Hermione's Character Change: Did You Notice It?

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8

meesha1971
September 29th, 2005, 2:26 am
Completely agree there. It's one of the reasons I think her and Ron will make a good couple. They sort of yin and yang each other. Ron can remind her that she needs to sometimes take care of an imidate problem even if it seems somewhat trivial.

One of my favorite Heron moments in the entire series is when Ron, right before the OWLS start tell Hermione that she needs to eat something, or else she won't sleep well. Hermione if left to her own devices could have turned into something like Percy. Harry and Ron have reminded her that well her brain is impressive, it's not all there is to her...

So yes I do agree that 100% that the benefits are mutual. :D

Those are my favorite Heron moments - when Ron is trying to take care of her. It's just so sweet.

It's definitely mutually beneficial. She keeps them focused and on task and they keep her from being too focused. Without Ron and Harry, Hermione would skip meals, not sleep enough, and risk her health in her endeavors to be a good student. Without Hermione, Ron and Harry would have failed a long time ago. Their tendency to put things off until the last minute would have destroyed them academically.

Well, I guess that I would consider the advice facilitating! Obviously, she never pushed Harry on Ginny, but Hermione probably realized early on that Harry could be (slightly) steered (sometimes) but never led.

I don't really consider her advice facilitating because it seemed to me that, at that point, Hermione didn't think Harry would ever like Ginny that way. Her advice seemed to be mainly to encourage Ginny to move on. The bit about Harry being more likely to notice her seemed to be thrown in to encourage her to move on.

Facilitating - to me anyway - would have been if Hermione engineered situations where Ginny could spend time with Harry or talked about Ginny with Harry. She does that in HBP. When she begins to suspect that Harry likes Ginny, she starts throwing in details about Ginny rowing with Dean, etc... and gauging Harry's reaction. Prior to HBP, she only brought up Ginny if someone else mentioned it first.

Well, spontaneity is implicit to boldness, as a bold action is one done decisively and without hesitation. One has to be able to act spontaneously to do that. Hermione does do it occasionally, but one has to really push her buttons. It is not outside the realm of her nature, but it is not a typical aspect of it.

My point exactly. She is capable of it but it is not a typical behavior for her.

Krumpet
September 29th, 2005, 2:33 am
Well, spontaneity is implicit to boldness, as a bold action is one done decisively and without hesitation. One has to be able to act spontaneously to do that. Hermione does do it occasionally, but one has to really push her buttons. It is not outside the realm of her nature, but it is not a typical aspect of it.

I think in a large part of why Hermione felt "different" in this book is because she was more bold then she had been in previous books. For instance when she confounds Mcladden (sp). This is a brash move; if she is where found out about for doing this not only would she be in problem but it would make Ron and Harry both look foolish.

This is not something that the Hermione from PS/SS would do. Heck I doubt this is something that Hermione would have done in fifth year. But in HBP she does it. Why because to paraphrase (my book is on loan right now) "you should have heard some of things he [MacLadden] said about Ron and Ginny". This is an impetuous thing to do.

Hermione at this point in her life has been around risk takers for over six years, and they are rubbing off on her. She's also had to look death in the eye, and is starting to relax, (a bit) and let out her inner spontaneity; if only sometimes. The boldness of her personality shown through a lot in this book; but I think it's always been there. Which is way Hermione's character didn't seem

pixey
September 29th, 2005, 4:55 am
I think this book could have easily been called Harry Potter and the Changes.

There seems to have been an aweful lot of changes going on with the characters in the last book. We have really seen the trio go from kids to teenagers to the end of the book where they took a huge step forward into adulthood. We really saw all three of them, mostly Ron and Hermoine, be older teenagers in this book and struggle to find who they are. I dont think it was just Hermoine at all. By the end of the book, after DDs funeral they seemed to get their act together and really show that they are in fact adults. There was just such a change at the end of the book, I felt like we have seen them grow up. Harry knows what he has to do, Hermione and Ron seemed to accept the fact that they were in love though they havent said it to each other yet and Ginny understands what Harry needs to do.
Hermione struggled in this book but she has also grown alot. It seemed like her confidance had suffered in this book and I am sure it did. She had to study hard, Harry was surpassing her in potions, she had a hard time dealing with her feelings for Ron and still had to deal with the LV stuff. Considering she is a teenager and it is Hermione we are dealing with I am surprised the worst she did was sent a flock of birds to attack Ron! By the end of the book though I did see how much she had changed, she has dealt with it and she is ready to stand and fight beside Ron and Harry. Because of what she has expierenced this year she has gained more confidance and she is a strong young woman.

meesha1971
September 29th, 2005, 6:13 am
I think this book could have easily been called Harry Potter and the Changes.

There seems to have been an aweful lot of changes going on with the characters in the last book. We have really seen the trio go from kids to teenagers to the end of the book where they took a huge step forward into adulthood. We really saw all three of them, mostly Ron and Hermoine, be older teenagers in this book and struggle to find who they are. I dont think it was just Hermoine at all. By the end of the book, after DDs funeral they seemed to get their act together and really show that they are in fact adults. There was just such a change at the end of the book, I felt like we have seen them grow up. Harry knows what he has to do, Hermione and Ron seemed to accept the fact that they were in love though they havent said it to each other yet and Ginny understands what Harry needs to do.
Hermione struggled in this book but she has also grown alot. It seemed like her confidance had suffered in this book and I am sure it did. She had to study hard, Harry was surpassing her in potions, she had a hard time dealing with her feelings for Ron and still had to deal with the LV stuff. Considering she is a teenager and it is Hermione we are dealing with I am surprised the worst she did was sent a flock of birds to attack Ron! By the end of the book though I did see how much she had changed, she has dealt with it and she is ready to stand and fight beside Ron and Harry. Because of what she has expierenced this year she has gained more confidance and she is a strong young woman.

Excellent points. I think you are right. At the end of HBP, they are not just three teenagers. They are three adults - Harry is just about a month from coming of age and Ron and Hermione are both already of age. The last scene in the book with the three of them showed how much they have changed in the last six years. They are now adults and heading out into the adult world.

PotionA
September 29th, 2005, 11:54 am
Alas! We'll never know what happens in the girls dorm.

(OK, that sounded all wrong but you know what I meant, you leches....)

*sigh*. The male mind is so predictable.....:D.

Well, spontaneity is implicit to boldness, as a bold action is one done decisively and without hesitation. One has to be able to act spontaneously to do that. Hermione does do it occasionally, but one has to really push her buttons. It is not outside the realm of her nature, but it is not a typical aspect of it.

Yep I agree. The fact that she had done daring things before makes her a bold individual, spontaneous or not.

It probably is the word conspirators. I do think that Hermione wanted Harry and Ginny to get together. I just don't think she did anything to facilitate that - not directly. She gave her some really good advice that would help her whether Harry ever noticed her or not. She probably answered endless questions from Ginny about Harry - especially back in GOF, the first time she and Ginny had to share a room. I'm sure Ginny was thrilled that Hermione came - she could ask Hermione all of the things that she could never ask Ron.

True true. It's quite interesting that Hermione, who's the pushy bossy sort, never actually badgered Harry to take his Cho goggles off and start noticing people who are really worth his time. I guess her pushy chracteristic doesn't come into play when it comes to matters of the heart.

confutatis
September 29th, 2005, 1:49 pm
Age, hormones and female. Answers all. Ron better learn that these three things will explain most every confusing aspect of Hermione (and women in general) for the rest of her life. [Hint to Ron: it will never change!] ;-)

profmcgonagal
October 3rd, 2005, 3:59 pm
I don't see them any stronger...Ron and Hermione .. for coming of age... DD seemed to think you need to "come of age" to have your powers register..maybe only on outboard motor boats...

ivyagogo
October 3rd, 2005, 4:35 pm
Yes, her character was a bit off in this book -- just like Harry's was in OOTP. These are kids with feelings and emotions are difficult at this age. Forget that it's Hermione and remember that it's a 16 year old girl with her feelings hurt by the boy she is beginning to love.

muggleview
October 4th, 2005, 2:01 am
Hermione, like Harry and Ron's characters, is growing up. Of course, she changed. Just like all teenagers, every year she is a new person. Gone is the childish cuteness. Now she will be more like a serious adult lady.

Nero
October 4th, 2005, 2:17 am
Hermione, like Harry and Ron's characters, is growing up. Of course, she changed. Just like all teenagers, every year she is a new person. Gone is the childish cuteness. Now she will be more like a serious adult lady.


:rotfl:

yes since many adult ladies take to assualting their peers as well as their "true love"

oh and many adult ladies stop caring whether their best friend is going to die or not when they find out that their friend has a girlfriend.

oh yes many adult ladies manipulate and use people to get what they want (wait isn't that what teenaged girls do? not a "serious adult lady"

oh yes loads of young ladies care more about becoming a housewife when they grow up instead of being an equal rights activist.

yes i feel very sorry for the predgudiced elves indeed.

yeah if Hermione just now started having her hormones (which is pretty much physically impossible) shes about 4-5 years too late.

Potency
October 4th, 2005, 2:37 am
:rotfl:

yes since many adult ladies take to assualting their peers as well as their "true love"

oh and many adult ladies stop caring whether their best friend is going to die or not when they find out that their friend has a girlfriend.

oh yes many adult ladies manipulate and use people to get what they want (wait isn't that what teenaged girls do? not a "serious adult lady"

oh yes loads of young ladies care more about becoming a housewife when they grow up instead of being an equal rights activist.

yes i feel very sorry for the predgudiced elves indeed.

yeah if Hermione just now started having her hormones (which is pretty much physically impossible) shes about 4-5 years too late.


I love it when the kiddies think they understand grown-ups;)

But seriously, we were watching her grow-up IN HBP. She wasn't already a woman...she still isn't. Yes, people go through puberty at 13. But that's not when they grow up. The growing process continues past that, even though a lot of kids that age feel like they are already grown up. Its quite a rude awakening, like Hermione had in HBP, that life will continue to throw you curves, especially when love is concerned.

Nero
October 4th, 2005, 2:55 am
I love it when the kiddies think they understand grown-ups;)

But seriously, we were watching her grow-up IN HBP. She wasn't already a woman...she still isn't. Yes, people go through puberty at 13. But that's not when they grow up. The growing process continues past that, even though a lot of kids that age feel like they are already grown up. Its quite a rude awakening, like Hermione had in HBP, that life will continue to throw you curves, especially when love is concerned.

i love it when adults misunderstand the kiddies, it makes them look stupid.

i was actually referring to the people who said that hormones had caused a change in Hermione. i never once said that puberty is when people grew up. i merely stated that the statement that Hermione's change was because of hormones was false because that would be pretty much impossible. you should really try and understand the post before you try and reply to it, especially if your trying to be smug, and/or put words in peoples mouths.

GinnyRules
October 4th, 2005, 3:01 am
I love it when the kiddies think they understand grown-ups;)
The grown-ups don't understand the kiddies very well either. ;)

thinkb4uact
October 4th, 2005, 3:16 am
I was definitely disappointed in book 6 for Hermoine's character change. Hermoine was my favorite character. I agree with the idea that Hermoine's reaction to Ron was over the top. Some of it I felt COULD be justified by hormones. However, I think it's a poor deal when the reader of a story has to justify a character's actions rather than the actions having been justified by the evidence of the book. Going from a Hermoine that is looking out for Harry, albiet a little annoyingly in OoTP, to a Hermoine that is maliciously jealous both in studies and romance, well it was too much all at once. I could see a slight progression in the books toward some character change. I would be irritated if the guy I liked hadn't a clue, and Hermoine has shown it well as evidenced by certain comments. I do think that Hermoine has always evidenced a maturity that doesn't stoop to canaries...and I felt that IF she was going to take someone to the ball thingy she would've had better sense than take McClaggan. If her judgement was so altered, I would have liked to see something a little more affecting to cause her to be so. I need something more significant to help me understand why she'd undergone such a change. If anything, I would've expected a more sober and disappointed Hermoine throughout this book. She'd be harrowed by the problems that face the world she lives in and her friends and disappointed by their judgements rather than SO catty about them. I don't know, I just think there must be more to see to explain it.

And just as a side note, I don't think she was under the imperious curse, that might be stretching it a bit.

Potency
October 4th, 2005, 3:22 am
i love it when adults misunderstand the kiddies, it makes them look stupid.

i was actually referring to the people who said that hormones had caused a change in Hermione. i never once said that puberty is when people grew up. i merely stated that the statement that Hermione's change was because of hormones was false because that would be pretty much impossible. you should really try and understand the post before you try and reply to it, especially if your trying to be smug, and/or put words in peoples mouths.



How cute. :rotfl:

The grown-ups don't understand the kiddies very well either. ;)

Well, its like you remembering what it was like to be 9...of course you are looking back with more mature eyes now, but you can kinda still remember.:)

Blue_Eyes
October 4th, 2005, 3:25 am
I kind of noticed the changed. To tell you the truth she was never my favorite character but I like her a lot more now. She seems stronger although I wasn't happy when she took McClaggen to the dance. Tha seemed morally wrong.


I think this book could have easily been called Harry Potter and the Changes.

There seems to have been an aweful lot of changes going on with the characters in the last book. We have really seen the trio go from kids to teenagers to the end of the book where they took a huge step forward into adulthood. We really saw all three of them, mostly Ron and Hermoine, be older teenagers in this book and struggle to find who they are. I dont think it was just Hermoine at all. By the end of the book, after DDs funeral they seemed to get their act together and really show that they are in fact adults. There was just such a change at the end of the book, I felt like we have seen them grow up. Harry knows what he has to do, Hermione and Ron seemed to accept the fact that they were in love though they havent said it to each other yet and Ginny understands what Harry needs to do.
Hermione struggled in this book but she has also grown alot. It seemed like her confidance had suffered in this book and I am sure it did. She had to study hard, Harry was surpassing her in potions, she had a hard time dealing with her feelings for Ron and still had to deal with the LV stuff. Considering she is a teenager and it is Hermione we are dealing with I am surprised the worst she did was sent a flock of birds to attack Ron! By the end of the book though I did see how much she had changed, she has dealt with it and she is ready to stand and fight beside Ron and Harry. Because of what she has expierenced this year she has gained more confidance and she is a strong young woman.


I totally agree with you. It is nice to see that they're all adults not just children anymore. That they are ready to go off and fight Voldemort.

meesha1971
October 4th, 2005, 3:29 am
:rotfl:

yes since many adult ladies take to assualting their peers as well as their "true love"

A flock of canaries is hardly an assault. Considering what Hermione is capable of, she went easy on Ron.

oh and many adult ladies stop caring whether their best friend is going to die or not when they find out that their friend has a girlfriend.

Gee, they must have left that part out of my copy of HBP. I saw Hermione worrying about Harry the same as she always does. My book must be missing a chapter or something. :rollseyes:

Harry wasn't under any direct threat in HBP. There wasn't anything for Hermione to worry about and there wasn't anything for her to do because Dumbledore was doing it all.

oh yes many adult ladies manipulate and use people to get what they want (wait isn't that what teenaged girls do? not a "serious adult lady"

You're going to have to provide examples for that one. Who exactly did Hermione manipulate? :huh:

oh yes loads of young ladies care more about becoming a housewife when they grow up instead of being an equal rights activist.

yes i feel very sorry for the predgudiced elves indeed.

Hermione? Just a housewife? You did see the part where she got upset with Harry about having Dobby and Kreacher follow Malfoy and not sleeping, right? :huh:

yeah if Hermione just now started having her hormones (which is pretty much physically impossible) shes about 4-5 years too late.

None of them have had a chance to "have hormones". They have all been a little busy for the past six years. The brief periods in the first five books where they did show signs of "having hormones" were all overshadowed by the current mystery or life-threatening adventure. Instead of worrying about if this girl likes me or did that boy notice my new blouse, they have been saving the school and occasionally the wizarding world from Voldemort. This time, there was no direct threat and Dumbledore took over the role of "information giver" so they had time to deal with those teenage issues that they didn't before - sort of a condensed version of puberty.

Jenn1182
October 4th, 2005, 3:46 am
She's evolving, much of it having to do with her feelings for Ron. Hermione has always been about studying and academics, but she's still a girl with feelings.

When she went to the Yule Ball with Krum, I think that was her sincerely excepting his invitiation with no alterior motives of making Ron jealous or anything of the sort. However, attending the Slug party with Cormac was purely out of spite. Us ladies know where to hit it where it will hurt (most of the time). Ron deserved it because he was acting like a complete idiot.

However, one thing that did no make any sense to me was how skeptical both Hermione and Ron were initially of Draco becoming a Death Eater now that his father was in prison. Why was that so far-fetched to them?

Nero
October 4th, 2005, 3:47 am
A flock of canaries is hardly an assault. Considering what Hermione is capable of, she went easy on Ron.



