Marietta

[Angel Lima]

No: HPFGUIDX 176887

 

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."

 

Angel:

 

Lanval, that is exactly what I was arguing.  Hermione herself says so, just
above in the quote you provided.  I did not say Hermione's trickery did not
work either.  It worked perfectly.  No one could miss SNEAK plastered on
Marietta's face if she allows the veil to fall.  I was arguing what
preemptive good that did for any of the DA as the insinuations were made
that it was a security measure. all it did was secure the blame on the
tattler.  It protected no one. (except may be from Ron's wrath who
incidentally was looking for a way to incinerate Michael for dating Ginny
not particularly for being a snitch!)

 

I suggested something like a liplock spell or whatever else because it would
seem quite simple compared to the Fidelius, not all the time but whenever an
attempt was made to spill the beans on the DA, as Ceridwen says.  It never
occurred to me you or Hermione might take that to mean I was pushing for a
mute modified Marietta <beg> which incidentally is exactly what she became
regardless of Hermione's intentions.

 

If there were other security measures Hermione installed, how come "only"
the sneak punishment was mentioned and in the outcome, worked?

 

 

montims:
the "betrayal" was sneaking. It is a commonplace in British stories about
children, particularly of the boarding school genre, that you do not sneak,
or grass, or tell tales on, your peers... Percy did not snitch on his
family - he just abandoned them. A grass is despised, and quite rightly, in
the best of circumstances. In the dangerous times in which Marietta sold
out her classmates, her behaviour was worse than despicable. She did not
"betray" her mother or authority - if anything, she disobeyed them, but that
is not a punishable action. Telling tales on your peers is.

 

Angel:

 

Thanks montims, Point taken though I was purely sarcastic in that post <beg>
however tattling on your peers was only punishable here because that is the
offence Hermione made punishable, for all we know Marietta's mother had
plans for a punishment of her own, if her mother being in dire straits was
not punishment for Marietta enough.

 

In kids stories a grass is despised but grasses are oft given a chance for
redemption or at least the freedom to do so.  Marietta wore her sin for the
next whole school year at least.

 

Alla:

 

Alla:

Pettigrew was selling information for a **year**. Thanks to Hermione -
ONCE would have been the most what traitor of the DA would have been 
able to do, since everybody would have seen him, no?

 

Angel:

 

Both Ceridwen and Julie have vocalised exactly what I wanted to say more
eloquently and fully than I dared hope :-) if that is enough then I guess we
will have to agree to disagree. <g>

 

 

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]