Marietta, was Slytherin's Reputation

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 185667

Carol earlier:
> I don't want to get into the ethics of casting that spell or whether 
> Marietta deserved it. Suffice it to say that it's one of those
points that 
> Shelley and I don't agree on and I don't want to get into another
ping pong 
> match.
> and
> Then why are we arguing? I think the same thing.
> 
> Shelley responds:
> First, I would like to say that I was commented about Marietta's 
> disfigurement, and not debating "anyone in particular" as to what they 
> think. Secondly, I didn't think I was arguing, but discussing a book
(wasn't 
> that the purpose of this list?)
> 
> Carol, I disappointed that you first set me up as being in
disagreement with you, and then ask why are we arguing with you when
you agree with what I said. Please stick to discussing the books, and
any point at the moment, because I certainly am not arguing any points
from the prospective of "aligning" with anyone else's opinion, nor
setting myself up in "opposition" to anyone.

Carol responds:
You're misunderstanding my position. I *am* discussing the books. I'm
merely trying to clarify your views with respect to mine. Do we agree
or disagree? On which points and why? That's what I was trying to
determine. I was under the impression that this group existed for that
purpose.

Shelley:
 I'm discussing a book. It's my opinion that I could both agree and
disagree with the same person, depending on the point that we were 
discussing at the moment, and I would never open a dialog by saying
"I've disagreed with so-and-so in the past". It's totally irrelevant
to the points we are making now.

Carol responds:
I merely meant that there was no point in discussing a point on which
we were unlikely to reach a consensus (the ethics of Hermione's
spell). And I still feel exactly that way, having just gone through
several pointless ping pong matches with other posters. I certainly
intended no offense and am trying not to take offense at your personal
remarks.

Shelley: 
> That being said, I would like to clarify the timeline that I was
discussing-Marietta's pimples (pustules) were there months later, and
those "months later" occurred during the school year. Thus, I assumed
that Madame Pomfrey was still (incorrectly) working on them, and that
her parents hadn't been alerted that she needed St. Mungo's treatment.
Now, if she sought treatment at St. Mungo's over the summer, we don't
know. Someone can correct me if I have that timeline wrong- since my
kids also read my books, I don't have them to look up exactly which
passages show the original pustules, and the further passages that
said she still had them to check for sure that it was the same school
year.

Carol responds:
I'll get to the timeline at the end of my post. Meanwhile, please
accept my apologes if I offended you. That was not my intention. I
meant arguing in the sense of debating--or discussing a point on which
we disagree. Evidently, we've merely succeeded in confusing each other.

However, you've completely eliminated all my arguments, first quoting
a point that I said that I didn't intend to discuss (and I didn't
discuss it) and then quoting a single sentence expressing my own
confusion over your position and how it differed from mine.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I read your argument (in the sense
of a position you're presenting--it's a rhetorical term) as being that
the "curse" would have been easy to cure if it had been identified. My
position is that the problem is not that the spell was a curse rather
than some schoolkid hex familiar to Madam Pomfrey (as you seem to
suggest) but that no one (Madam Pomfrey and Umbridge in particular)
knew that it was a jinx cast on a piece of parchment rather than a hex
cast directly on Marietta. (what Umbridge thinks triggered it in her
presence is anybody's guess.) Marietta could not remember that she had
signed the parchment, which might have helped them figure it out. Cho
doesn't seem to have made the connection, or she might have
volunteered the information. Dumbledore and Snape, who might have put
two and two together, were not involved. Hermione, who knew all about
it, was keeping her mouth shut. For all those reasons, and possibly
because Hermione had invented the spell herself without also inventing
a countercurse, no one could figure it out.

I also presented my view that Obliviate is a permanent spell, with
arguments to support that point, and tried to clarify your apparent
misunderstanding of my speculation about Marietta's mother taking her
to St. Mungo's. I never suggested that her mother took her out of
school, only that she would have acted like any other mother and taken
her daughter to get help from the Healers at St. Mungo's the moment
she saw her get off the Hogwarts Express with her face concealed by a
balaclava. But the Healers would be in the same position as Umbridge
and Madam Pomfrey. they would not have known about the jinx on the
parchment and consequently could not have reversed the spell.

The remaining question, which I can't answer, is whether anyone could
reverse it, even knowing the situation. Would they need to know the
exact spell, or would simply knowing its origin be sufficient? Part of
the answer depends on whether Hermione invented the spell or used a
known jinx.

Regarding the timeline, the first relevant passage occurs at the end
of OoP, when the students go home for vacation and Harry sees Marietta
wearing a balaclava (OoP Am .ed. 865). Obviously, the balaclava
indicates that Madam Pomfrey's efforts to clear Marietta's pustules
have been in vain. We have no idea whether she continues to make those
efforts throughout the school year or gives up in despair after
neither she nor Umbridge can make them go away and they're still there
at the end of the school year. FWIW, the last day of school is June 30
and the jinx was activated just after a "dull March" turns into "a
squally April" (605), which would be about three months. 

The second passage occurs at the beginning of HBP, when the students
are returning to school after summer vacation, and Harry notes
Marietta wearing a heavy layer of makeup (HBP Am. ed. 142).In the
second passage, Harry sees Cho talking "with her friend Marietta, who
was wearing a very thick layer of makeup that did not entirely obscure
the odd formation of pimples still etched across her face." In this
instance, the summer has passed, but whatever Marietta's mother or St.
Mungo's may or may not have done or tried to do, the pimples are still
there.

Other relevant passages occur in OoP. Fudge says to Umbridge, "Haven't
we got a counterjinx for this?" and Umbridge responds, "I have not yet
managed to find one," which indicates that Umbridge must have
attempted to remove the pustules before she took Marietta to DD's
office (and, of course, before Marietta was Obliviated). Marietta is
still in the hospital wing the next day (625) and the day after, at
which point "Madam Pomfrey had not been able to make the slightest
improvement in her pimples" (637). Oddly, Cho knows by this time that
Hermione jinxed the parchment, but apparently she hasn't passed on
this key bit of information to Madam Pomfrey, who would surely be able
to figure out the specific jinx and counterjinx--or interview Hermione
and demand the information--if she knew it.

IIRC, that's the last we hear of Marietta until we see her in a
balaclava on the Hogwarts Express. I doubt that she's in the hospital
wing the whole time. Once she recovers sufficiently from Kingsley's
Obliviate to do her schoolwork, I assume that she attends classes in
her balaclava. Neither Umbridge, the DADA teacher (for what that's
worth) nor Madam Pomfrey, the school nurse, has been able to help her.
(Fudge didn't even offer to try.) 

Carol, hoping that Shelley will respond to her points this time rather
than snipping them