Gee, they must have left that part out of my copy of HBP. I saw Hermione worrying about Harry the same as she always does. My book must be missing a chapter or something. :rollseyes:

Harry wasn't under any direct threat in HBP. There wasn't anything for Hermione to worry about and there wasn't anything for her to do because Dumbledore was doing it all.



You're going to have to provide examples for that one. Who exactly did Hermione manipulate? :huh:



Hermione? Just a housewife? You did see the part where she got upset with Harry about having Dobby and Kreacher follow Malfoy and not sleeping, right? :huh:



None of them have had a chance to "have hormones". They have all been a little busy for the past six years. The brief periods in the first five books where they did show signs of "having hormones" were all overshadowed by the current mystery or life-threatening adventure. Instead of worrying about if this girl likes me or did that boy notice my new blouse, they have been saving the school and occasionally the wizarding world from Voldemort. This time, there was no direct threat and Dumbledore took over the role of "information giver" so they had time to deal with those teenage issues that they didn't before - sort of a condensed version of puberty.

a flock of canaries is hardly an assault? that's like saying a hit isn't so bad. it left cuts. to say that physical assualt isn't bad is morally wrong IMHO. oh yes lets not forget how she hexed a student to get Ron on the team, after she criticized Harry so much about cheating.

Touche, you want to talk about missing parts out of books Hermione dismissed Harry's feelings about Draco the entire book even when he turned out to be right she didn't care much.

Hermione Manipulated McClaggen at the dance thing.

yes but Hermiones a future must have been put on hold since any ambition she had is put on hold while she obsesses over Ron.

well that would be bad writing IMHO because instead of taking the opputunity to develop her characters as they grew she waited until book six and "condensed" it. i didn't neccessarily see a restriction of page space so i don't see why JKR has to sacrifice her characters development, maybe that's why Ginny came out so bad. . .

meesha1971
October 4th, 2005, 3:59 am
a flock of canaries is hardly an assault? that's like saying a hit isn't so bad. it left cuts. to say that physical assualt isn't bad is morally wrong IMHO. oh yes lets not forget how she hexed a student to get Ron on the team, after she criticized Harry so much about cheating.

Oh please. She did not hex McLaggen to get Ron on the team. McLaggen tried out before Ron. She had no way of knowing how Ron would do on his tryout.

Compared to what Hermione is capable of, a flock of canaries is nothing. No worse than a slap - which she did to Malfoy with even less provocation. No, it was not a "good" thing to do but it was understandable and it was completely in character for her. Hermione has a nasty temper and that has been shown throughout the series.

Touche, you want to talk about missing parts out of books Hermione dismissed Harry's feelings about Draco the entire book even when he turned out to be right she didn't care much.

Actually, she didn't. She didn't believe that Draco was a Death Eater but she did agree with Harry that he was up to something. She was only guilty of underestimating Draco and, given his history, that is understandable. I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't known in advance that Voldemort gave him a job to do.

Hermione Manipulated McClaggen at the dance thing.

Asking someone out on a date is manipulating? She picked her date for bad reasons but she didn't manipulate him.

yes but Hermiones a future must have been put on hold since any ambition she had is put on hold while she obsesses over Ron.

Gee, and I thought all that time she spent in the library was because she wanted to get good grades and was thinking about her future. Silly me. I should have realized that her studying so hard was just another way to obsess over Ron. :huh:

well that would be bad writing IMHO because instead of taking the opputunity to develop her characters as they grew she waited until book six and "condensed" it. i didn't neccessarily see a restriction of page space so i don't see why JKR has to sacrifice her characters development, maybe that's why Ginny came out so bad. . .

All of them developed a great deal in HBP. Instead of focusing on a mystery or adventure, they were finally able to focus on their emotional development. The one thing they have all been lacking in their lives. There was no direct threat or mystery that needed to be solved so they got to be normal teenagers for a change. HBP was a book filled with character development - at the end they are all much more mature and are on the brink of adulthood.

Nero
October 4th, 2005, 4:07 am
Meesha1971 if you would like to continue the debate please PM me.

meesha1971
October 4th, 2005, 4:14 am
Meesha1971 if you would like to continue the debate please PM me.

I just did. I didn't realize I was debating with you in two different threads. :p

blue3ski
October 4th, 2005, 11:52 am
However, one thing that did no make any sense to me was how skeptical both Hermione and Ron were initially of Draco becoming a Death Eater now that his father was in prison. Why was that so far-fetched to them?

Simple. Draco, from what we've seen before HBP, was not capable. All we saw of him was an "all bark and no bite" attitude. He was a wimp who needed Crabbe and Goyle to protect him from Neville. All his sentences started with/contained the words "My father..." If we as readers hadn't been shown proof of Draco's DE-ship, I would've been skeptical myself that Draco was a serious threat. Besides, let's face it: Harry's word wasn't really the best thing to go on. He nearly got both Ron and Hermione killed the last time he had a hunch. He got Sirius killed, and Order members injured. Also, he's been harping on Snape and Draco for years--his proofs were very colored with bias. It's not surprising that Ron and Hermione didn't take Harry seriously.

allydee
October 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm
Besides, let's face it: Harry's word wasn't really the best thing to go on. He nearly got both Ron and Hermione killed the last time he had a hunch. He got Sirius killed, and Order members injured. Also, he's been harping on Snape and Draco for years--his proofs were very colored with bias.

I agree with the fact that his proof are quite biased. If you check HBP, you can see when he's talking to the rest in the Hospital Wing, what he says are mostly HIS thoughts. However this is only my view, so please don't get angry at me. ;) I shall use use the UK Edition:

'I'd love to know what Snape told him to convince him,' said Tonks.

'I know,' said Harry, and they all turned to stare at him. 'Snape passed Voldemort the information that made Voldemort hunt down my mum and dad. Then Snape told Dumbledore he hadn't realised what he was doing, he was really sorry he'd done it, sorry that they were dead.'

UK EDITION, PAGE 574 (last two paragraphs)

It must be me, but I think while he said this, he was venting about Snape. He was angry at Snape, and felt that this is what happened. (Which probably did; my brain's hazy now)

(Lupin) '....Snape hated James ...'

'And he didn't think my mother was worth a d.a.m.n., either,' said Harry, 'because she was Muggle-born ...'

UK EDITION, PAGE 575 (first second paragraphs)
and so on.

He was still angry at Snape. OK let's just say he was very mad at Snape throughout the whole thing.

'So when he arrived at the fight, he joined in on the Death Eaters' side?' asked Harry, who wanted every detail of Snape's duplicity and infamy, feverishly collecting more reasons to hate him, to swear vengeance.

UK EDITION, PAGE 575 (second last paragraph)

He's already starting to get rash; he's very angry and he wants to know every single thing that can make him get mad even more.

Far-fetched proof? I myself think so. You may say that all these quotes are wasting my time and I'll agree if it was true, but I just felt that maybe I should get this out so more people can think about it and discuss it or just shoot it down, because it's exams time and my brain's like really clogged.

Well I hope you guys read it over and tell me what you think. Just please don't all out scream at me xD

PotionA
October 4th, 2005, 10:17 pm
a flock of canaries is hardly an assault? that's like saying a hit isn't so bad. it left cuts. to say that physical assualt isn't bad is morally wrong IMHO.

And you think that was a change in character? Have you forgotten how she slapped Malfoy on the face? How about the fact that she trapped Rita Skeeter in a jar and made her lose her job instead of reporting her to the authorities?

Hermione did all of that in the midst of her anger, in other words, when she was highly emotional. Sending a flock of canaries to peck Ron because she was upset is very Hermione.

Touche, you want to talk about missing parts out of books Hermione dismissed Harry's feelings about Draco the entire book even when he turned out to be right she didn't care much.

*sigh*

That's because they were proven wrong about Malfoy in the past when they thought that he was the Heir of Slytherin. She does the same thing with Snape when she defends him when Ron and Harry bash him out.

yes but Hermiones a future must have been put on hold since any ambition she had is put on hold while she obsesses over Ron.

Huh? When did she stop worrying about her future??

All of them developed a great deal in HBP. Instead of focusing on a mystery or adventure, they were finally able to focus on their emotional development. The one thing they have all been lacking in their lives. There was no direct threat or mystery that needed to be solved so they got to be normal teenagers for a change. HBP was a book filled with character development - at the end they are all much more mature and are on the brink of adulthood.

You're right. We got to see the more human side of the Trio which some people, like Nero here, can't seem to accept.

meesha1971
October 4th, 2005, 10:26 pm
You're right. We got to see the more human side of the Trio which some people, like Nero here, can't seem to accept.

Exactly. The friendship between the trio is closer and stronger than it has ever been - a direct result of their emotional growth and development in HBP.

Nero invited me to visit the Harmony forums. :scared: *shudder* Been there, done that. If I want to be insulted, I'll ask my 12 year old to clean the toilet. ;) I think I'll stick around here where the moderators make sure things stay polite and respectful.

PotionA
October 4th, 2005, 11:00 pm
Exactly. The friendship between the trio is closer and stronger than it has ever been - a direct result of their emotional growth and development in HBP.

Yep. Some SupergirlHermione worshippers seem to think that she's turned into Cruella Deville instead of realizing or appreciating her character growth. Well, people were saying the same thing about Harry's character in OoTP, as to how OOC he was and what not. It's a lost and forgotten thing now and I'm guessing the same for Hermione's supposed OOC-ness.

Nero invited me to visit the Harmony forums. :scared: *shudder* Been there, done that. If I want to be insulted, I'll ask my 12 year old to clean the toilet. ;) I think I'll stick around here where the moderators make sure things stay polite and respectful.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Well it was an experience for you. And I agree about the mods keeping it decent and friendly around here. It's a good place to test my patience and to keep my temper under control :D.

meesha1971
October 4th, 2005, 11:07 pm
Yep. Some SupergirlHermione worshippers seem to think that she's turned into Cruella Deville instead of realizing or appreciating her character growth. Well, people were saying the same thing about Harry's character in OoTP, as to how OOC he was and what not. It's a lost and forgotten thing now and I'm guessing the same for Hermione's supposed OOC-ness.

Exactly. Hermione had a great deal of emotional development but her core personality is exactly the same. She is still the bossy, interfering, know-it-all.

I didn't like Harry too much in OOTP but I understood that phase was a necessary part of his development. And, like Hermione, his core personality did not change.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Well it was an experience for you. And I agree about the mods keeping it decent and friendly around here. It's a good place to test my patience and to keep my temper under control :D.

Yes it was quite an experience. After that, I think the mods in here deserve a round of applause. :clap:

SSJ_Jup81
October 4th, 2005, 11:17 pm
a flock of canaries is hardly an assault? that's like saying a hit isn't so bad. it left cuts. to say that physical assualt isn't bad is morally wrong IMHO.How come no one gets on Harry for this? Remember in OotP, he purposely had Hedwig peck both Ron and Hermione, and got some self-satisfaction out of it. I find that worse than what Hermione did. Hermione just reacted spontaneously; Harry purposely wanted to hurt his friends.oh yes lets not forget how she hexed a student to get Ron on the team, after she criticized Harry so much about cheating.Ron tried out after him. Hermione couldn't hex him and know that Ron would make all of his saves. Read back, please. Hermione gave her reason why she hexed him. He was talking bad about both Ginny and Ron; her friends. The way she reacted was similar to how she reacted to Malfoy when he was talking bad about Hagrid, her friend.Touche, you want to talk about missing parts out of books Hermione dismissed Harry's feelings about Draco the entire book even when he turned out to be right she didn't care much.Hermione, as well as Ron, had no reason to believe Harry. Harry had no proof. You, as well as I, should know Hermione's character by now. Before she believes much of anything, she needs concrete proof. I figured that the whole MoM showed this well. She refused to go until she had "proof" that they actually should. She's the Anti-Luna, remember? Hence her not getting along with her when first meeting her.Hermione Manipulated McClaggen at the dance thing.I don't see how. She just went with him to a dance. I don't recall her going to him promising to do his hw for the rest of the year or something. A date is a date.yes but Hermiones a future must have been put on hold since any ambition she had is put on hold while she obsesses over Ron.She didn't obsess over Ron, she just finally had a reason to react, just like Ron did in book 4. We didn't get much of a reaction out of him until Hermione was with Viktor. Now it's Hermione's turn and in a way, I'm glad that she did react to Ron's hooking up with Lavendar.well that would be bad writing IMHO because instead of taking the opputunity to develop her characters as they grew she waited until book six and "condensed" it. i didn't neccessarily see a restriction of page space so i don't see why JKR has to sacrifice her characters development, maybe that's why Ginny came out so bad. . .That's your opinion. IMO, Ginny's character is fine. I like her character okay. She's no a favorite, but I like her independent nature and such, and how she's good at standing up to other people (must be a Weasley trait).

As for why book 6 had so much romance, I guess it was about time. Look at their ages (16/17). She probably did so much for this book so that she can solely focus on Harry's final battle with Voldemort in book 7. There won't be any time to write out jealous spats and romantic situations, not with the Horcrux quest and all. I also read someplace that JKR is planning on using these background characters more for the last book, so that'll also take up time and space.

PotionA
October 4th, 2005, 11:23 pm
I didn't like Harry too much in OOTP but I understood that phase was a necessary part of his development. And, like Hermione, his core personality did not change.

The thing that people don't understand is that Hermione's character change or whatever it is they think that happened to her, is based on her original personality. Someone once said that Hermione went all loony in HBP and needed therapy and I thought "well she's always been a little off her rocker like in PS/SS where she said that she'd rather be expelled than get killed." I guess people just can't come to terms with the fact that our perfect little Hermione Granger is capable of human emotions.

After that, I think the mods in here deserve a round of applause. :clap:

Bravo CoS mods!!

How come no one gets on Harry for this? Remember in OotP, he purposely had Hedwig peck both Ron and Hermione, and got some self-satisfaction out of it. I find that worse than what Hermione did. Hermione just reacted spontaneously; Harry purposely wanted to hurt his friends.

That's exactly my point. But people just sort of ignore it nowadays, now that they have Hermione to lash out at.

SSJ_Jup81
October 4th, 2005, 11:37 pm
Personally, Hermione's "canary attack" didn't seem like a big deal to me. I mean, she could be like Akane from Ranma 1/2. It's obvious she and Ranma liked each other, but both were quite stubborn. I mean, Akane would use a mallet on him. ><

Hmm, then there's Naru of Love Hina. She'd beat the **** out of Keitaro, even though it's obvious she liked him.

Ahh, Kagura of Fruits Basket. She liked (past tense) Kyo, and would usually end up beating him up for some reason.

Even in Inuyasha, even though 1000% obvious that Kagome likes Inuyasha, if he ****** her off, she'll shout "osuwari" and have Inuyasha slammed face-first into the ground with those magic beads he's stuck wearing.

Yep, Hermione's spontaneous Canary attack on Ron is nothing compared to the examples above, imo.

GinnyRules
October 4th, 2005, 11:54 pm
Well, its like you remembering what it was like to be 9...of course you are looking back with more mature eyes now, but you can kinda still remember.:)
No, it's not. Times change, and things aren't the same as they were when the adults were kids. And I wouldn't exactly call somebody who's fifteen a "kiddie". More like a teen ager who's almost an adult. You don't have to use terms like "grown-ups" and "cute", since we may not be adults but we're not two years old.

Harone
October 5th, 2005, 12:02 am
Character change? It was unsurprising, natural, character development. Her character has hardly changed in my eyes. I don't know what some people believed Hermione to be before this book - a robot-super-book-geek with no human emotions? She has clearly had feelings for Ron throughout the series and therefore was bound to react to Ron 'going out' with Lavender. Canary's? Big deal, shes hardly knifing someone to death or beating them to a pulp. Yes, she shouldn't have done it and probably regretted doing it afterwards, but her reason for being upset / angry was understandable and of course she was bound to react in the heat of the moment. Unless of course she had been an unemotional robot after all.

By the way, I couldn't agree with your points much more SSJ_Jup81.

meesha1971
October 5th, 2005, 12:14 am
No, it's not. Times change, and things aren't the same as they were when the adults were kids. And I wouldn't exactly call somebody who's fifteen a "kiddie". More like a teen ager who's almost an adult. You don't have to use terms like "grown-ups" and "cute", since we may not be adults but we're not two years old.

Let's put it this way then. I have a 15 year old son. As much as wants to believe he is "almost an adult", he is still very much a child - as are you. That is not an insult. You are growing up and the teenage years are probably the most important part of that process. I'm 34 years old but I still remember being 13 and thinking I knew what I was talking about but I didn't. I learned from experience as I grew up. Times change but the issues teenagers deal with don't change that much. The issues you deal with now are the same ones that I dealt with when I was 13.

