[HPforGrownups] Re: Responses to Marietta

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 169330

Alla:

I actually do not put it on the level of French resistance, LOL, I 
think you confused me with somebody else. 

What I **do** is definitely put it more than level of the stody group 
of talking about OWLS, I have no book with me now, but will gladly 
give canon where they talk about defending themselves about 
Voldemort. To me it seemed pretty clear. IMO of course.

Magpie:
Defense in "the real world" is the point of all the learning they're doing
in school. DADA itself is about defending themselves--and certainly that
means against Voldemort if he's back. It's a DADA class taking the place of
Umbridge's non-class whether or not the individual members believe
Voldemort is back.

Alla:
And what do you mean, Marietta was not recruited honestly and 
honorably?

Magpie:
She, and no one else, was honestly told how much loyalty was being assumed
and that there was this long-term of a punishment. Nobody agreed to be
disfigured if they ever saw any reason to tell--and they should have been,
because any number of the students there might have said that while they
were not planning to tell, they reserved the right to make that decision if
in the future they thought it was necessary. 

Alla:
Did someone put a gun to her head and said **STAY**? I mean, should
Hermione have done better screening? Sure, but this is a long way for me to
go to saying that Marietta was not recruited honestly and honorably.I do
not see anybody lying to her. IMO of course.

Magpie
Yes, she should have done better screening, and that is why Marietta was
not recruited honestly and honorably. Placing a secret hex to punish her
this way for this long if she turned out not to have the level of loyalty
Hermione wanted forever was not honorable or honest. If the stakes are that
high, people should know that this is what they're agreeing to. It would
have been smarter too. That might have given the hex a chance for acting as
the deterrant. Nobody knew they were hexing themselves for this long by
signing the parchment. I would consider that lying by ommission if I were
in the group. After all, what would I have done to deserve that being done
to me at the first meeting? The group wasn't even against the rules yet. 

Alla:

I am putting it on the level I think it is shown in canon - had DA 
been expelled, their futures would have been ruined and yes, I think 
Umbridge would not have stopped from using Cruciatus on them, not 
even on Harry only.

Magpie:
Whatever Marietta may have thought would happen to the people in the group,
if there was a widespread fear of expulsion and crucio then Hermione's
haphazard way of "protecting" the group was poorly planned. 

Alla:
And I judge Hermione on that level - meaning, I thank her for trying 
to protect their futures. As I said - I do not think it was a perfect 
execution, but intentions IMO were spot on.

Magpie:
Especially if we're punishing Marietta years later for her intentions I see
no reason to pat Hermione on the head for her own allegedly good
intentions. If she's given herself the right to hex all those members of
the DA I think her own actions deserve more scrutiny. 

Magpie:
And I think she
> would have been in trouble for her actions as well as Marietta's 
supervisor
> and the person allegedly in charge of protecting the group. 
Marietta was an
> untrustworthy member. Hermione was a dangerously incompetent 
organizational
> leader. If Marietta's intentions of thinking it was right to side 
with the
> Ministry don't matter, why should it matter that Hermione had 
really good
> intentions in not wanting anyone wto betray the group? 
<SNIP>

Alla:

Probably because I do not think that Hermione's mistakes rise to the 
level of dangerous incompetency, more like not thinkinh things 
through well.

Magpie:
When we're talking about Marietta's actions it's about crucios and ruined
futures, so I think Hermione's own actions as the protector of the group,
which pave the way for Marietta's, are dangerously incompetent.

Magpie:
I just also
> see Hermione as making glaring mistakes that get covered up by 
anger at
> Marietta and her hex, so that Hermione's raised to the level of 
some sort
> of brilliant resistance leader who did the best she could when as a 
reader
> also identifying with the resistance group in question, I don't 
think her
> actions hold up to that kind of scrutiny at all. 
<SNIP>

Alla:

Brilliant? No, but trying hard - in my view yes. They **saw** the 
traitor the minute she spoke, don't they? It would help them to 
neutralise traitor, did it not?

Magpie:
"Trying hard" doesn't really cut it when you've appointed yourself the
judge, jury and punisher for a group of fellow students with hexes like
this. The hex didn't help them neutralize the traitor, it just satisfied
Hermione's canonical pleasure for vengeance. Hermione's always "trying
hard." That doesn't always mean she's doing the right thing. So her actions
could do with some checking too.

