing them.

Magpie:
Yes, Hermione's not one to explain. That's why we shouldn't just write 
in that she suddenly acted out of character and against what she's 
saying here herself and assume she actually consulted her parents. She 
actually *is* explaining to Ron and Harry what she did, including 
thpainful bits and in the past we have gotten an idea about how much 
her parents are told. In OotP she explains that she's lied to her 
parents about staying at school when they were expecting her for 
Christmas, and then briskly decides that they'll get over it, brushing 
over troublesome thoughts of how they're feeling. Here she shows what 
parts are painful too when she cries over what she's sacrificed for 
herself.

LIke it or not, Hermione has a history of being cold and calculating 
in exactly this way when she's doing things to other people for the 
greater good. It seems like the only problem here is that you feel it 
makes her sound hateful, but that's just how she's seen by many people 
when she behaves like this throughout the series. It's totally out of 
character for Hermione to have had a painful experience of convincing 
them and if she had one I think we absolutely would see a reference to 
it, just as we did when she lied to them at the last minute about 
Christmas. With no explanation to the contrary, I think it's far more 
reasonable to assume that Hermione did what she always did here, which 
is not consult her parents. (And also, as was said above, the mere 
fact that the thing got done is proof positive she didn't consult 
them, because no one would be convinced to go through with the plan as 
Hermione laid it out.)


Bruce:
How do we know that Hermione did this to her parents as an ambush?
She may have sat down and explained the situation to them and what
she proposed, perhaps using the well-known phrase from countless
spy novels, 'what you can't know you cannot be made to reveal.'
If she had done a good enough job in explaining matters to them
-- perhaps bringing in one or more adult wizards whom they knew
well enough to trust--they might have agreed to it, much as people
in the real world agree to go into the Witness Protection program.

Magpie:
Because she didn't say she did, and it wasn't the Witness Protection 
program. It's brainwashing and stealing of identity. No one would 
agree to this. Would Molly Weasley agree to potentially forget about 
her kids for the rest of her life? Would Narcissa? Would Lily? Would 
Hermione? Of course not! The only person who would agree to have their 
entire life and children robbed from them potentially forever (don't 
tell me that if her parents had actually agreed to the thing there 
wouldn't be a back up plan in case Hermione died!) is someone who was 
trying to escape from their life. 

The only reason the possibility has even come up that she discussed it 
with them (and totally new ideas like Hermione bringing in other adult 
wizards as well!) is because some of us have expressed horror at what 
was done to them, and even there it's arguing from absence of 
evidence. She says she zapped her parents into other people, but 
doesn't say her parents agreed to live as other people even for a 
year. Her plan completely rests on her alone, with the possibility 
that her parents will wind up never getting their lives back, 
something no parents would agree to in their right mind. On the other 
side we've got years of Hermione lying to her parents because 
they "wouldn't understand." And we've got a history of Hermione making 
decisions for others without consulting them. 

Alla:

Oh my dear God. I just realised something. This is would do as
addemdum to my previous post, but may as well stand alone.

Who said that you should mean them in the first place? One DE and
another DE, no?

Who said that they were telling the truth. Especially Bella???

Magpie:
Harry agrees with her once he's had the experience. That's part of his 
little quippy phrase after using the thing--you really do have to mean 
it. In this case, mean to torture someone for the sake of liking the 
pain.

I do agree with Mike that the moral component comes not from using the 
wrong words, but for what they represent, but I just don't see how 
this kind of torture isn't bad in itself. It being "a war" isn't some 
vague free for all for the good guys, Harry doesn't Crucio anybody out 
of great need or because he's pushed into it. As Sneeboy said, it's 
played as a triumphant movie moment with even a wink at the audience 
included. It's now, as someone else said, Harry getting to do cool 
curses like the Death Eaters use and show his full powers. While the 
DEs don't have access to all the cool magic he does, he gets to use 
stuff like this without thinking about whether it was right.

One thing I object to--not in your post--is this idea that Harry's 
behaving like a "real person" in this scene, as if to not use a 
torture spell on the guy who spit on McGonagall (and for her to not 
use Imperius) would somehow make him unable to identify with. This is 
silly. Lots of people get through wars without torturing anybody, and 
many of the real people reading the story are shocked when he uses 
Crucio (just as they're more disturbed by the results of his 
Sectumsempra than Harry is). Harry's reactions may be perfectly IC for 
Harry but that doesn't mean they're the only way for a character to 
behave and be real or human or not a saint. 

> Mike:
> Throw out the artificial moral construct attached to the UCs,
would > you still have a problem with how and why Harry uses Imperious
here? > If one realizes that the UCs don't have a moral component, I
suggest > that the distaste evaporates into ether.

Magpie:
I think everyone should have a problem with it. Even if you are 
ultimately okay with the use of Imperius due to the circumstances, 
that doesn't take away moral construct, because it was never 
artificial. 

To use a Muggle example that is very imperfect, what if Harry walked 
into the bank, picked up somebody's kid and held a gun to its head and 
said if the person didn't do what he said they'd kill the kid? Maybe 
Harry is really desperate to get into the bank for a good reason, but 
surely he's still doing something bad to do it? The lesser of two 
evils is just the lesser of two evils. The circumstances don't 
automatically make the bad good or even neutral. 

And that's Imperius, which at least has an undeniable (and dangerously 
tempting) practical aspect. The Crucio is a completely different 
matter. It's a torture spell. Somebody spits at somebody Harry likes 
and he tortures him briefly. It's pure pleasure in torture for 
punishment. Torture always has a moral component and it's never 
justified that I can see. Harry doesn't even try to justify it beyond 
his really wanting to torture the guy and enjoying it, which 
McGonagall finds gallant. Even he doesn't just vaguely say, "It's a 
war!"

And Rowling doesn't seem to have any justification for it either. 
Except the defensive, "He's never been a saint!" as if expecting the 
hero not to use the torture spell is asking him to be a saint.

-m