Potency is right. You don't forget your formative years. Times may change but being a teenager today is not that much different than being a teenager in the 80's. The only things that are different are the clothes and the music and, to be honest, there's not a whole lot of difference there.

GinnyRules
October 5th, 2005, 12:23 am
Let's put it this way then. I have a 15 year old son. As much as wants to believe he is "almost an adult", he is still very much a child - as are you. That is not an insult. You are growing up and the teenage years are probably the most important part of that process. I'm 34 years old but I still remember being 13 and thinking I knew what I was talking about but I didn't. I learned from experience as I grew up. Times change but the issues teenagers deal with don't change that much. The issues you deal with now are the same ones that I dealt with when I was 13.

Potency is right. You don't forget your formative years. Times may change but being a teenager today is not that much different than being a teenager in the 80's. The only things that are different are the clothes and the music and, to be honest, there's not a whole lot of difference there.
That makes a lot of sense. I know I'm still a child and I don't always know what I'm talking about, but lots of adults are like that too. I could give you at least a dozen examples of adults (my parents agree with me on this) I know but then I would have to drag my personal life into it, and I don't want to do that.

The thing I was insulted about was the use of phrases like "the kiddies are cute". We're not that young after all. I'm pretty sure this particular discussion started with analysing Hermione, and I hope that none of the adults forget that she is a teenager herself, so we do understand her pretty well, IMO.

meesha1971
October 5th, 2005, 12:37 am
That makes a lot of sense. I know I'm still a child and I don't always know what I'm talking about, but lots of adults are like that too. I could give you at least a dozen examples of adults (my parents agree with me on this) I know but then I would have to drag my personal life into it, and I don't want to do that.

The thing I was insulted about was the use of phrases like "the kiddies are cute". We're not that young after all. I'm pretty sure this particular discussion started with analysing Hermione, and I hope that none of the adults forget that she is a teenager herself, so we do understand her pretty well, IMO.

It wasn't meant as an insult. To me, you are a kid and it is cute. Think of it as nostalgia. I remember saying many of the same things you have posted and being so sure I was right and I find it cute when I see someone else doing the same thing I did at that age.

But the other thing I remember about being 13 is being very sensitive to being called a kid - I didn't like it either. Although, it's better than the current terminology - 'tween. I probably would have been highly offended to be referred to as a 'tween.

As for Hermione, teenage girls vary in their level of maturity. Hermione has always been overly mature for her age. It was high time she let her hair down and behaved like a normal teenage girl. She remained true to herself and still managed to loosen up. The differences between being 13 and being 17 are astronomical. A lot of growing up is done in those years. Hermione is no longer an overly mature, repressed 13 year old (referring only to Hermione here nobody else). She is now 17, on the brink of adulthood and has had a significant amount of emotional development in a short period of time.

GinnyRules
October 5th, 2005, 12:54 am
It wasn't meant as an insult. To me, you are a kid and it is cute. Think of it as nostalgia. I remember saying many of the same things you have posted and being so sure I was right and I find it cute when I see someone else doing the same thing I did at that age.

But the other thing I remember about being 13 is being very sensitive to being called a kid - I didn't like it either. Although, it's better than the current terminology - 'tween. I probably would have been highly offended to be referred to as a 'tween.

As for Hermione, teenage girls vary in their level of maturity. Hermione has always been overly mature for her age. It was high time she let her hair down and behaved like a normal teenage girl. She remained true to herself and still managed to loosen up. The differences between being 13 and being 17 are astronomical. A lot of growing up is done in those years. Hermione is no longer an overly mature, repressed 13 year old (referring only to Hermione here nobody else). She is now 17, on the brink of adulthood and has had a significant amount of emotional development in a short period of time.
Well, I'm not sensitve about being called a kid. I know I'm a kid and I act like a kid most of the time. The issue is if somebody doesn't accept your opinion because you're a kid. I know the difference between 13 and 17 is big, but the difference between 17 and 30 is even bigger.

Us "kids" may not have bills to pay every month and kids to take care of (although in my case I started running my school's day-care center when I was 11, and took care of them in the mornings and afternoons), but that also means we probably have more time to read the books and take in the details (I've already read HBP 17 times and have done a five page reaserch on all the dates and times things happened during the whole series). Older people shouldn't think kids don't understand things as well. There are some things we don't understand as well, but since we are a lot closer to 17 than you are (not just me but lots of the people on this forum).

You have no idea how many adults behave like kids more than my 6 year old sister does. Everybody I know agrees with me about one of these adults in particular that used to be my mom's friend.

Anyways, that's a little off topic. I understand that the word "cute" wasn't meant as an insult, but when used over and over again, it gets annoying. I'm allowed to be sure of myself sometimes.

meesha1971
October 5th, 2005, 1:03 am
Well, I'm not sensitve about being called a kid. I know I'm a kid and I act like a kid most of the time. The issue is if somebody doesn't accept your opinion because you're a kid. I know the difference between 13 and 17 is big, but the difference between 17 and 30 is even bigger.

Us "kids" may not have bills to pay every month and kids to take care of (although in my case I started running my school's day-care center when I was 11, and took care of them in the mornings and afternoons), but that also means we probably have more time to read the books and take in the details (I've already read HBP 17 times and have done a five page reaserch on all the dates and times things happened during the whole series). Older people shouldn't think kids don't understand things as well. There are some things we don't understand as well, but since we are a lot closer to 17 than you are (not just me but lots of the people on this forum).

You have no idea how many adults behave like kids more than my 6 year old sister does. Everybody I know agrees with me about one of these adults in particular that used to be my mom's friend.

Anyways, that's a little off topic. I understand that the word "cute" wasn't meant as an insult, but when used over and over again, it gets annoying. I'm allowed to be sure of myself sometimes.

Of course you are. Some of my most entertaining and informative debates have been with the teenagers in here. My son and I often discuss the books and his opinion is valid - although he does come up with some odd conclusions occasionally that I can only attribute to his age. Although, his youthful input has helped me immensely in understanding Ron. ;)

13 may be a lot closer to 17 than 34 but I have the advantage of understanding what I was going through at 17. I can't tell you how many times I have looked back and just shook my head and asked myself "what was I thinking?" It is a confusing age. It's difficult to appreciate just how difficult when you are approaching that age. It is easier to understand it after you have passed that age.

Don't discount experience. Looking back on my teenage years, I see and understand a lot of things that I did not at the time. It makes it a lot easier for me to understand Hermione.

Potency
October 5th, 2005, 1:06 am
No, it's not. Times change, and things aren't the same as they were when the adults were kids. And I wouldn't exactly call somebody who's fifteen a "kiddie". More like a teen ager who's almost an adult. You don't have to use terms like "grown-ups" and "cute", since we may not be adults but we're not two years old.


First of all, the kiddie comment...that was used in fun. That's how people reminicse. I was playing on the "back on the good old days" routine..hence by winky smiley. I know sometimes those don't translate well online, so I apologize for that.

The funny thing is, even kids who are 2 don't like to be called "little" and "cute". They say "I'm a big kid!! I"m big!!" But being a teenager is such a HUGE change...being in your early 20s is such a HUGE change...I'm sure being in your mid-20s and on is a huge change as well, but I haven't experienced that yet.

I just think looking at the characters from different ages is interesting, because a lot of kids (or teenagers if you prefer) are now younger than the characters are. Some of them are the same age as the characters. And some are older. The book is written by someone who is older, someone who has gone through that time in her life. I think it does change the way you read the story, because it seems like a lot of times, the younger readers see the characters as is, or what they have become...they think the characters have reached their potential. And a lot of times, the readers that are past the age of the characters see them as being in transition, as still growing and learning, and realizing that they still have a heck of a time ahead of them. This definatley can't be stereotyped to everyone. But I've noticed some trends. I've also noticed some trends between male and female readership, but of course not everyone falls into those categories.

I think its cute because I was there not so long ago, and I remember what it was like seeing the world through teenagers eyes...I remember this when I read HP (Jo obviously remember too, especially where Hermione is concerned, I think!) and also again when I read posts by young men and women (is that better?:)) of that age.

So I apologize if I offended anyone, but like I said, its interesting how age and experience change your perspective.:)

SSJ_Jup81
October 5th, 2005, 1:19 am
13 may be a lot closer to 17 than 34 but I have the advantage of understanding what I was going through at 17. I can't tell you how many times I have looked back and just shook my head and asked myself "what was I thinking?" It is a confusing age. It's difficult to appreciate just how difficult when you are approaching that age. It is easier to understand it after you have passed that age.I know that pain and I'm like 10 years younger than you. I think back to my teen years and shudder at all the stupid things I did during them. lol At least I learned from my mistakes I made then.Don't discount experience. Looking back on my teenage years, I see and understand a lot of things that I did not at the time. It makes it a lot easier for me to understand Hermione.I find it interesting how the older fans of the story view the characters since they do have experience and "wisdom" on their parts. My mother reads the stories too, and pretty much all of the things you've said, my mother has at some point as well, whenever discussing it.

Like she didn't find anything wrong with that canary scene, like some of the other readers did and would go on to say, "It's about time Hemione's had some emotional growth", etc. Of course I didn't think of it this way, I was just glad it made things interesting. My mom is mostly, though, into the whole, "Dumbledore isn't really dead" thing. :p

meesha1971
October 5th, 2005, 1:23 am
I know that pain and I'm like 10 years younger than you. I think back to my teen years and shudder at all the stupid things I did during them. lol At least I learned from my mistakes I made then.I find it interesting how the older fans of the story view the characters since they do have experience and "wisdom" on their parts. My mother reads the stories too, and pretty much all of the things you've said, my mother has at some point as well, whenever discussing it.

Like she didn't find anything wrong with that canary scene, like some of the other readers did and would go on to say, "It's about time Hemione's had some emotional growth", etc. Of course I didn't think of it this way, I was just glad it made things interesting. My mom is mostly, though, into the whole, "Dumbledore isn't really dead" thing. :p

I'm starting to feel quite ancient now. :sad: I can't be the oldest person here. Please tell me I'm not.

I didn't find anything wrong the canary scene either. I thought Ron deserved it. It's certainly no worse than slapping someone, which is often used in romance novels - as well as movies and TV shows.

As for Dumbledore. I think he is dead but I think he planned it. It is rather suspicious.

Potency
October 5th, 2005, 1:32 am
I'm starting to feel quite ancient now. :sad: I can't be the oldest person here. Please tell me I'm not.

I didn't find anything wrong the canary scene either. I thought Ron deserved it. It's certainly no worse than slapping someone, which is often used in romance novels - as well as movies and TV shows.

I've definately seen people of all ages on these boards!! Thats the amazing thing about HP....mass appeal. But I think its so cool that you have a teenage son...I just hope I at least have a baby by the time I'm in my 30s. I always wanted to have children young, but of course you need a man for that.;) So I'm kinda hoping for maybe some children for R/Hr pretty early on, even though we probably won't ever see that. But if they both survive, that would definately be a step in the right direction.;)

About the canary scene, I definately agree. I felt Hermione was actually showing restraint there. If you look at it from the perspective of these kids (there's that word again! I can't get away from it!), they are immersed in a world where hexes are being thrown around like insults...so yes, I agree, that was like a slap on the face. A physical response to Ron's emotional slap on the face to Hermione when he snogged Lavender for everyone to see.

hermiowninny
October 5th, 2005, 1:41 am
I'm starting to feel quite ancient now. :sad: I can't be the oldest person here. Please tell me I'm not.

I didn't find anything wrong the canary scene either. I thought Ron deserved it. It's certainly no worse than slapping someone, which is often used in romance novels - as well as movies and TV shows.

As for Dumbledore. I think he is dead but I think he planned it. It is rather suspicious.

Teenage girls frequently do crazy things because they like a particular guy. That was Hermione in this book. Ron is an idiot for not noticing and relishing Hermione's jealousy. After all, if the brightest student in the class was in love with you, wouldn't you take advantage of that??? Heck, she'd do all his homework for him if he would just notice her! The canary scene was incredible. Loved it.

I agree that Dumbledore "planned" it (a contingency plan if Dumbledore was not to survive, Snape had to stay undercover at all costs).

Nope. You are not the oldest here. I love HP. It is a major escape from the trials and tribulations of middle age. I subscribe to podcasts, listen to the books, and re-read them constantly. Just too busy to make it past first year.

:blush:

Narsil
October 5th, 2005, 1:45 am
Hermione Manipulated McClaggen at the dance thing.


Dude, did you bother reading the book? Hermione did not manipulate McLaggen into anything. Someone as utterly self-centered as McLaggen wouldn't have cared why Hermione asked him out, only that she did, and because of the way he behaved towards her, we can assume he got exactly what he wanted. That's not manipulation. In fact, had Hermione not started hidding from him, I very much doubt McLaggen would have settled for snogging, and I'm not even sure Hermione was a willing participant in that. Not with how she looks and acts afterwards (McLaggen was either really rough with her, or Hermione did her best not to let him). She did want to make Ron jealous, but McLaggen didn't have to go anywhere with her.

meesha1971
October 5th, 2005, 1:52 am
I've definately seen people of all ages on these boards!! Thats the amazing thing about HP....mass appeal. But I think its so cool that you have a teenage son...I just hope I at least have a baby by the time I'm in my 30s. I always wanted to have children young, but of course you need a man for that.;) So I'm kinda hoping for maybe some children for R/Hr pretty early on, even though we probably won't ever see that. But if they both survive, that would definately be a step in the right direction.;)

I got married when I was 20 and became an instant mother. My husband had a 14 month old son from a previous marriage and we got custody of him. He is now 15 and it is really thanks to him that I discovered Harry Potter. He discovered it when he was 11 (how ironic is that) and asked for the first three books for his birthday that year. GOF was released not too long after that. He needed help with some of the bigger words and I ended up reading the books to him and my middle son and I got hooked. Now they are more than capable of reading the books on their own but we still do the first reading together when a new one is released. It's kind of a tradition now.

About the canary scene, I definately agree. I felt Hermione was actually showing restraint there. If you look at it from the perspective of these kids (there's that word again! I can't get away from it!), they are immersed in a world where hexes are being thrown around like insults...so yes, I agree, that was like a slap on the face. A physical response to Ron's emotional slap on the face to Hermione when he snogged Lavender for everyone to see.

Considering that Hermione was doing NEWT level standards in her fifth year and her nasty temper, I have to say Ron should consider himself lucky canaries were all she sent after him. ;)

It makes a difference that JKR is writing about a world where broken bones can be healed in an instant - even regrown if need be - cuts sealed with a wave of the wand - even a cracked skull is a relatively minor injury only requiring an overnight stay in the school hospital wing. Canaries really aren't that big of a deal.

Teenage girls frequently do crazy things because they like a particular guy. That was Hermione in this book. Ron is an idiot for not noticing and relishing Hermione's jealousy. After all, if the brightest student in the class was in love with you, wouldn't you take advantage of that??? Heck, she'd do all his homework for him if he would just notice her! The canary scene was incredible. Loved it.

Well, I don't think Hermione would do all of his homework for him but she would probably be more helpful in "checking his answers", which of course means he would get the right answers anyway. ;)

Ron did let his insecurity blind him. Now that he is free of Lavender and has his blinders off, it will be interesting to see what happens.

I agree that Dumbledore "planned" it (a contingency plan if Dumbledore was not to survive, Snape had to stay undercover at all costs).

Dumbledore and Snape both behaved strangely during that whole thing - the dialogue especially. It is very suspicious.

Nope. You are not the oldest here. I love HP. It is a major escape from the trials and tribulations of middle age. I subscribe to podcasts, listen to the books, and re-read them constantly. Just too busy to make it past first year.

:blush:

Thank goodness! I know there are older people on all the threads but for a minute there, I was surrounded by youngsters. I'm not that old! *keep repeating until I'm convinced*

That's exactly why I like HP. I love how she makes the characters so realistic even though it is a complete fantasy. And I seriously want a house elf - but of course I would pay him if he wanted it! ;)

accioluminos
October 5th, 2005, 1:57 am
err, i don't know. i didn't really see a huge change. in general though, people grow up, people change. maybe this has something to do with ron.

GinnyRules
October 5th, 2005, 3:08 am
First of all, the kiddie comment...that was used in fun. That's how people reminicse. I was playing on the "back on the good old days" routine..hence by winky smiley. I know sometimes those don't translate well online, so I apologize for that.

The funny thing is, even kids who are 2 don't like to be called "little" and "cute". They say "I'm a big kid!! I"m big!!" But being a teenager is such a HUGE change...being in your early 20s is such a HUGE change...I'm sure being in your mid-20s and on is a huge change as well, but I haven't experienced that yet.

