Marietta, was Slytherin's Reputation

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 185663

> Montavilla47:
> I don't think it really matters why Marietta's disfigurement isn't cured. 
> The fact remains that the disfigurement is there months afterwards.  It may 
> be marginally better (since she's graduated from a balaclava to heavy 
> makeup), but it's still there, and we never see her completely cured.  For 
> all intents and purposes, the disfigurement is permanent.
> 
> Shelley:
> No, I don't think that I can agree with that statement. I am thinking of 
> Hermione's teeth that got shrunk back to (less than) their normal size. If 
> the healer at the time immediately after the incident didn't shrink her 
> teeth back (what if she was away for several days?), does that mean that 
> Hermione was forever "doomed" of having such large teeth? What if the healer 
> finally got around to shrinking her teeth months later? Would the proper 
> treatment still work? I think it would have. 

Montavilla47:
I don't really understand this argument.  If Madam Pomfrey hadn't 
been able to shrink Hermione's teeth and so they remained larger 
throughout the books, then yes, the damage would have been 
permanent.  Just like Lockhart's memory loss was permanent, and
the Longbottoms' insanity, Bill's bites, and George's ear loss.  Some 
injuries in the Wizarding world are permanent.

And, since JKR takes care to show us that Marietta's face is 
disfigured every time we see her in the series--and we never
hear about them disappearing--then it seems counterintuitive
to conclude that they eventually got cured.


Shelly:
> I just think there are two issues here: her initial punishment of pustules 
> and the word Sneak from her breaking of a contract; and the secondary 
> punishment she received when the healer she sought failed to know the 
> correct antidote. Blame the first on Hermione, yes, but the 2nd punishment 
> wouldn't have happened if the people in the story had recognized it as a 
> curse, and for that, I don't blame Hermione. 

Montavilla47:
Okay... I can kind of see this.  I mean, it's like blaming Snape because
George's ear can't be regrown, right?  Imagine we don't know that 
Snape was trying to hit a Death Eater when he used Sectumsempra on
George.  Now, it was Snape's fault that he cut off George's ear.  But it 
wasn't his fault that Molly couldn't heal the wound, right?

And so George was punished twice for his involvement in the 
Seven Potters plan.  He was targeted because he was one of Harry's
decoys.  And, he was further punished because no one but Snape 
knows how to heal the damage--but that's not really Snape's 
fault, is it?

And, if Snape had smirked at George later, wouldn't we consider
him a big jerk?

Shelly:
> Thus, in my way of thinking, 
> Hermione is no less "bad" than any other child in that school who hexed or 
> jinxed their classmates and the victim had to seek the school nurse to get 
> her to correct it- they all had their "fates" of being normal again (or not) 
> resting on Madame Pomfrey's ability to "fix them". Some even benefited from 
> being hexed- look at Hermione's smaller teeth for example- she won out in 
> the end because her new teeth were smaller than the originals, and nicer 
> looking too! It only makes sense to me that if some won out, then others 
> might have been disappointed in Madame Pomfrey. What if she hadn't been so 
> sensitive to Hermione and shrunk her teeth, but not enough that they looked 
> so good? Wouldn't she also be punished continually from the original hex 
> that caused her teeth to enlarge, if after the "shrinking" the end result 
> was large teeth that looked even worse than before? Wouldn't we also feel 
> bad for her and hate the person who sent the original spell that did this to 
> her? 

Montavilla47:
Yes, if Hermione had ended up with larger teeth that made her look 
terrible, then we would feel terrible for her.  As for hating the person 
(Draco) who did that to her, I think we're already supposed to hate him.

Shelley:
>It strikes me that authors have various ways of making us loath a 
> character or feel sorry for them, as we do Marietta, or celebrate with them, 
> as we do with Hermione and her teeth.
> 
> Now, if the timeline included summer, and the pustules were still there, AND 
> we had some PROOF that she had been to St. Mungo's with no solution, then I 
> might agree that the pustules were permanent.

Montavilla47:
I agree that the author made me feel sorry for Marietta.  In fact, I think
she went to great pains to make me feel sorry for Marietta.  Especially
when we see how reluctant she is, even as she's "squealing" on the 
D.A.  

And that sympathy for Marietta diminishes my sympathy for Harry
when he notes with satisfaction that Marietta is still disfigured
AFTER the summer.  As to whether or not she went to St. Mungo's,
that matters not a whit to me.  It's not in the book.  What *is* in 
the book is that her pustules are still there the last time that we
see her--and so, as far as we know, the disfigurement is permanent.

Which makes a full recovery for Marietta exactly as likely as the
possibility that Bill's face will become unscarred, George's ear 
will grow back, or that the Longbottoms and Lockhart will 
recover their memories.

> Alla:
> Sure, but as one of the readers who has no problem with Marietta's 
> punishment whatsoever just wanted to note that I certainly do not find 
> Marietta's punishment amusing. I never felt that it was a prank or anything 
> like that.
> 
> I think it was deserved, sure, but I was not laughing.
> 
> Shelley:
> I echo that sentiment. She deserved whatever happened to her when the 
> contract she signed was broken, as she did this to herself, but I also did 
> not laugh at her. I could only imagine the continued and enduring shame that 
> such pustules would bring (especially on a girl, who tend to value the 
> beauty of their faces), and the resulting teasing from the others, and 
> punishment like that is not a laughing matter.

Montavilla47:
Yes.  It was never laugh out loud funny.  It was more mildly amusing. 
When it happened.  Because I tend to think of pimples as 
something that clears up within a few days.  (Now, I have friends who 
have had severe acne that lasted years.  They probably didn't find it 
amusing in the slightest.)

It kind of reminds me last week's episode of "The Big Bang Theory."  In
that episode, Leonard (a geek) takes on what he thinks of as a quest (
a la LOTR or Star Wars) by challenging a bully.  The result of his heroism
is that he gets something written on forehead with indelible ink--and thus
ends up humiliated.  It's funny, even though we're completely behind
Leonard as a comic hero.  I don't worry even a little because I know
that even indelible ink will fade off skin within about a week--until then
Leonard wears a stupid cap that covers his forehead.  

But, if the bully had tattooed the writing on his forehead, or worse,
branded it there, making it permanent, then it wouldn't be funny at all.  
It would be horrific.