Another angle on Hermione's parents

[littleleahstill]

No: HPFGUIDX 175175

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tracy Woods" 
<bloggertracy at ...> wrote:
> bloggertracy:
> 
  I can't imagine
> that there is anything more painful in the world than losing a 
child, and
> she was protecting them from that.  Worse than losing a child, her 
parents
> could have lost a child, and would have to live with the knowledge 
all their
> lives that they were unable to protect her, even though as 
parents, that's
> their duty, and what every parent wants to do more than anything.  
Would you
> (general "you" not you specifically Debbie lol) want to lose a 
child and be
> tortured, every day, with the knowledge that you, her parent, 
could not
> protect your child?
> 
> I wondered though, when i was done, if Hermione had gone back 
and "fixed"
> her parents' memories when everything was over?


Chris:
> I have to say I agree with you as well, when I first read that
> Hermione had modified her parents' memories and sent them to
> Australia I saw it as a very powerful act of love and protection
> for them. It must have been heartbreaking for her to do this to
> them but as you say it stopped the grief for them if she didn't
> return. It never entered my mind that it was a terrible thing to
> do and only made me think of it when I read the posts here.
>
> IMO what Hermione did to her parents just shows how much she
> loved them and wanted to protect them.

 
Leah:   It not only stopped the grief for them, it stopped their 
feelings of love and pride in Hermione, which yes, is a loss for 
her, but far more of a loss for them.  It stopped them being the 
people they had become over  say fifty or so years of living, and 
having and loving a child.   Do you think Harry would have consented 
to have all memory of Sirius removed from his mind even if it gave 
him the benefit of no longer grieving?  There are sadly a number of 
people who can do nothing to protect their children, for example 
because the child has an incurable disease, or is on active service, 
or is simply just out driving.  If those parents lost their child, I 
can't believe they would want to forget him/her completely.     
Hermione has a power which her parents do not have and she uses it 
over them without their knowledge or consent.  This does not sit 
well with the girl who wished to liberate house-elves from being 
lorded over by wizards.   


I don't think, by the way, that we are intended to view Hermione 
actions in the way I do.  I think they are meant to be 
praiseworthy, and when I first read them, I interpreted them exactly 
as you do, and was moved by her loss, and so was my daughter, with 
whom I discussed this.  It was only on reflection that I thought, 
what does this actually mean, what has she actually done to her 
parents?   I do think she loves and wants to protect her parents, 
she just has no right to abuse her powers in the way she did.  I 
don't know if this is because JKR has not thought it through, or she 
has thought it through and continues to think the behaviour ok. 
           


Magpie:
<That's how it reads to me too--it just wasn't the intended message 
of the book. I think JKR wrote a happy ending, and that a 
<reconciliation and coming together with Slytherin just isn't 
<something she thinks is necessary for that. It's not surprising 
<that in interviews she's asked why Slytherin is even kept around, 
<and her answer is that it's because the better people have 
<this "Dumbledorian" dream of the utopia that would happen if they 
<all came together, but it's not something the book is going for. 
<There's a clear limit for how much of a connection there can be 
<even with the Slytherins who change or aren't that bad.



Leah:

I think you are right, and that personally I am disappointed that 
there wasn't more exploration of reconciliation.  However, on a 
related topic, there was something which struck me in the Epilogue, 
which I haven't 
seen commented on.  Ron is talking to Rose about Scorpius Malfoy, 
and tells her not to get too fond of him because `Grandad Weasley 
would never forgive you if you married a pureblood'.   I know some 
people see this as a lighthearted foreshadowing that Rose and 
Scorpius may one day end up together, but that's not my point here.  
The attitude which Ron attributes to his father is wholly unlike 
anything we have ever seen from Arthur.  I can not imagine him ever 
making such a remark, or thinking such a thing.  The Weasleys are 
after all `one of our oldest pureblood families' (Dumbledore in 
COS), and  since Ron and siblings are purebloods,  the Prewetts were 
also pureblood.     Are we meant to think that Arthur's attitude 
changed as a result of Voldywar 2? I don't think so.  I can't see 
that if at the end of DH, Ginny had fallen in love with pureblooded 
Neville Longbottom, or Ron had fallen for Luna Lovegood,  Arthur 
would have had any objections based on their blood status. 

If Ron meant that Arthur would object to his granddaughter marrying 
a Malfoy, I can't see any reason why Ron wouldn't come out and say 
that.

My thought is that what is really meant here is `Grandad  Weasley 
would never forgive you if you married a Slytherin',  and it is not 
said for some reason, possibly because Scorpius has not actually 
been Sorted yet, or perhaps because JKR does not want to actually 
write such a negative statement about Slytherin.

I would be interested in other thoughts, as it just struck me as 
such a strange sentence. 

Leah