I just think looking at the characters from different ages is interesting, because a lot of kids (or teenagers if you prefer) are now younger than the characters are. Some of them are the same age as the characters. And some are older. The book is written by someone who is older, someone who has gone through that time in her life. I think it does change the way you read the story, because it seems like a lot of times, the younger readers see the characters as is, or what they have become...they think the characters have reached their potential. And a lot of times, the readers that are past the age of the characters see them as being in transition, as still growing and learning, and realizing that they still have a heck of a time ahead of them. This definatley can't be stereotyped to everyone. But I've noticed some trends. I've also noticed some trends between male and female readership, but of course not everyone falls into those categories.

I think its cute because I was there not so long ago, and I remember what it was like seeing the world through teenagers eyes...I remember this when I read HP (Jo obviously remember too, especially where Hermione is concerned, I think!) and also again when I read posts by young men and women (is that better?:)) of that age.

So I apologize if I offended anyone, but like I said, its interesting how age and experience change your perspective.:)
I just realised how defensive my post must have sounded and I'm sorry. I'm just trying to make a point. Everybody's opinion should be equally valid, even if they are kids. I know cute was used in fun, but it's not that fun when it's used over and over again. I can't speak for anybody but myself but I'm sure you don't like it when people call you cute (well they probably don't anymore but I'm sure they used to).

I would just like to say that I do not see that characters as having reched their full potential, and I can see that they still have so much growing and maturing to do (just like me). Adults shouldn't assume that younger people see the world in a more simple minded way because that is true sometimes, but not always.

So anyway, sorry if I was defensive, but it's kind of annoying to be told that you don't have life experience and that you're just "cute". Peace :tu:

Potency
October 5th, 2005, 3:26 am
I just realised how defensive my post must have sounded and I'm sorry. I'm just trying to make a point. Everybody's opinion should be equally valid, even if they are kids. I know cute was used in fun, but it's not that fun when it's used over and over again. I can't speak for anybody but myself but I'm sure you don't like it when people call you cute (well they probably don't anymore but I'm sure they used to).

I would just like to say that I do not see that characters as having reched their full potential, and I can see that they still have so much growing and maturing to do (just like me). Adults shouldn't assume that younger people see the world in a more simple minded way because that is true sometimes, but not always.

So anyway, sorry if I was defensive, but it's kind of annoying to be told that you don't have life experience and that you're just "cute". Peace :tu:


Like I said, I know that doesn't apply to everyone, but I do notice trends. And I didn't say that younger folks see things more simple-minded. Its just a fact that life experience teaches you along the way. Yes, there are adults who are closed-minded, and younger folks who are extremely mature. I'm definately not saying those people don't exist.

About the whole "cute" thing...I don't know, its cute. Its like saying children are cute. You can't help it. I think the kids in the movie are absolutely adorable. Maybe I just like kids a lot, I don't know. Don't take it as if I'm looking down on you, but rather than I'm remembering what I was like at that age. So yeah, take it as if I'm saying I used to be cute.;) But now I'm a mean old grumpy adult who's lost touch with everything and can only spend my time wishing I was young again.;)

marlenrf
October 5th, 2005, 3:36 am
I have so much fun reading this thread...:lol:

Anyway, in reply to the original question, I didn't see Hermione's character change. I saw her acting like a human being as always (:rolleyes: you know, she is supossed to be one)...but *in* character. For me, she's the same person as ever, in essence.

I was surprised to see how many people were upset about the cannaries. Really, I loved that. Ron had it coming. Look at it from her perspective: Here's a guy you've waiting years to notice you, then you pluck up courage to ask him out and he says yes (which is a very big deal). Days after that...without any explanation he is totally mean to you, completely ignores your feelings and ends up snogging someone else...right in front of you :evil: ! Honestly, she went easy on him. With her knowledge...Ron can count himself lucky.

There's one thing about Hermione's role that was different, though. I missed her role as the "information giver". I understand that mostly it had to be Dumbledore the "information giver" during HBP. In any case, that's not a character change, it's a change of circumstances. And, at some extent, this gave Hermione the chance on the book to deal with different things like: her feelings for Ron and her insecurities. As a result, I think she managed to grow emotionally.

But I do hope she'll be back in book 7 to give the information, with the search for the Horcruxes and all.

sparkly
October 5th, 2005, 4:06 am
I just realised how defensive my post must have sounded and I'm sorry. I'm just trying to make a point. Everybody's opinion should be equally valid, even if they are kids. I know cute was used in fun, but it's not that fun when it's used over and over again. I can't speak for anybody but myself but I'm sure you don't like it when people call you cute (well they probably don't anymore but I'm sure they used to).

I would just like to say that I do not see that characters as having reched their full potential, and I can see that they still have so much growing and maturing to do (just like me). Adults shouldn't assume that younger people see the world in a more simple minded way because that is true sometimes, but not always.

So anyway, sorry if I was defensive, but it's kind of annoying to be told that you don't have life experience and that you're just "cute". Peace :tu:


What's fun about this board is the range of ages in the people that participate, because we can all learn from each other (and meesha, you're NOT the oldest person here!). I think it was Dumbledore who said that youth can't possibly know what it's like to grow old, and older folks forget what it's like to be young.

I think we can all identify with what the characters are going through, either because we're remembering what it was like to be that age, or we're experiencing teenage years along with Harry, Ron and Hermione. There is an added element, though, that JKR is an adult, creating characters based on what she remembers about being a teenager, so her perspective has a filter applied. As well as she remembers being a teenager, her memories are layered with the experience of being an adult.

I think that's one of the reasons the characters are falling into more adult, committed relationships at a very young age, and why some of the younger folks think the romances are unrealistic. JKR is applying her adult experiences on top of her memories of being a teenager.

cgold
October 5th, 2005, 4:21 am
Anyway, in reply to the original question, I didn't see Hermione's character change. I saw her acting like a human being (:rolleyes: you know, she is supossed to be one)...but *in* character. For me, she's the same person as ever, in essence. Hermione as a human being really seems to bother people which is very odd because she has been portrayed as one for quite a while. I think the main issue is that she didn't have some apparently life saving role. I say "apparently" because I think many people also believe that Hermione saves the day in the books when that's NEVER really the case as far as I remember. She is a part of a team that each contributes their ideas and thoughts and that team work together to solve the mysteries. Of course it's usually Harry alone at the end solving his own problems, however competently or incompetently he may.

I was surprised to see how many people were upset about the cannaries. Really, I loved that. Ron had it coming. Look at it from her perspective: Here's a guy you've waiting years to notice you, then you pluck up courage to ask him out and he says yes (which is a very big deal). Days after that...without any explanation he is totally mean to you, completely ignores your feelings and ends up snogging someone else...right in front of you :evil: ! Honestly, she went easy on him. With her knowledge...Ron can count himself lucky. Yeah, the canaries were totally understandable. She left the room to have a private moment and he follows her in (I know not purposefully). Many a men can probably testify that they have received far worst in the real world. Beware the wrath of a women scorned is not a phrase for no reason. It came from years and years of this being true quite frequently.

But I do hope she'll be back in book 7 to give the information, with the search for the Horcruxes and all. She was still the information giver in this book as well. Maybe not to the extent as before because Dumbledore pretty much dominated that job in HBP. However, I'm not sure how much more information she was giving before in the other books that this book was so drastically different. A lot of people usually give Harry information. I'm going to make note of it during my reread. To be honest the only change I see, other than the normal growing up changes, was that her feelings for Ron were so obvious that you have to be the truest idiot alive to miss it. When I used to comment on the love thread before HBP believe me when I say I was extremely surprised that people didn't see it before then too. However, I've come to understand that experience actually counts for something when it comes to reading a book and making interpretations and people read the same information in extremely different ways.

Cheers :tu:

meesha1971
October 5th, 2005, 4:26 am
What's fun about this board is the range of ages in the people that participate, because we can all learn from each other (and meesha, you're NOT the oldest person here!). I think it was Dumbledore who said that youth can't possibly know what it's like to grow old, and older folks forget what it's like to be young.

I think we can all identify with what the characters are going through, either because we're remembering what it was like to be that age, or we're experiencing teenage years along with Harry, Ron and Hermione. There is an added element, though, that JKR is an adult, creating characters based on what she remembers about being a teenager, so her perspective has a filter applied. As well as she remembers being a teenager, her memories are layered with the experience of being an adult.

I think that's one of the reasons the characters are falling into more adult, committed relationships at a very young age, and why some of the younger folks think the romances are unrealistic. JKR is applying her adult experiences on top of her memories of being a teenager.

That is a good point. JKR has had them discover their "true loves" at a young age and yet, at the same time, has led them on a merry, winding path of confusion preventing them from being with their true loves before they are ready emotionally. It's realistic from both points of view actually. There is the confusion and insecurity that often leads teenagers to "screw up" relationships but adult emotions becoming evident at a young age.

Hermione as a human being really seems to bother people which is very odd because she has been portrayed as one for quite a while. I think the main issue is that she didn't have some apparently life saving role. I say "apparently" because I think many people also believe that Hermione saves the day in the books when that's NEVER really the case as far as I remember. She is a part of a team that each contributes their ideas and thoughts and that team work together to solve the mysteries. Of course it's usually Harry alone at the end solving his own problems, however competently or incompetently he may.

Yeah, the canaries were totally understandable. She left the room to have a private moment and he follows her in (I know not purposefully). Many a men can probably testify that they have received far worst in the real world. Beware the wrath of a women scorned is not a phrase for no reason. It came from years and years of this being true quite frequently.

She was still the information giver in this book as well. Maybe not to the extent as before because Dumbledore pretty much dominated that job in HBP. However, I'm not sure how much more information she was giving before in the other books that this book was so drastically different. A lot of people usually give Harry information. I'm going to make note of it during my reread. To be honest the only change I see, other than the normal growing up changes, was that her feelings for Ron were so obvious that you have to be the truest idiot alive to miss it. When I used to comment on the love thread before HBP believe me when I say I was extremely surprised that people didn't see it before then too. However, I've come to understand that experience actually counts for something when it comes to reading a book and making interpretations and people read the same information in extremely different ways.

Cheers :tu:


I totally agree with everything you said.

I LOVE your signature!

cgold
October 5th, 2005, 5:42 am
I totally agree with everything you said.

I LOVE your signature! Thanks :) I love your signature and avatar as well. Your new quote by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is extremely relevant. Unfortunately, it seems to have happened a lot for this particular book. I wasn't a part of the fandom for the previous book releases so I don't know if this is always the unfortunate case.

Cheers :tu:

marlenrf
October 5th, 2005, 5:50 am
Hermione as a human being really seems to bother people which is very odd because she has been portrayed as one for quite a while. I think the main issue is that she didn't have some apparently life saving role. I say "apparently" because I think many people also believe that Hermione saves the day in the books when that's NEVER really the case as far as I remember. She is a part of a team that each contributes their ideas and thoughts and that team work together to solve the mysteries. Of course it's usually Harry alone at the end solving his own problems, however competently or incompetently he may.

She was still the information giver in this book as well. Maybe not to the extent as before because Dumbledore pretty much dominated that job in HBP. However, I'm not sure how much more information she was giving before in the other books that this book was so drastically different.


Probably ďinformation giverĒ is not the most appropriate term. I was referring to the following examples:
1. SS/PS: She solved the potions challenge.
2. CoS: She had the note with ďpipesĒ (or something) written on it.
3. PoA: She used the Time Turner.
4. GoF: She taught Harry that Accio spell (I think it was her :blush: ) and caught Rita.
5. OoTP: She came up with the idea of the DA.

IMHO, I donít think she saves the day either. She doesnít. Iím just saying that I was used to her doing something like the things listed above. So, I missed it. Thatís just the way I feel. But I also realize that it was important for her character development that she didnít (if you feel she did, please tell me, maybe I'm missing something), because she got to deal with her insecurity more.


Just checking: I meant to say that Hermione was acting like a human being, as always. If my post came out sounding the other way around, Iím sorry. Bear with me, English is not my first language.

cgold
October 5th, 2005, 5:57 am
Probably ďinformation giverĒ is not the most appropriate term.
IMHO, I donít think she saves the day either. She doesnít. Iím just saying that I was used to her doing something like the things listed above. So, I missed it. Thatís just the way I feel. But I also realize that it was important for her character development that she didnít (if you feel she did, please tell me, maybe I'm missing something), because she got to deal with her insecurity more.

Just checking: I meant to say that Hermione was acting like a human being, as always. If my post came out sounding the other way around, Iím sorry. Bear with me, English is not my first language. I wasn't arguing with you at all. I was agreeing with you for the most part. I was simply emphasising and adding to some of your points :) People with English not as your first language always make me feel so ashamed because I'm studying Japanese and French and believe me when I say I don't think I would come off anywhere near coherent while if you hadn't told me that english wasn't your first language, I wouldn't have guessed.

Cheers :tu:

Deevo
October 5th, 2005, 12:21 pm
I'm starting to feel quite ancient now. :sad: I can't be the oldest person here. Please tell me I'm not.
Trust me you're not. :eyebrows:

I didn't find anything wrong the canary scene either. I thought Ron deserved it. It's certainly no worse than slapping someone, which is often used in romance novels - as well as movies and TV shows.
When I think what Hermione is and has been capable of since book one I think Ron got off extremely lightly.

As for Dumbledore. I think he is dead but I think he planned it. It is rather suspicious.
Probably not the thread for this but I'll just say that I disagree in part. I don't think Dumbledore planned his death but I think he knew it was inevidable, possibly since the arm thing, and has planned his actions accordingly.

So anyway, sorry if I was defensive, but it's kind of annoying to be told that you don't have life experience and that you're just "cute". Peace :tu:
One of my favourite authors, Anne Mccaffrey, once wrote of a father addressing his fifteen year old son saying 'The time of being too young is very short.'

One of the scariest realisations I ever faced was the first time I said to my niece 'When I was your age ...' I actually stopped cold when I realised I'd said it because it was one of the things my father used to say that really irritated the stuffing out of me when I was younger. Still some of us old wrinklies remember what it was like too.

Except for the music, you guys have no taste these days. :evil:
__________________

I just wanted to quickly add that last week I began re reading right from scratch with Philosopher's Stone. I'm about a third of the way through Chamber of Secrets right now and it's utterly amazing just how much material the films have given to Hermione (not to mention taken from Ron) that simply wasn't there to start with. It's been a good while since I've read either of the first two books now and I wonder how many others may have allowed movie Hermione to become confused with book Hermione, especially in the first two.

meesha1971
October 5th, 2005, 2:12 pm
Thanks :) I love your signature and avatar as well. Your new quote by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is extremely relevant. Unfortunately, it seems to have happened a lot for this particular book. I wasn't a part of the fandom for the previous book releases so I don't know if this is always the unfortunate case.

Cheers :tu:

Thanks. Someone posted that in the Sibling theory thread and I just love hit. It had to go in my signature. ;)

Trust me you're not. :eyebrows:

When I posted that, I think I was! ;) Thankfully a few more "older folks" joined the chat soon after that.

When I think what Hermione is and has been capable of since book one I think Ron got off extremely lightly.

Yep.

One of my favourite authors, Anne Mccaffrey, once wrote of a father addressing his fifteen year old son saying 'The time of being too young is very short.'

One of the scariest realisations I ever faced was the first time I said to my niece 'When I was your age ...' I actually stopped cold when I realised I'd said it because it was one of the things my father used to say that really irritated the stuffing out of me when I was younger. Still some of us old wrinklies remember what it was like too.

Except for the music, you guys have no taste these days. :evil:

I remember that moment. Suddenly, I sounded like my mother. Scary isn't a strong enough word! I'm lucky though, for some reason there is not as much of a "generation gap" between me and my kids. My oldest son likes all the bands I liked in high school (AC/DC, Aeorosmith, etc...) so we actually have a lot in common. Some of the stuff he listens to isn't too bad.

__________________

I just wanted to quickly add that last week I began re reading right from scratch with Philosopher's Stone. I'm about a third of the way through Chamber of Secrets right now and it's utterly amazing just how much material the films have given to Hermione (not to mention taken from Ron) that simply wasn't there to start with. It's been a good while since I've read either of the first two books now and I wonder how many others may have allowed movie Hermione to become confused with book Hermione, especially in the first two.

That has always been my biggest complaint about the movies. I blame Steve Kloves. He gives Hermione all the good lines - she's even gotten some of Dumbledores. His scripts put Harry and Hermione as Hero and Heroine with Ron as comic relief. That's not how the books are written at all. Harry is the hero and Ron and Hermione are the sidekicks. It's very irritating. Other than that, I like the movies.

PotionA
October 5th, 2005, 8:07 pm
To be honest the only change I see, other than the normal growing up changes, was that her feelings for Ron were so obvious that you have to be the truest idiot alive to miss it. When I used to comment on the love thread before HBP believe me when I say I was extremely surprised that people didn't see it before then too. However, I've come to understand that experience actually counts for something when it comes to reading a book and making interpretations and people read the same information in extremely different ways.