If the hex was gone by now it wouldn't be an issue. Marietta would have
hurt them and gotten hurt back and it would be over. Instead Marietta seems
like a walking billboard for Hermione's power. Hermione's being judged as a
schoolgirl while Marietta isn't.

Alla:
Would be nice that the hex would not let traitor open her mouth, 
sure, I agree. I am just saying that what she did served deterrent 
purpose.

Magpie:
It served no deterrant purpose. Marietta, not knowing about the hex, sang
like a bird and then the jig was up. (And ironically the list itself--if it
was the same list--made it even easier.) There was nobody to be deterred
after that, and no one could have been deterred by it before that.
Hermione's not telling anybody goes right along with what she says about
the hex later--they'll be sorry they told. She's already got whatever
pleasure she gets out of getting revenge on people through hexes, I'm not
giving her points for good strategy too when almost everything that
happened seem more a lesson of what to do better next time. I know I've got
the advantage of knowing I'm reading a story, but Marietta looked like a
weak link to me from the first day, so it's hard for me to think of
Hermione being too good at the job of protection here. Cho tells Harry flat
out, if it wasn't obvious, that Marietta doesn't want to be in the group at
all and has pressures from her mother from the beginning.

Alla:
To me, the hex of this variety would have prevented Peter from 
passing information for a year. YES, he may have passed something 
harmful once, but then Order would have neutralised him. They would knew
identity of the traitor.

Magpie:
Maybe, yes. But in order to make that a deterrant he would have had to have
known about the curse beforehand-and I can't imagine Dumbledore wouldn't
have told him about it if all the Order members were under that curse,
since that's more his style. In Marietta's case there is no spying so it
doesn't really apply. There was no danger of longterm spying for Umbridge,
because this isn't a club there's any reason to spy on. The danger was the
group being stopped and the people in it being known. 

Alla:

On the personal level, funnily Hermione is my least favorite member 
of the trio, but as imaginary member of the DA I been deeply grateful 
to her for trying to protect me and my peers from expulsion.

Magpie
I think if we were both members we'd be having a lot of these same
conversations then.:-) You'd be saying "I'm so grateful to Hermione for
trying to protect us." I'd be saying, "WTF???" I'm not grateful to anybody
for secretly hexing me with long-term skin diseases. Especially when
they're not protecting me from anything.

Montavilla47:
One of the customs was to shave a woman's head if she was caught. The
intention being to mark and humilate her as a traitor to her people.
Obviously, this wouldact as a deterrant to others.

Did it? I suppose so, since we don't have Zacharias Smith ( for
example)cutting deals with Umbridge to implicate the rest of the group. 

Magpie:
I can see the thinking behind the situation in France, but in this case the
group was already all caught once Umbridge had the list. And although
there's no indication that Zach Smith had any desire to betray the group,
he couldn't have done so once Marietta had finished. The group can only be
betrayed to Umbridge once.

Montavilla47:
We haven't even touched on the most incompetent thing that
Hermione did--which was to leave the parchment tacked up in the
room for Umbridge to find. Seems like the first rule of organizing
a secret organization is that you don't leave the membership list
lying around--and if you do, the first thing you do before fleeing
the area in a panic is to set the darn thing on fire.

Magpie:
I think Hermione's actions are consistent this way too. Remember when they
have that first meeting they're scolded for doing exactly the wrong thing
by having it in a pub that's suspicious. Hermione really doesn't have the
right mindset for protecting the group--or for this kind of group in
general, at times. She's sort of doing what she imagines an underground
group would do while doing stuff that members of the Order or the DA see as
sending up red flags.

I do agree, too, that even beyond that there's this trouble of exactly what
the DA is and a lopsided view. Most of these kids have no reason to be
personally loyal to Harry--Zach, for instance, seems thought badly of
because he challenges him. And even in the final fight it comes down to
Neville and Luna fighting because they kept checking the coins because they
didn't have friends and this is as close as they have. They don't
specifically go to the other kids.

Not that I missed the DA--I'm fine with Harry not teaching it anymore. But
it does seem like it is treated like a teenaged group most of the time.

Hickengruendler:

Did she? According to Umbridge, they needed evidence and the room provided
it. Therefore I assumed the list simply appeared in the Room of
Requirement, because Umbridge wanted to have it.

Magpie:
I don't have the book with me, but I seem to recall it was tacked up in the
room where they practiced. Along with what turned out to be an unfortunate
choice of name in that context.

-