Marietta

[lanval1015]

No: HPFGUIDX 176858

> Lanval;
> > Absolutely yes. It was desigend to warn the DA not only that 
they 
> > had been betrayed (granted, only if there was enough time, which 
in 
> > the actual event was not the cause), but also by *whom*. No one 
> > could have foreseen the precise way in which the betrayal took 
> place.
> 
> Ceridwen:
> The spell didn't warn the DA.  The spell only told them who had 
> broken peace.  They were caught.  They were dragged to 
Dumbledore's 
> office.  Their names were captured on the parchment hanging on the 
> wall.  They were not warned.  They were alerted after the fact.  
> Since we're going for superlatives where this incident is 
concerned, 
> if my house catches on fire, I don't want the alarms going off as 
the 
> fire department is leaving.
> 


Lanval:
Well, that's what I wrote, isn't it? :) It was only *designed* to 
warn the DA in a potential (and wholly plausible) Peter Pettigrew 
scenario. That it did not work out that way, that actual events have 
a way of throwing in a surprise or two, rendering all careful 
planning moot -- well, that's something every designer of security 
systems, every disaster recovery team, every military commander has 
a story about.

One can blame Hermione for not thinking through ALL possible 
scenarios, I suppose. But how does the failure of 
Hermione's security plan mean that there can never have been one to 
begin with? Because that's what I understood the former poster, 
Angel, to be arguing. That it was all about revenge.

No one, AFAIK, has ever argued that revenge was entirely absent from 
Hermione's mind, but why does the other (major, IMO) aspect -- 
security -- have to be discredited? Especially since it is supported 
by canon.

A mere couple of days after the Hog's Head meeting, Educational 
Decree Number 24 is posted, forbidding all student organizing of any 
sort unless approved by the "High Inquisitor". 

Harry right away suspects they have been found out; someone has 
talked. 

Ron -- and this is extremely important! -- immediately starts to 
name names, *wrongly*!!! accusing Zach Smith and Michael Corner of 
snitching. And punches his fist into his hand. And calls 
Hermione 'naive' for not doing the same. 

OotP, Scholastic Ed. p.352:

"No, they can't have done because I put a jinx on that piece of 
parchment we all signed," said Hermione grimly. "Believe me, if 
anyone's run off and told Umbridge, we'll know exactly who they are 
and they will really regret it."

End quote.
 
So how can anyone say that it didn't work? The jinx may not have 
protected all the DA members when the actual betrayal happened, 
because Umbridge, assisted by her odious little helpers, reacted 
with impressive speed. But up to that day, the *absence* of pustules 
on any DA member's face lets Hermione and Harry rest a bit easier at 
night, and keeps Ron from ripping Michael Corner's head off. 

Reason one, given in canon by the author of the jinx: security. 
Reason two: revenge.

Unless of course anyone wants to assume that Hermione is lying.


 
> > Lanval, smiling at the thought of the sheer amount of angry 
> > responses here, had Marietta been struck mute and unable to 
> > write. 
> 
> Ceridwen:
> How about a spell that makes it impossible for the person to 
divulge 
> the secret?  I think there *might* be an obscure spell in canon 
which 
> allows this, and I'm pretty sure that - in the middle of *HP & The 
> Order of the Phoenix*, whose headquarters is protected by such a 
> spell, which was introduced at the beginning of this same book - 
> Hermione just *may* have heard of it by the time the students meet 
at 
> the Hog's Head to form the DA halfway through this book.
> 
> Ceridwen.
>

Lanval:
Am I to understand that Hermione should have meddled with people's 
minds? Taken away their free will to divulge the secret, should they 
have made a conscious choice to do so? 

And in Marietta's case, taken away her right to turn in this budding 
terrorist organization fighting their government? *veg*