I agree. But even after HBP, some people were saying that it took an interview for R/Hr to be canon. Not that I'm saying that these people were idiots because as you said, everyone has their own unique style of interpretation even if the clues and information are glaring at them in their faces.

I was quite surprised that people were SO shocked at Hermione's reaction to Ron's little fling. I suppose they had forgotten that Hermione did show signs of jealousy in GoF when Ron was drooling over Fleur and when she kissed him on the cheek when they were leaving. It was very much in her character to lose control of her jealousy when Ron was snogging Lav-Lav in front of her. That was JKR's message to the readers that Hermione fancies Ron and Ron only, which really was the most obvious hint that had sunk all the other ships regarding Hermione.

When I posted that, I think I was! :) Thankfully a few more "older folks" joined the chat soon after that.

I'm sure that made Deevo feel so much better :D.

But seriously, age is the last thing that comes into my mind when I post in these forums. Scratch that. It never comes to my mind because HP draws people from all age groups who share a common love for the series. It makes everyone one and the same.

Hinoema
October 5th, 2005, 9:33 pm
Well, I'm between you (Meesha and Deevo) age wise. However, I can't get far enough away from AC/DC. Give me my Gorillaz and Killers and Vitaminless and I'm good.

There will always be a problem with any fandom if fans who base thier opinion from film adaptations use this when discussing the books. The LOTR fandom has a huge problem with this. If they think doing justice to OOTP is going to be a tall order, try making "Return of the King" even recogniseable. (They barely did.)

The Hollywood model has been solidly Hero- Heroine- Sidekick for a very long time. Most directors can't get past this- Cuaron sure didn't. However, the man who directed GOF is a Brit, and I think is not 'a 'Hollywood' style director, so will not suffer as much from these limitations.

However, in canon, in the books, Hermione's character development has been well foreshadowed and consistent in all cases. She has reacted to major disruptive stimuli in occasionally drastic, highly emotional and abrubpt ways, but in every case, ways which are plausible for someone of her temperament.

'Consistent to character' does not necessarily mean stable, predictable or understandable. It can be a valid part of a character's makeup for them to act irrationally or unpredictably in some circumstances. It has been established that Hermione is prone to 'losing it' when experiencing severe emotion, such as fear, anger or hurt. It's very much 'her' to try to pull off a dignified exit, only to be overwhelmed by emotion, snap, and "canari-fy" someone.

:rotfl:

cgold
October 5th, 2005, 9:41 pm
'Consistent to character' does not necessarily mean stable, predictable or understandable. It can be a valid part of a character's makeup for them to act irrationally or unpredictably in some circumstances. It has been established that Hermione is prone to 'losing it' when experiencing severe emotion, such as fear, anger or hurt. It's very much 'her' to try to pull off a dignified exit, only to be overwhelmed by emotion, snap, and "canari-fy" someone. Agrees :agree: and "canarify" is officially my new word of the day :rotfl:

SSJ_Jup81
October 5th, 2005, 10:12 pm
Meesha, I hope I didn't come across as rude or offensive when I posted earlier, going on about the age thing and my being ten years younger than you. That wasn't my intention in the least. ^^Well, I'm between you (Meesha and Deevo) age wise. However, I can't get far enough away from AC/DC. Give me my Gorillaz and Killers and Vitaminless and I'm good.A friend of mine likes AC/DC...I haven't heard much by 'em, that aside, you so RULE!! I love Gorillaz! That says a lot for a person like me...I usually don't get into groups/artists that actually do have official releases here in the states. ^^There will always be a problem with any fandom if fans who base thier opinion from film adaptations use this when discussing the books. The LOTR fandom has a huge problem with this. If they think doing justice to OOTP is going to be a tall order, try making "Return of the King" even recogniseable. (They barely did.)I liked Return of the King, but I did hear about those who had read the book who really didn't care for the adaptation of it (same with the other two movies), but, it's to be expected, I suppose. No book to film adaptation is going to be completely good. The Shining comes to mind for me. I saw the movie years ago, which prompted me to want to read the book. I did so, and realized the movie was way off, but the remake of it in the 90s was a lot closer to it. Although, given the choice between the two movies, I like the version with Jack Nichalson (sp?) and Shelly Duvall best. ^^

I better quit rambling on here, going quite offtopic.The Hollywood model has been solidly Hero- Heroine- Sidekick for a very long time. Most directors can't get past this- Cuaron sure didn't. However, the man who directed GOF is a Brit, and I think is not 'a 'Hollywood' style director, so will not suffer as much from these limitations.I truly hope so. I really disliked how Cuaron handled them for PoA. Even though Columbus was a bit more "kiddy", he seemed to have the characters spot on, although, for CoS, I really wish they would've kept in that part where Ron, seeing his friend not there, gave him the urge and incentive to go out into the Forbidden Forest. To show his bravery. IMO, Ron's done at least one thing brave in each book...the movies don't seem to even acknowledge that much, with the exception of the Chess Game in SS/PS since that was actually a needed scene (even if I was slightly disappointed they didn't keep in the potions puzzle).

Wimsey
October 5th, 2005, 11:11 pm
I liked Return of the King, but I did hear about those who had read the book who really didn't care for the adaptation of it (same with the other two movies), but, it's to be expected, I suppose. No book to film adaptation is going to be completely good.

Actually, the bigger problem is making a movie from a book with fans. Fans of books often like things about the book that have little to do with the story.

The other problem is that book fans develop extremely myopic vision of the characters. This thread is a great example: Hermione is cast into new situations and does new things. Instead of people seeing the evolution of her character, they insist that she is acting "out of character." For example, Hermione wouldn't hurl birds at her almost-boyfriend who is (practically) cheating on her, right? Wrong: she never was in a situation remotely like that, so this is not out of character. We are discovering now what her character does in such situations.

(Of course, I realize that this also reflects some fundamental misunderstandings of who Hermione was and fundamental misunderstandings of what some of Hermione's actions represented, but this is another issue.)


So, when a movie shows the same thing in a different way, book fans frequently fail to process the information and just say "X did not do Y like in the book, and Y shows trait A; therefore, they did not show that X is A" when they show X do Z and Z also shows trait A.

The Hollywood model has been solidly Hero- Heroine- Sidekick for a very long time. Most directors can't get past this- Cuaron sure didn't. However, the man who directed GOF is a Brit, and I think is not 'a 'Hollywood' style director, so will not suffer as much from these limitations.

Cuaron is a "Hollywood style" director? Which Hollywood is this: Hollywood, Japan? Columbus is Hollywood; Cuaron is a highly esteemed director that people who know movies love.


Again, remember that Hermione is the sole female character of any importance in HP. She's got to get most of the action that Harry does not get. This does not change anybody's character, just what is done with them and what emphasis is placed upon them. The movie Hermione has evolved a little faster (perhaps one story faster) than has book Hermione. However, this partly reflects the negative reactions to the first two movies and the need to make the movies appealing to non-fans.


Still, the character is identical to book Hermione: insecure know-it-all wonder witch, who might someday hurl canaries at Ron. (I am inclined to doubt that this stuff will be in the HBP movie, however.)

cgold
October 5th, 2005, 11:22 pm
Still, the character is identical to book Hermione: insecure know-it-all wonder witch, who might someday hurl canaries at Ron. When was she insecure in the movies? I saw the know-it-all wonderwitch clearly though.

Cheers :tu:

marlysg
October 5th, 2005, 11:33 pm
Cuaron is a "Hollywood style" director? Which Hollywood is this: Hollywood, Japan? Columbus is Hollywood; Cuaron is a highly esteemed director that people who know movies love.


I second you here! :tu: :tu: Cuaron is a very gifted director, his movies are as far from "Hollywood" as you can get. ( Hmm, or is there a Hollywood, Mexico? or Hollywood, South America?) Did anyone notice that the Producers were the same as for the first two films? I think that had more to do with the final look of the film than anything.

AS for Hermione's character change, I really did not view it as a total change, but rather as an evolution of her character. In OotP, we see the beginning of Hermione's evolution as far as relaxing the rules a little. Aslo as people ( characters, too) mature they begin to realize that our view of the world is not necessarily how things are. They begin to develop a system of priorities, as to what is important, and what isn't. They also begin to interact with others in a different way, and understand things in a different way. It seems totally in character for Hermione to have realized that for Harry, things might have a different significance than they did before hearing the prophecy. It is also in character for Hermione to interact differently with Ron, than she had before, as she has the maturity to recognize her feelings for him ( though she does not yet have the maturity to deal with them)

Potency
October 5th, 2005, 11:38 pm
Cuaron is a "Hollywood style" director? Which Hollywood is this: Hollywood, Japan? Columbus is Hollywood; Cuaron is a highly esteemed director that people who know movies love.

Still, the character is identical to book Hermione: insecure know-it-all wonder witch, who might someday hurl canaries at Ron. (I am inclined to doubt that this stuff will be in the HBP movie, however.)


I agree about Cuaron...definately does not seem like a typical Hollywood director to me. His vision for the movie was quite unique and stunning.

About the canaries being hurled. After hearing about Malfoy, the amazing bouncing ferret being kept in GoF, I wouldn't be surprised if the canaries were kept in the HBP movie, if they ever make one.

SSJ_Jup81
October 5th, 2005, 11:40 pm
IMO, I like Cuaron's visual style. That was my fav thing in ref to PoA, actually. Just didn't care for Ron or Hermione's characterization for it. Too bad Cuaron and Columbus couldn't have both directed or something. Visual wise, and I like Cuaron, and the fact he used more of the background characters; everything else, let Columbus have done it.

GoF will be most interesting. I'm looking forward to it again now, since it is a diff director.

Hinoema
October 5th, 2005, 11:51 pm
I apologise. I should have said Cuaron's style of direction in PoA was far more in keeping with the Hollywood cliche of hero- heroine- dumb sidekick than with the actual characterizations and dynamic of the books. (If he's such a great director, why didn't he get the characters in character? *grumble*)

SSJ_Jup81
October 5th, 2005, 11:58 pm
I apologise. I should have said Cuaron's style of direction in PoA was far more in keeping with the Hollywood cliche of hero- heroine- dumb sidekick than with the actual characterizations and dynamic of the books. (If he's such a great director, why didn't he get the characters in character? *grumble*)I finally figured out how I wanted to word what I wanted to say above. When it came to characterization, I felt Columbus was a better director. When it came to visual affects, Cuaron.

Jenn1182
October 6th, 2005, 12:00 am
I'm glad Columbus stopped directing the movies. It was too kiddie-ish for my taste. Cuaron add a darker and more sinister flavor to it, which it needed. I wish Cuaron would continue with it, but hopefully Newell will do the story and characters justice...

Back on topic, I think Hermione has grown gradually. I don't think there's been any dramatic change.

meesha1971
October 6th, 2005, 12:39 am
Actually, the bigger problem is making a movie from a book with fans. Fans of books often like things about the book that have little to do with the story.

The other problem is that book fans develop extremely myopic vision of the characters. This thread is a great example: Hermione is cast into new situations and does new things. Instead of people seeing the evolution of her character, they insist that she is acting "out of character." For example, Hermione wouldn't hurl birds at her almost-boyfriend who is (practically) cheating on her, right? Wrong: she never was in a situation remotely like that, so this is not out of character. We are discovering now what her character does in such situations.

(Of course, I realize that this also reflects some fundamental misunderstandings of who Hermione was and fundamental misunderstandings of what some of Hermione's actions represented, but this is another issue.)


So, when a movie shows the same thing in a different way, book fans frequently fail to process the information and just say "X did not do Y like in the book, and Y shows trait A; therefore, they did not show that X is A" when they show X do Z and Z also shows trait A.

The problem I have with this assessment is that, when I go to see the movie based on the book, I want to see what the characters did in the book - not what the director thinks they should have done. I don't mind small additions that don't affect the overall story - like the "almost" hug or the awkward hand-holding or the boys hanging out in their dormitory eating magical candy.

What I have a problem with is a complete change of character, which is exactly what was done with Ron and Hermione. There was no reason for them to have Hermione telling Harry what "mudblood" meant. They should have kept that the way it was in the book with Ron and Hagrid explaining it. They even give Hermione some of Dumbledore's lines. That is not showing the natural evolution of her character as she grows up. That is exaggerating the importance of her character to the overall story.

There is no reason they can't portray the trio the way they are portrayed in the books - Harry as the hero with Ron and Hermione as the sidekicks.

Cuaron is a "Hollywood style" director? Which Hollywood is this: Hollywood, Japan? Columbus is Hollywood; Cuaron is a highly esteemed director that people who know movies love.

The only problem I had with Cuaron is that he sacrificed key elements in the story for artistic visualization. The film was beautiful but I would have gladly given up seeing the Whomping Willow spin in order to get the full story of the Marauders.

Again, remember that Hermione is the sole female character of any importance in HP. She's got to get most of the action that Harry does not get. This does not change anybody's character, just what is done with them and what emphasis is placed upon them. The movie Hermione has evolved a little faster (perhaps one story faster) than has book Hermione. However, this partly reflects the negative reactions to the first two movies and the need to make the movies appealing to non-fans.

I don't agree. There are three main characters. Just because one of them is female shouldn't make a difference. In the books, Ron and Hermione have equal status as sidekicks. It should be the same in the movies as well.

Still, the character is identical to book Hermione: insecure know-it-all wonder witch, who might someday hurl canaries at Ron. (I am inclined to doubt that this stuff will be in the HBP movie, however.)

I do agree that the basic characterization is okay. I just have a problem with them taking away all of Ron's good lines (and some of Dumbledore's) and giving them to Hermione. There really is no reason they need to do this.

I would prefer a more accurate representation of the books.

GinnyRules
October 6th, 2005, 2:21 am
Except for the music, you guys have no taste these days. :evil:
__________________

I just wanted to quickly add that last week I began re reading right from scratch with Philosopher's Stone. I'm about a third of the way through Chamber of Secrets right now and it's utterly amazing just how much material the films have given to Hermione (not to mention taken from Ron) that simply wasn't there to start with. It's been a good while since I've read either of the first two books now and I wonder how many others may have allowed movie Hermione to become confused with book Hermione, especially in the first two.
Hehe. I prefer older music. I'ts just so much better. Most of the music these days is, well, let's just say it's not as good as it must have been a while ago.

I also recently re-read the first few books and realised how much they changed stuff. When I was about 9 years old the first movie came out and I remember being a little bit annoyed that they had changed and cut out so many things. But I guess they know what they're doing. They are cinematographers (Is that even a word? French isn't my first language either).

meesha1971
October 6th, 2005, 3:13 am
Hehe. I prefer older music. I'ts just so much better. Most of the music these days is, well, let's just say it's not as good as it must have been a while ago.

I also recently re-read the first few books and realised how much they changed stuff. When I was about 9 years old the first movie came out and I remember being a little bit annoyed that they had changed and cut out so many things. But I guess they know what they're doing. They are cinematographers (Is that even a word? French isn't my first language either).

The really good bands have been around for a while. AC/DC was around when my parents were in college, as well as Aerosmith, The Rolling Stones... I will never forget the shock I recieved when I found out my parents were *gasp* cool! They liked all of "my" favorite bands. Imagine my surprise, when I found out how long those bands had been around. :rotfl:

As for the movies, a lot of the things that I didn't like can be blamed on Steve Kloves - he's the one giving all of Ron's good lines to Hermione. :grumble: I'm sure the director plays a part in that too but Kloves wrote the script that way. If he has Hermione telling Harry about the giants in GOF, I'm gonna be mad. I'm looking forward to having a new screenwriter for OOTP. Hopefully they'll get one who will put the balance back into the trio.

Wimsey
October 6th, 2005, 3:50 am
Hopefully they'll get one who will put the balance back into the trio.

Again, this belongs in "Muggle Studies" but the movies cannot "balance" the trio. The movies have to balance the male:female ratio if they want to keep the female audience. There are a gazillion and five social studies that back them up on this. As Harry is the protagonist, he's getting the bulk of the "balance" anyway. This means that Hermione must get the lionshare of what is left.

It is simple demographics. It might irk Harry Potter fans, but they are a small fraction of the movie-attending audiences. The overlong Columbus films drove away too many people, and althought Cuarůn stemmed the bleeding, HP has a long way to go to get back to undue the damage that Columbus did. Relegating the chief character with whom the single biggest movie-attending demographic can identify to a 25% role is not a good way to do that.

Also, transferring lines does not necessarily diminish or alter characters. For example, there is no reason why Hermione would not know about Giant prejudices, just as there was no reason why she should not have known the word "Mudblood." (That would be like a Jew or black or whatever not knowing what the derogatory terms for Jews or blacks or whatevers are.) Indeed, presented this way, it would spare Ron from looking stupid when he continues to buy into the stereotype about what Giants are like, despite having learned the prior year that not all stereotypes are always true.

Of course, the giant bit almost certainly won't be in the movie, and if it is then it needs to be rewritten if you wish to avoid a dumb-looking Ron. Of course, most of GoF contributes to making Ron look none-too-bright: his little tantrum about Harry entering without him, his utter cluelessness regarding Hermione, his continued beliefs in stereotypes, his dippiness over Fleur,etc., all look not-too-swift.

Hmmm, Gandalf's advice to Pippin at the gates of Minas Tirith seems appropriate here for Ron here..... :angel:


Oh, and AC/DC???? They never were cool. Cool bands know that there are chords other than E, A and D......... (Gargling yaks in heat was the best review that I ever read of one of their albums; of course, I wrote it!)

meesha1971
October 6th, 2005, 4:43 am
Again, this belongs in "Muggle Studies" but the movies cannot "balance" the trio. The movies have to balance the male:female ratio if they want to keep the female audience. There are a gazillion and five social studies that back them up on this. As Harry is the protagonist, he's getting the bulk of the "balance" anyway. This means that Hermione must get the lionshare of what is left.

It is simple demographics. It might irk Harry Potter fans, but they are a small fraction of the movie-attending audiences. The overlong Columbus films drove away too many people, and althought Cuarůn stemmed the bleeding, HP has a long way to go to get back to undue the damage that Columbus did. Relegating the chief character with whom the single biggest movie-attending demographic can identify to a 25% role is not a good way to do that.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. I've seen loads of movies with three or more main characters (males and females) where the dynamics are balanced. There is no reason for Hermione to have the "lionshare" of what is left. Hermione's character is strong enough the way she is written in the books. There is no reason to increase her importance while Ron is reduced to comic relief.

Also, transferring lines does not necessarily diminish or alter characters. For example, there is no reason why Hermione would not know about Giant prejudices, just as there was no reason why she should not have known the word "Mudblood." (That would be like a Jew or black or whatever not knowing what the derogatory terms for Jews or blacks or whatevers are.) Indeed, presented this way, it would spare Ron from looking stupid when he continues to buy into the stereotype about what Giants are like, despite having learned the prior year that not all stereotypes are always true.

Transfering lines does diminish Ron's character. Instead of the loyal, brave friend who guides Harry through the wizarding world that he is in the books, movie Ron is reduced to comic relief.

There was a very good reason that Hermione should not have had those lines regarding Mudbloods. She did not know what Mudblood meant. In the books, Ron and Hagrid explained it to her and Harry. There was no reason they could not have left the scene as it was in the book. As for the giants, Hermione does know about the giants and adds her two cents in later, but Ron is the one who initially explains it to Harry during the Yule Ball. Honestly, I just want them to let Ron show that is not just comic relief for once. I'm hoping that the new director will be more faithful to characters, although I'm not too hopeful because Steve Kloves did write the script.

Of course, the giant bit almost certainly won't be in the movie, and if it is then it needs to be rewritten if you wish to avoid a dumb-looking Ron. Of course, most of GoF contributes to making Ron look none-too-bright: his little tantrum about Harry entering without him, his utter cluelessness regarding Hermione, his continued beliefs in stereotypes, his dippiness over Fleur,etc., all look not-too-swift.

Actually, the giant bit was the one part of GOF that showed Ron does have some intelligence. He knew the reputation of giants but didn't hold it against Hagrid that he was half-giant because he knew him. He knows what the stereotypes are but he doesn't always believe in them. Like the whole SPEW thing. Ron is right and Hermione is wrong. Ron (along with many others) is trying to tell her that she needs to take the house-elves wishes into consideration but she refuses to listen and insists that they have been "brainwashed". I figured there would be some mention of it in the movie because of Hagrid's mission. I guess it depends on whether or not that will be included in OOTP, along with Grawp.

Oh, and AC/DC???? They never were cool. Cool bands know that there are chords other than E, A and D......... (Gargling yaks in heat was the best review that I ever read of one of their albums; of course, I wrote it!)

I'm going to pretend you didn't say that. ;)

I love all sorts of music - from Bach to country to AC/DC - with a little bluegrass mixed in (I am from the south ;))


ETA

I know the movie discussions should be in muggle studies but we were discussing how the movies have influenced people's interpretation (or misinterpretation) of Hermione's character. That applies for this topic.

Wimsey
October 6th, 2005, 5:12 am
Sorry, but I don't buy it. ...... There is no reason to increase her importance while Ron is reduced to comic relief.

You might not buy it, but that makes it no less true.


Transfering lines does diminish Ron's character. Instead of the loyal, brave friend who guides Harry through the wizarding world that he is in the books, movie Ron is reduced to comic relief.

Most people who see the movies without reading the books (i.e., most of the people who see the movies) think of Ron as loyal friend and comic relief. He's both in the books, too.

There was a very good reason that Hermione should not have had those lines regarding Mudbloods. She did not know what Mudblood meant.

She should have. It looked kind of dumb that she did not know it in the book.


As for the giants, Hermione does know about the giants and adds her two cents in later, but Ron is the one who initially explains it to Harry during the Yule Ball.

Yes, and what does he say. "They're just vicious." Ron can see that Hagrid is not: but he cannot take the next step and say to himself: "wait... if Hagrid is vicious even though he has giant blood, then maybe this whole 'giants are just vicious' thing is sort of like that 'werewolves are all deranged' thing..."

Throughout the books, Ron repeatedly fails to make generalizations contrary to what "everybody knows." He treats all contradictory evidence as exceptional, not refutation of the rule. This is part of the reason most readers think that he is a bit dim.


Honestly, I just want them to let Ron show that is not just comic relief for once. I'm hoping that the new director will be more faithful to characters, although I'm not too hopeful because Steve Kloves did write the script.

JKR has said repeatedly that Kloves understands the stories and the characters better than do most of the books' fans!



Actually, the giant bit was the one part of GOF that showed Ron does have some intelligence. He knew the reputation of giants but didn't hold it against Hagrid that he was half-giant because he knew him. He knows what the stereotypes are but he doesn't always believe in them

On the contrary, Ron displayed lack of intelligence here. He did not hold the stereotype against Hagrid, but he is assuming that Hagrid is an exception. It is Hermione who makes the intelligent conclusion: the stereotypes about Giants are as erroneous as the stereotypes about werewolves. Ron's response was that she did not know what she was talking about.

(One of the best measures of intelligence is how quickly people can assess generalizations; Ron is pretty bad at it.)


Like the whole SPEW thing. Ron is right and Hermione is wrong.

Er, Hermione is right and Ron is wrong. The Elves are magically brainwashed: it is part of their enslavement. Ron just accepts it as he does all things. Hermione recognizes that there must be something fundamentally wrong with creatures who should have free will that want to be slaves.

Again, this is Ron's problem. He accepts the world at face value. He rarely sees the patterns linking things: his explanations are always outrageously convoluted and usually with a glaring logical gap or two. Indeed, that is why readers have reached the generalization: Ron is always wrong unless he's joking whereas Hermione is always right unless she's emotional.


But, back onto that topic, this is another thing that readers seemed to miss. Our Wonder Witch was frequently fairly emotional in HBP. Malfoy illicits strong feelings of contempt from Hermione. In her reactionary hatred, she belittles him to a weak wizard in whom Voldemort could not find any use. This is why she was "out-of-character" in not taking Harry's concerns seriously. In fact, it would have been quite out-of-character for Hermione to do so.

Lobo237
October 6th, 2005, 6:33 am
You might not buy it, but that makes it no less true.
Then LOTR should have flopped if that's the case. The female prescence is still minimal and that's with the roles being extended from what's written. Niether Eowyn or Arwen are going to be confused with playing the hero role though, they're both secondary characters. Movies don't alway require a hero/heroine pair. If the story calls for it fine, but not all of them do.

She should have. It looked kind of dumb that she did not know it in the book.
Why do you feel it looked dumb? That type of derogatory slang isn't likely to be found in a textbook. She doesn't spend a lot of time with pureblood supremicists like Malfoy. She's a muggle so she wouldn't hear about it from her parents. It makes sense for Ron and Hagrid to explain it to Harry and Hermione, because it's a term from a world that they've lived every day of their lives in. It's quite consistant with the characters respective backgrounds.

random_musing
October 6th, 2005, 6:49 am
Why do you feel it looked dumb? That type of derogatory slang isn't likely to be found in a textbook. She doesn't spend a lot of time with pureblood supremicists like Malfoy. She's a muggle so she wouldn't hear about it from her parents. It makes sense for Ron and Hagrid to explain it to Harry and Hermione, because it's a term from a world that they've lived every day of their lives in. It's quite consistant with the characters respective backgrounds.
Based on the amount of info Hermione has gathered from reading various books about the wizarding world and its history and just being near fanatic purebloods like Malfoy, I think she should have known as well. Hermione is quite proud of her muggle-born heritage, I'd think she'd at least figure out more about it...that would include the prejudices against them leading her to know about the word.

Ok I know Hermione didn't do all this and I'm not saying shes a horrible, stupid character for not doing so, but there still could have been many ways to find out what a mudblood was without having someone else tell her what it was in her 2nd year.

meesha1971
October 6th, 2005, 7:00 am
You might not buy it, but that makes it no less true.

There are too many movies that do not follow that formula for it to be completely true. I realize that is a common formula for a movie with a male-female lead. These movies have three leads - 2 male and 1 female. There is no reason an ensemble cast cannot be balanced. It has been done before and the movies were successful - blockbusters in fact. As I said, Hermione's character is strong enough the way it is written in the books. There is no need to reduce other characters to make her a stronger character.

Most people who see the movies without reading the books (i.e., most of the people who see the movies) think of Ron as loyal friend and comic relief. He's both in the books, too.

Most of the comments I have read say movie Ron is an idiot and only good for comic relief. Ron's character is often misjudged because of the way he is portrayed in the movies. Go back and read some of the old Love Threads and you'll see what I mean.

She should have. It looked kind of dumb that she did not know it in the book.

Doesn't matter. JKR wrote it that she didn't know. It should have been kept that way. Really, there was no reason for her to know what that word meant until she was exposed to that kind of prejudiced.

Yes, and what does he say. "They're just vicious." Ron can see that Hagrid is not: but he cannot take the next step and say to himself: "wait... if Hagrid is vicious even though he has giant blood, then maybe this whole 'giants are just vicious' thing is sort of like that 'werewolves are all deranged' thing..."

The thing is, Ron was right. In OOTP, Hagrid tells them about the giants. They are vicious. Hagrid is not vicious because he had a wizard for a father who raised him not to be. Again, Hermione is wrong. Sometimes generalizations are right. There are always exceptions but, in this case, the majority of the giants were, in fact, proven to be vicious by nature.

Throughout the books, Ron repeatedly fails to make generalizations contrary to what "everybody knows." He treats all contradictory evidence as exceptional, not refutation of the rule. This is part of the reason most readers think that he is a bit dim.

Ron does not always agree with the generalizations. He tells it like it is. He grew up in the wizarding world and knows how people think. That doesn't mean he agrees with all of it.

JKR has said repeatedly that Kloves understands the stories and the characters better than do most of the books' fans!

In general, I would agree. I just don't like the way he dumbs down Ron's character so much. He did leave some good things in. The "slug" scene where Ron defends Hermione and he clued into the whole romance thing. To be honest, I don't know who has the control there - does the director tell him how to write the script or does he write it and the director just use what he writes? Or is it the producers?

On the contrary, Ron displayed lack of intelligence here. He did not hold the stereotype against Hagrid, but he is assuming that Hagrid is an exception. It is Hermione who makes the intelligent conclusion: the stereotypes about Giants are as erroneous as the stereotypes about werewolves. Ron's response was that she did not know what she was talking about.

(One of the best measures of intelligence is how quickly people can assess generalizations; Ron is pretty bad at it.)

Again, Ron was right and Hermione was wrong. Hagrid was the exception. OOTP proved that the giants were, in fact, vicious by nature. Even Grawp had to be "tamed".

Er, Hermione is right and Ron is wrong. The Elves are magically brainwashed: it is part of their enslavement. Ron just accepts it as he does all things. Hermione recognizes that there must be something fundamentally wrong with creatures who should have free will that want to be slaves.

Again, this is Ron's problem. He accepts the world at face value. He rarely sees the patterns linking things: his explanations are always outrageously convoluted and usually with a glaring logical gap or two. Indeed, that is why readers have reached the generalization: Ron is always wrong unless he's joking whereas Hermione is always right unless she's emotional.

Nope, Ron is right and Hermione is wrong. Ron is not the only one telling her this. Hagrid tells her this. The twins tell her this. Sirius tells her this. Everybody she tries to get to join SPEW tells her this. The majority of house-elves like being slaves - being freed is shameful. Again, there are exceptions, like Dobby, but the majority like it.

What Ron is trying to get Hermione to understand is that she is going about it the wrong way. Instead of assuming that the house-elves are brainwashed, she should talk to them and get their POV. She is just as guilty as those who keep them as slaves because she is doing the same thing in reverse - trying to force her views on them whether they agree with them or not. She should be fighting for them to have the right to choose whether they want to be slaves or whether they want to be paid employees. She's not giving them a choice anymore than their "masters" are. Her heart is in the right place but she's going about it the wrong way.

But, back onto that topic, this is another thing that readers seemed to miss. Our Wonder Witch was frequently fairly emotional in HBP. Malfoy illicits strong feelings of contempt from Hermione. In her reactionary hatred, she belittles him to a weak wizard in whom Voldemort could not find any use. This is why she was "out-of-character" in not taking Harry's concerns seriously. In fact, it would have been quite out-of-character for Hermione to do so.

Hermione has never taken Malfoy seriously. He has never given them any reason to take him seriously. She never took their suspicions about Snape seriously either after he was proven innocent in PS/SS. She and Ron did agree with Harry that Malfoy was up to something but Malfoy's own history did not support the suspicion that he was a DE. Harry had no proof and his own history with Malfoy did not give his suspicions any strength. That was not OOC for Hermione because she has never taken Malfoy seriously. He has always just been a cowardly bully and was never a real threat to them.

blue3ski
October 6th, 2005, 7:43 am
Most people who see the movies without reading the books (i.e., most of the people who see the movies) think of Ron as loyal friend and comic relief. He's both in the books, too.

She should have. It looked kind of dumb that she did not know it in the book..

Well, while this is perhaps somewhat true, the extent of Ron's loyalty as shown in the movies in somewhat diminished, I feel. Sometimes, I felt like his only role was standing behind Hero!Harry and Heroine!Hermione making witty comments and saying funny lines. The only real time I felt I saw a different aspect of Ron was in PS. In the movies, it was usually Hermione shown as being closer to Harry--which is errant. There is more to Ron than that, and I felt that the movies do take some of that aspect away.

I think Hermione not knowing about the term Mudblood was good--it shows that Hermione does not know everything. There are still things that need to be explained to her. It was logical that Ron and Hagrid do--it gives importance to their roles as people who've lived in the wizarding world all their lives. It was a time for them to show off their knowledge of the wizarding world and be 'information giver' for once

Go meesha

ispep
October 6th, 2005, 8:05 am
I actually felt both Ron and Hermione pulling away from the story line and Harry. Harry seemed to be more on his own. I agree in the past the 3 of them worked things out but I think the turning point was in GOF and the rebirth of Voldemort. If you look back to that point you'll see Harry being a little more reculsive with his thoughts and feelings. From there on they all start growing up pretty fast.

profmcgonagal
October 6th, 2005, 3:03 pm
Hermione knew in the movie what a Mudblood was..it was Harry who didn't know and had Hagrid explain as Ron was tossing Slugs across the floor.

Wimsey
October 6th, 2005, 4:13 pm
There are too many movies that do not follow that formula for it to be completely true. I realize that is a common formula for a movie with a male-female lead. These movies have three leads - 2 male and 1 female. There is no reason an ensemble cast cannot be balanced. It has been done before and the movies were successful - blockbusters in fact. As I said, Hermione's character is strong enough the way it is written in the books.

First, Hermione's character has been strongly criticized in some quarters for being too prissy. Second, these stories cannot have three leads: there is one lead, Harry, plus his side kicks. Third, the movies that do not follow this formula generally are small budget movies, not movies aiming for $300+M.

A great example of how this can hurt a movie is Fellowship of the Ring. Only 40% of the audience was female. Had as many women seen FotR as men, it would have approached $400M. It did especially dismally among the 15-25 year old women demographic.

Then two things happened. First, the girls discovered Orlando Bloom when renting the DVD and VHS. Second, The Two Towers introduced a strong female character (who was completely re-written from the book, where Eowyn has only one line!). This was the reason why it became the first sequel of a blockbuster to sell more tickets: a demographic that skipped the first movie came out for the second.

HP lacks any potential Orlando Blooms for now. It needs a strong female character to take up the half of the movie that is not Harry.



Most of the comments I have read say movie Ron is an idiot and only good for comic relief. Ron's character is often misjudged because of the way he is portrayed in the movies. Go back and read some of the old Love Threads and you'll see what I mean.

No, this is how most readers of the book see him, too.



Doesn't matter. JKR wrote it that she didn't know. It should have been kept that way. Really, there was no reason for her to know what that word meant until she was exposed to that kind of prejudiced.

First, how could she have read "Hogwarts: a History" and not know? That would be like reading the history of the American south without learning derrogatory terms for blacks, Jews and Catholics: unless you manage to skip all the pictures of Klansmen with their signs or the exerts of the speeches of the southern politicians, then it is just not possible.

Second, it does matter. If the original author screws-up, then it should be fixed. JKR screwed up there. Many people comment upon that after reading the book.


The thing is, Ron was right. In OOTP, Hagrid tells them about the giants. They are vicious. Hagrid is not vicious because he had a wizard for a father who raised him not to be. Again, Hermione is wrong. Sometimes generalizations are right. There are always exceptions but, in this case, the majority of the giants were, in fact, proven to be vicious by nature.

First, Ron is dead wrong. He makes the classic mistake: "oh, the only one I know must be an exception." Now, if Ron had met other giant descendants and they were all vicious, then, sure, Hagrid must be an exception. But the first one? And with the second one (Madame Maxine) clearly the same? The smart person (e.g., Hermione) realizes that this is just another bogus generalization. Ron immediately assumes that all of his data are exceptions despite having none in support of the generalization....

Second, although we have seen that the giants currently are vicious, we also see why: they are forced into too little territory. This historically causes strife amongst peoples. So, we see giants acting just like humans. JKR didn't just create this: as with many other things, she is borrowing from history to show the damage that rulers do to the people that they oppress.

Get a giant on his own, and it turns out that they are not vicious, however, as Grawp proves.


Ron does not always agree with the generalizations. He tells it like it is. He grew up in the wizarding world and knows how people think. That doesn't mean he agrees with all of it.

The only generalization that we see Ron reject concerns the Muggleborn.



In general, I would agree. I just don't like the way he dumbs down Ron's character so much. He did leave some good things in. The "slug" scene where Ron defends Hermione and he clued into the whole romance thing. To be honest, I don't know who has the control there - does the director tell him how to write the script or does he write it and the director just use what he writes? Or is it the producers?

Scriptwriters do the initial pass. The director then re-writes as he/she will, often with the scriptwriter and actors present. (Big-name actor often will contribute quite a bit.)

HP is a bit different. Kloves actually has worked with JKR quite a bit. She's been given discretionary veto rights: for example, Cuarůn wanted to have an organ being played



Again, Ron was right and Hermione was wrong. Hagrid was the exception. OOTP proved that the giants were, in fact, vicious by nature. Even Grawp had to be "tamed".

NOOOO!!! Both you and Ron are dead wrong here. OotP did not show that giants were vicious by nature: it showed a very different reason, which I explained above. JKR no doubt was influenced by the wars among native peoples that colonial westerners inspired by restricting them to smaller and smaller terrirtories. The westerners said the same thing that you did: Africans/Indians/etc. are just vicious peoples. They were no more vicious than anybody else. JKR is deliberately drawing a parallel to history here: do not make the same mistake that was made in the past.

As for Grawp, he was not tamed. Animals are tamed, not people. Grawp was "civilized" in the sense that he eventually adapted to wizard civilization. However, that had to be of his own free will, not because of "taming." Grawp did not want to be there: he essentially was abducted, and why should he want to be among wizards, the people who had hunted and killed his kind? We do not know exactly what happened, but eventually Grawp realized Hagrid was OK and his friend.



Nope, Ron is right and Hermione is wrong. Ron is not the only one telling her this. Hagrid tells her this. The twins tell her this. Sirius tells her this. Everybody she tries to get to join SPEW tells her this. The majority of house-elves like being slaves - being freed is shameful. Again, there are exceptions, like Dobby, but the majority like it.

And only Hermione (and now Harry, as well as Dumbledore) realize that there is something seriously wrong with this. Again, Hermione is smart enough to realize that just because it's always been like that, it is no less right. Are her tactics polished? No: but that is a question of wisdom, not intelligence. Ron simply fails to comprehend the problem.


What Ron is trying to get Hermione to understand is that she is going about it the wrong way.

No, Ron is just is not thinking again. House-elves do what house-elves do. He doesn't worry about it. Ron never encourages Hermione to see their point of view: he just asserts generalizations of the sort that have a pretty bad track record.


Hermione has never taken Malfoy seriously. He has never given them any reason to take him seriously. .... That was not OOC for Hermione because she has never taken Malfoy seriously. He has always just been a cowardly bully and was never a real threat to them.

Actually, there is no indication that Malfoy is anything other than a very good student and a very potent wizard. Yes, he is a bully, but that does not make Malfoy any less of a power. Harry sees that, but Hermione (and Ron) let their hatred blind them to this.

SSJ_Jup81
October 6th, 2005, 4:51 pm
No, this is how most readers of the book see him, too.Have any polls to prove this claim? :pFirst, how could she have read "Hogwarts: a History" and not know?Easily. I got the impression that "Hogwars: A History" was about the history of the school itself. I'm sure one could go pick up a book about the history of his or her school and get just that; the history of the school. When it was built, famous people who attended it, etc. My old High School was built in the early 60s, which means that it was around during the Civil Rights era. I never once came across anything even pertaining to that or deragatory terms used towards certain people when I was actually researching it for my school's paper and yearbook. All I found out was the actual history of the school.

For all we know, "mudblood" may be a more modern term. We know why the school was split into four houses, but who says Salazaar Slytherin used such a term or either the book itself is just quite old, before this term "mudblood" came about. I'm not surprised in the least that Hermione didn't know what a mudblood was.Second, it does matter. If the original author screws-up, then it should be fixed. JKR screwed up there. Many people comment upon that after reading the book.Once again, any proof for your claim here? That aside, I hated the fact Hermione just happened to know what a "mudblood" was. I liked how it was in the book because it showed that Hermione doesn't know everything there is about the wizarding world since she wasn't from it. Also, if it was a screw up, like you claim, I'm sure JKR would've addressed it, like she did with the wand thing in GoF.First, Ron is dead wrong. He makes the classic mistake: "oh, the only one I know must be an exception." Now, if Ron had met other giant descendants and they were all vicious, then, sure, Hagrid must be an exception. But the first one? And with the second one (Madame Maxine) clearly the same? The smart person (e.g., Hermione) realizes that this is just another bogus generalization. Ron immediately assumes that all of his data are exceptions despite having none in support of the generalization....He was just telling it like it was. Nothing wrong with that. It's not like he turned Hagrid (or Madame Maxime) away because of it.Second, although we have seen that the giants currently are vicious, we also see why: they are forced into too little territory. This historically causes strife amongst peoples. So, we see giants acting just like humans. JKR didn't just create this: as with many other things, she is borrowing from history to show the damage that rulers do to the people that they oppress.This, I agree with, so no argument from me here.
Get a giant on his own, and it turns out that they are not vicious, however, as Grawp proves.True.NOOOO!!! Both you and Ron are dead wrong here. OotP did not show that giants were vicious by nature: it showed a very different reason, which I explained above. JKR no doubt was influenced by the wars among native peoples that colonial westerners inspired by restricting them to smaller and smaller terrirtories. The westerners said the same thing that you did: Africans/Indians/etc. are just vicious peoples. They were no more vicious than anybody else. JKR is deliberately drawing a parallel to history here: do not make the same mistake that was made in the past.Wait, I thought giants were the "fighting type" and would even kill their own young or something? I got that impression from Hagrid because of what he said about his mother, but my memory is a bit iffy and I could be remembering wrong.And only Hermione (and now Harry, as well as Dumbledore) realize that there is something seriously wrong with this. Again, Hermione is smart enough to realize that just because it's always been like that, it is no less right. Are her tactics polished? No: but that is a question of wisdom, not intelligence. Ron simply fails to comprehend the problem.I still disagree with the way she goes about it. She's coming across as stubborn and haughty, imo. She's not taking the Elves' feelings into account. I agree with her, as Ron and Harry probably do as well, just her methods are off. If Ron had a real problem with House Elves being freed, instead of uncovering the clothes, like he did in OotP, he would've just tossed 'em aside to make sure they wouldn't be freed. I agree with both Ron and Hermione on this issue. Yes, they should be free (Hermione), but they should make that decision on their own (Ron).No, Ron is just is not thinking again. House-elves do what house-elves do. He doesn't worry about it. Ron never encourages Hermione to see their point of view: he just asserts generalizations of the sort that have a pretty bad track record.*Points to what I said above* And I have a question here...how can we know the elves' point of view, when Hermione herself doesn't? Has she ever just sat down and talked with them to get their feelings on the issue? Dobby's the exception, but then you have those like Winky who really liked what she did and hated being freed.Actually, there is no indication that Malfoy is anything other than a very good student and a very potent wizard. Yes, he is a bully, but that does not make Malfoy any less of a power. Harry sees that, but Hermione (and Ron) let their hatred blind them to this.He's a wimp, and has always shown to be one. He's "all bark and no bite". He always has Dumb & Dumber as his bodyguards. He never does much for himself, and then brings his money or father into the conversation to intimidate people. Draco's record was against him, especially since most of his threats are empty.

Neither Ron nor Hermione had any reason to believe Harry's accusations because everything was circumstantial. He had no concrete proof of what he claimed. Hermione needs proof before she believes practically anything. We saw what happened in OotP when Harry jumped to conclusions (although understandable); it almost got both her and Ron, as well as the others, killed.

Krumpet
October 6th, 2005, 8:10 pm
And only Hermione (and now Harry, as well as Dumbledore) realize that there is something seriously wrong with this. Again, Hermione is smart enough to realize that just because it's always been like that, it is no less right. Are her tactics polished? No: but that is a question of wisdom, not intelligence. Ron simply fails to comprehend the problem.

I do agree wholeheartedly with your point about Giants. But not with the points about SPEW. Dumbledore didn't question if the "rightness" of having House Elves as slaves. He had, he would forcibly freed the House Elves at Hogwarts. As Head Master he would have been well with in his rights, and with his personality do you honestly think he would have continued to allow something he viewed as evil to happen under his roof? He did however see what was wrong with treating House Elves like Vermin. The Hogwart's House Elves are very well taken care of, they love their work and their home.

Harry also doesn't seem to question the rightness of the House Elves Enslavement. He does himself owns one, and he has shown that he is not above ordering them to do his bidding.

Hermione is wrong about the House Elves. She thinks of them as human; and they aren't. They are beings with feelings, and intelligence; but they aren't human's and so can't be treated as such. You can, and should, treat a dog with love, respect and kindness; however that doesn't mean that you can have a dog sit down at a table for a cup of tea and a chat.

Ron doesn't seem to be opposed to the thought of House Elves being freed. The most telling scene I feel for his opinion of the whole thing is when in OotP he takes the rubbish off of the hats so that House Elves can knowingly choose if they want to be freed or not. If he was simply opposed to the idea of being free you would have thought he'd have taken the hats away, but he doesn't. Ron seems to believe that they should have a choice and say in the matter.

Both Hermione and Ron are wrong; and both are right. There should be some kind of House Elf rights on the books, which should include the house elf's right to demand to be freed. However all house elves should not simply be given clothes, their opinions about their own welfare should be taken in to consideration.

Machiavelli
October 6th, 2005, 9:20 pm
Quick note to the likelyhood of Hermione not coming across 'mudblood' as a term. It's not as though it were a reasonable word, one used descriptively - it's a horrible word. It's the worst, lowest insult imaginable. It's like the foulest racist comment you can think of. Given the type of general research books Hermione has looked into, I think it's quite understandable that she would not come across such a pejorative, offensive term. Unless she purposely went out and researched blood relations (not relatives, prejudice and relations with muggleborns of course) the word she would have seen would be 'muggleborn' - a word she does know quite well.

Krumpet
October 6th, 2005, 9:34 pm
Quick note to the likelyhood of Hermione not coming across 'mudblood' as a term. It's not as though it were a reasonable word, one used descriptively - it's a horrible word. It's the worst, lowest insult imaginable. It's like the foulest racist comment you can think of. Given the type of general research books Hermione has looked into, I think it's quite understandable that she would not come across such a pejorative, offensive term. Unless she purposely went out and researched blood relations (not relatives, prejudice and relations with muggleborns of course) the word she would have seen would be 'muggleborn' - a word she does know quite well.

Agree on all points and would like to add one more thought. When she hears the word "mudblood" for the first time it is when she is still a second year; the third year she takes "Muggle Studies" and so would probably have head the word there. But this is before that class and so it is quite understandable that she wouldn't have known what it meant.

SSJ_Jup81
October 6th, 2005, 9:37 pm
Quick note to the likelyhood of Hermione not coming across 'mudblood' as a term. It's not as though it were a reasonable word, one used descriptively - it's a horrible word. It's the worst, lowest insult imaginable. It's like the foulest racist comment you can think of. Given the type of general research books Hermione has looked into, I think it's quite understandable that she would not come across such a pejorative, offensive term. Unless she purposely went out and researched blood relations (not relatives, prejudice and relations with muggleborns of course) the word she would have seen would be 'muggleborn' - a word she does know quite well.You make a very good point. Getting right down to it, I don't even recall seeing deragatory terms in my old history textbooks (Elementary; Middle/Junior High; High School). We may have learned of prejudices against certain groups of people, but not the deragatory terms associated with them. Seems I learned of that elsewhere. There are some terms I'm hearing now that I've never once heard of or learned within school.

meesha1971
October 6th, 2005, 10:01 pm
First, Hermione's character has been strongly criticized in some quarters for being too prissy. Second, these stories cannot have three leads: there is one lead, Harry, plus his side kicks. Third, the movies that do not follow this formula generally are small budget movies, not movies aiming for $300+M.

A great example of how this can hurt a movie is Fellowship of the Ring. Only 40% of the audience was female. Had as many women seen FotR as men, it would have approached $400M. It did especially dismally among the 15-25 year old women demographic.

Then two things happened. First, the girls discovered Orlando Bloom when renting the DVD and VHS. Second, The Two Towers introduced a strong female character (who was completely re-written from the book, where Eowyn has only one line!). This was the reason why it became the first sequel of a blockbuster to sell more tickets: a demographic that skipped the first movie came out for the second.

HP lacks any potential Orlando Blooms for now. It needs a strong female character to take up the half of the movie that is not Harry.

Harry Potter has an ensemble cast. Yes, Harry is the main lead but Ron and Hermione are leads as well. There is no reason for them not to be treated equally. Unlike Eowyn, Hermione has significantly more than one line. The character, as it is written in the books, is more than strong enough.

Other movies have had an ensemble cast, kept them balanced, and been successful. Not just low budget movies either.

No, this is how most readers of the book see him, too.

No, that is how certain "shippers" see him and many of them were clearly influenced by the movies. Ron's character is a lot more complex than the movies make him out to be. You have to look at the underlying motivations.

First, how could she have read "Hogwarts: a History" and not know? That would be like reading the history of the American south without learning derrogatory terms for blacks, Jews and Catholics: unless you manage to skip all the pictures of Klansmen with their signs or the exerts of the speeches of the southern politicians, then it is just not possible.

Why would a book about the history of the school include a racial derogatory term? I have read many books that tell of racism and none of them included the derogatory terms - a good example is the "N" word. I hope you know what I am referring to because I'm not spelling it out. School books can tell about racism without using derogatory terms. I'm sure she knew that prejudice existed against muggleborns but she had never heard the term "mudblood" before.

Second, it does matter. If the original author screws-up, then it should be fixed. JKR screwed up there. Many people comment upon that after reading the book.

The author cannot screw up. It is her book and her vision. If she didn't want Hermione to know what mudblood meant that is not a mistake and certainly didn't need to be "fixed".

First, Ron is dead wrong. He makes the classic mistake: "oh, the only one I know must be an exception." Now, if Ron had met other giant descendants and they were all vicious, then, sure, Hagrid must be an exception. But the first one? And with the second one (Madame Maxine) clearly the same? The smart person (e.g., Hermione) realizes that this is just another bogus generalization. Ron immediately assumes that all of his data are exceptions despite having none in support of the generalization....

Second, although we have seen that the giants currently are vicious, we also see why: they are forced into too little territory. This historically causes strife amongst peoples. So, we see giants acting just like humans. JKR didn't just create this: as with many other things, she is borrowing from history to show the damage that rulers do to the people that they oppress.

Get a giant on his own, and it turns out that they are not vicious, however, as Grawp proves.

Ron is not wrong. He tells Harry that the giants are vicious - they were driven out of England because they were vicious. OOTP showed them to be vicious. Hagrid backs this assessment up when he tells them about his mother. Also, Ron never said that he believed Hagrid was the "only" exception. He is telling the facts as he knows them. He does not say that he agrees with it. You are putting words into the character's mouth. Just because he knows what the generalization is and tells it like it is, does not mean he agrees with it. Not once did Ron say, "I think all giants are vicious except Hagrid." He told Harry what the common views on giants were as he knew them. He did not say that he agreed with those views.

The only generalization that we see Ron reject concerns the Muggleborn.

Nor does he fully accept other generalizations. Again, you are putting words into the characters mouth.

NOOOO!!! Both you and Ron are dead wrong here. OotP did not show that giants were vicious by nature: it showed a very different reason, which I explained above. JKR no doubt was influenced by the wars among native peoples that colonial westerners inspired by restricting them to smaller and smaller terrirtories. The westerners said the same thing that you did: Africans/Indians/etc. are just vicious peoples. They were no more vicious than anybody else. JKR is deliberately drawing a parallel to history here: do not make the same mistake that was made in the past.

As for Grawp, he was not tamed. Animals are tamed, not people. Grawp was "civilized" in the sense that he eventually adapted to wizard civilization. However, that had to be of his own free will, not because of "taming." Grawp did not want to be there: he essentially was abducted, and why should he want to be among wizards, the people who had hunted and killed his kind? We do not know exactly what happened, but eventually Grawp realized Hagrid was OK and his friend.

I saw the giants as vicious by nature. That is why they were driven out of England. The giants had to be "handled" a certain way - placated - to keep them from being vicious.

I meant "tamed" as in civilized. That's why I put it in quotes. It was 2am here. I couldn't think of the right word. However, Grawp was vicious by nature. I would say that his nature is still vicious except with certain people - Hagrid and Dumbledore and probably "Hermy". JKR said that he was "more controllable".

Ron was right in the sense that the majority of giants are vicious. That is how they are viewed in general. There are methods that can be used to "placate" the giants and allow for communication without getting killed but it takes a great deal of time and patience. Hermione is right in the sense that the wizarding community should be willing to take the time and learn how to properly communicate with the giants but wrong in assuming the generalizations didn't have some basis in truth.

And only Hermione (and now Harry, as well as Dumbledore) realize that there is something seriously wrong with this. Again, Hermione is smart enough to realize that just because it's always been like that, it is no less right. Are her tactics polished? No: but that is a question of wisdom, not intelligence. Ron simply fails to comprehend the problem.

Neither Dumbledore nor Harry ever said there was something "seriously wrong" with it. Harry was the one telling Hermione to give up on SPEW. Dumbledore advocates the freedom of choice. Hogwarts has the largest number of house-elves in England - all slaves except for Dobby and Winky. If they choose to be free and get paid, Dumbledore will do it but if they want to be slaves Dumbledore will do it. That is where Hermione is wrong. She is not advocating that they have a choice. She is saying they should be freed whether they want to or not. That attitude it just as wrong as saying they should be slaves whether they want to or not.

Ron tries to get Hermione to understand that they like being slaves. He tells her that tricking them is wrong. He is right on both counts. Not once does he tell her to completely give up - like Harry does. He tries to get her to change her methods.

No, Ron is just is not thinking again. House-elves do what house-elves do. He doesn't worry about it. Ron never encourages Hermione to see their point of view: he just asserts generalizations of the sort that have a pretty bad track record.

Again, not once does he tell her to give up. He asserts that they like it and they do. The trips to the kitchens prove that. The fact that the house-elves refuse to clean Gryffindor tower because she leaves clothes out proves that. Ron never tells Hermione to completely give up but he tries to get her to see things from the house-elves point of view, he is backed up in this by the twins, Hagrid, and the numerous people she tried to get to join SPEW.

Actually, there is no indication that Malfoy is anything other than a very good student and a very potent wizard. Yes, he is a bully, but that does not make Malfoy any less of a power. Harry sees that, but Hermione (and Ron) let their hatred blind them to this.

There was every indication that Malfoy was all talk and no action. He was a spoiled little bully who didn't do anything without Crabbe and Goyle standing behind him flexing their muscles. They always got the best of him. There was no reason for anyone to assume that Malfoy would be a DE. Harry's instincts were right but he had no evidence and Malfoy's history went against the assumption. Nobody considered the fact that it might have been done as a punishment for Lucius but why would anyone assume that? How would they know that Voldemort was that angry with Lucius?

Wimsey
October 6th, 2005, 10:34 pm
Harry Potter has an ensemble cast. Yes, Harry is the main lead but Ron and Hermione are leads as well. There is no reason for them not to be treated equally.

Yes there is. It is a single protagonist story: Harry is that protagonist. Hermione & Ron are the secondary characters.

Other movies have had an ensemble cast, kept them balanced, and been successful. Not just low budget movies either.

These all are multi-protagonist stories.


No, that is how certain "shippers" see him and many of them were clearly influenced by the movies.

No, this is how Ron has been viewed by the majority of book readers, the vast majority of which are not "shippers." After all, 99% of the people who read the book never doubt that Ron and Hermione have something going between them; part of the reason Ron comes across as a bit thick


Why would a book about the history of the school include a racial derogatory term? I have read many books that tell of racism and none of them included the derogatory terms - a good example is the "N" word.

My high school history book showed pictures of people holding signs saying "N* go home" during the early attempts to integrate schools.


The author cannot screw up.

Of course they can. Book critics point it out all of the time. To an extent, this is a small plot-hole.


Ron is not wrong. He tells Harry that the giants are vicious - they were driven out of England because they were vicious. OOTP showed them to be vicious. Hagrid backs this assessment up when he tells them about his mother.

Actually, Hagrid explains why they are like that: they were not meant to live bunched up together like that. It also is noted that it is the wizards fault.

DD knew differently: he knew that if the giants were treated with respect that they could be useful allies. He knew that giants were not inherently vicious, but that the wizards had created such enmity that

Also, Ron never said that he believed Hagrid was the "only" exception. He is telling the facts as he knows them. ...... You are putting words into the character's mouth.

No, I am using words from the characters mouth. Ron states that they are just vicious. He tries to point out that Harry and Hermione don't know about what they are talking.

Ron never says what you suggest that he says.

Nor does he fully accept other generalizations. Again, you are putting words into the characters mouth.

Again, I am using words from the character's mouth. Ron always accepts the general truths, even after many of them



I saw the giants as vicious by nature. That is why they were driven out of England. The giants had to be "handled" a certain way - placated - to keep them from being vicious.

One of the key themes of Harry Potter is that we do not have "natures." Giants are nasty towards humans because

I meant "tamed" as in civilized. That's why I put it in quotes. It was 2am here. I couldn't think of the right word. However, Grawp was vicious by nature.

We have no examples of Grawp being vicious without provocation. You are putting deeds in the character's "mouth."


Ron was right in the sense that the majority of giants are vicious. That is how they are viewed in general.

There is no evidence of this. The wizards have persecuted the giants and the giants have fought back. We have no evidence that giants would not leave wizards alone.


There are methods that can be used to "placate" the giants and allow for communication without getting killed but it takes a great deal of time and patience.

This borders upon being fan-fiction. Hagrid has to restrain Grawp from returning home, but we have no evidence that Grawp wanted to do anything but return to his home.


Ron tries to get Hermione to understand that they like being slaves. He tells her that tricking them is wrong. He is right on both counts. Not once does he tell her to completely give up - like Harry does. He tries to get her to change her methods.

Well, look at it this way: Hermione is based on JKR. Hermione thinks it's wrong. So, what must it be in Potterverse?

Again, House-elves have been deprived of free-will. One of the primary themes of HP is that it is our choices that make us what we are. So, what does this say when there is an entire sentient race magically enslaved so as to deprive them of free will?


There was every indication that Malfoy was all talk and no action.

There was no indication that Malfoy was not a skilled wizard. He seemed well versed in jinxes. He was (presumably) an "Outstanding" OWL potions student, as he registered prior to learning that Snape was no longer teaching the course.


This will sound harsh, but I think that you are missing some of the key points of the HP books. Sentient races do not have characters any more than do any others, unless they are magically enslaved (a la House Elves). You also are misreading what Ron's mistakes are, and thus grossly misreading his character. Now, Ron has native intelligence, but he does not think. He does not process individual events into generalizations. He is intellectually lazy. This is understandable: he grew up in this world and he takes it for granted. However, understandable does not alter what it is.

Once you understand this, then you will see why most readers (and almost none of them Harry/Hermione shippers as they represent a tiny fraction of the readers) view Ron as a bit thick.

marlysg
October 6th, 2005, 11:36 pm
The only problem I had with Cuaron is that he sacrificed key elements in the story for artistic visualization. The film was beautiful but I would have gladly given up seeing the Whomping Willow spin in order to get the full story of the Marauders.

I too would have liked to see more of that Background plot as well.

However, I don't think that it is fair to say that Cuarůn sacrificed key elements. It is just as likely that they were cut by the writer/adapter of the screen play. It is the screenwriter's job to do the adaptation from book to script. The director is the one that brings the screenplay to film. The director may cut scenes if necessary, but we do not know for sure WHO made the cuts of those missing elements.

:tu:
But, back onto that topic, this is another thing that readers seemed to miss. Our Wonder Witch was frequently fairly emotional in HBP. Malfoy illicits strong feelings of contempt from Hermione. In her reactionary hatred, she belittles him to a weak wizard in whom Voldemort could not find any use. This is why she was "out-of-character" in not taking Harry's concerns seriously. In fact, it would have been quite out-of-character for Hermione to do so.

Very good point here! :tu:

From the beginning, Malfoy has been the one to draw negative emotions from Hermione, but through the books the way she reacts to these negative emotions has evolved. Like a typical 16 yr old girl, she gives little importance to someone she deems contemptable. She views Harry's behavior as that of a typical 16yr old boy, always looking for something sinister from someone he holds in contempt, so she wouldn't take Harry's suspicions too seriously.

...Wait, I thought giants were the "fighting type" and would even kill their own young or something? I got that impression from Hagrid because of what he said about his mother, but my memory is a bit iffy and I could be remembering wrong.I still disagree with the way she goes about it.

Hagrid does say something like this when describing his mother, but I don't think we can take Hagrid's word as fact though. For one, we have seen that he has a tendency to exagerate things a bit. But, more importantly, Hagrid really did not grow up in the Giant's world. He lost his mother's influence fairly early in life, so his view of the Giant culture is clouded by the Wizard's point of view. Even if that were not the case, and he remembered hios mother really well, he would at least have been guilty of making the same kind of generalization that is usually made by Ron.


... She's coming across as stubborn and haughty, imo. She's not taking the Elves' feelings into account. I agree with her, as Ron and Harry probably do as well, just her methods are off. If Ron had a real problem with House Elves being freed, instead of uncovering the clothes, like he did in OotP, he would've just tossed 'em aside to make sure they wouldn't be freed. I agree with both Ron and Hermione on this issue. Yes, they should be free (Hermione), but they should make that decision on their own (Ron).*Points to what I said above* And I have a question here...how can we know the elves' point of view, when Hermione herself doesn't? Has she ever just sat down and talked with them to get their feelings on the issue? Dobby's the exception, but then you have those like Winky who really liked what she did and hated being freed.


I tend to agree with you here. Both Ron And Hermione are right in some respects and wrong in others. Hermione as a character seems to see more of the larger picture, but has a harder time seeing the smaller details. Ron is very accepting of what has always been, but does not always see the larger picture. Hermione like Dd, see that the enslavement of the House-elves is wrong. What Hermione does not see is that it is not simply an issue of setting them free. They have to come to see and understand what freedom is and what it means, and then want to be free. Hermione does not see that freeing the House elves is more easily said than done, and it willnot be a simple one-step process.


...He's a wimp, and has always shown to be one. He's "all bark and no bite". He always has Dumb & Dumber as his bodyguards. He never does much for himself, and then brings his money or father into the conversation to intimidate people. Draco's record was against him, especially since most of his threats are empty.

Neither Ron nor Hermione had any reason to believe Harry's accusations because everything was circumstantial. He had no concrete proof of what he claimed. Hermione needs proof before she believes practically anything. We saw what happened in OotP when Harry jumped to conclusions (although understandable); it almost got both her and Ron, as well as the others, killed.

I agree that what we have seen of Draco ( from Harry's POV) makes him seem "all show", but using others to do dirty work and trying to intimidate others is usually the beginning to bullying behavior, which usually leads to something worse., but you are right that Hermione, ever logical, would need actual proof. We have never seen her rely on instinct, so it would have been out of character for her to rely solely on Harry's instinct regarding Draco, given what she knows about Draco. Relying on Harry's instincts about LV, is different, since she has only harry's knowledge of LV to supplement what she has read, having no personal contact with LV in any way (yet).

PotionA
October 6th, 2005, 11:36 pm
My high school history book showed pictures of people holding signs saying "N* go home" during the early attempts to integrate schools.

I don't think Hogwarts: A History or History of Magic would use the term mudblood since it's considered offensive. These textbooks seem very formal and just provide readers with background information on the magical world. They might've referred to it as muggleborn, which is the appropriate name for people with no magical background. And Hermione had these books memorized by the time she joined Hogwarts so she was bound to be familiar with the word mudblood if it was mentioned.

marlysg
October 6th, 2005, 11:55 pm
I do agree wholeheartedly with your point about Giants. But not with the points about SPEW. Dumbledore didn't question if the "rightness" of having House Elves as slaves. He had, he would forcibly freed the House Elves at Hogwarts. As Head Master he would have been well with in his rights, and with his personality do you honestly think he would have continued to allow something he viewed as evil to happen under his roof? He did however see what was wrong with treating House Elves like Vermin. The Hogwart's House Elves are very well taken care of, they love their work and their home. Not necessarily. DD is a wise man. He would know that even though the house elf enslavement is wrong, it is not simply a matter of freeing them. If it were that simple, then why did the house elves avoid picking up Hermione's clothes? ( for more see my post above) Also, supposing that DD freed all of the Hosue elves at Hogwarts, then what do they do? Their only choice would be to remain working at Hogwarts for wages. If they left Hogwarts would they really be free? How would they make a living? what would they do? Would wizardkind easily accept them as being free? Probably not immediately, if ever. DD, with his wisdom and experience would recognize that this is not a winable battle yet. Hermione on the other hand, does not have the wisdom or experience to understand this.

Harry also doesn't seem to question the rightness of the House Elves Enslavement. He does himself owns one, and he has shown that he is not above ordering them to do his bidding. I dont think it is that simple. I dont think he has ever questioned whether it is right or wrong, but he knows that it is not safe to free Kreacher, either. His orders to kreacher are limited also. he only seeks Kreacher out when he believes his need is for the greater good, not for some simple personal gain.

Hermione is wrong about the House Elves. She thinks of them as human; and they aren't. They are beings with feelings, and intelligence; but they aren't human's and so can't be treated as such. You can, and should, treat a dog with love, respect and kindness; however that doesn't mean that you can have a dog sit down at a table for a cup of tea and a chat. I dont think that you can really compare house elves and dogs. A dog simply is unable to sit down to tea and have a chat. A house elf is capable of doing so, though it is not in his nature. House elves are much more sentient a being than dogs. And they are capable of many of the activities that humans do.


Both Hermione and Ron are wrong; and both are right. There should be some kind of House Elf rights on the books, which should include the house elf's right to demand to be freed. However all house elves should not simply be given clothes, their opinions about their own welfare should be taken in to consideration.

This I totally agree with. It will take some time before all hosuelves can see what freedom would mean to them.

Scatterbrain
October 7th, 2005, 12:14 am
Well, look at it this way: Hermione is based on JKR. Hermione thinks it's wrong. So, what must it be in Potterverse?

Do you really believe then that everything Hermione believes must be right in 'Potterverse'?

JKR herself has said that what Hermione is doing with the house elves is wrong and naive. It's not that her intentions are bad it's that she is hurting the very people she seems to be trying to protect. The thing with Hermione trying to get them to wear clothes by trickery was repulsive, especially considering what happened to Winky when she was freed. Imagine all of Hogwarts house elves being instantly forced with clothes, and what might happen to them. That was something that Ron tried to put a stop to and something that he was right about. There are indeed things that should be done for the house elves. But nothing Hermione has down so far has been good.

So obviously JKR does not believe that to be right. Hermione was partly based upon her as she was when she was younger. She's older and wiser now but I've no doubt she understands the stupid mistakes people can make when they suddenly start getting political and believing they can change things in a day.

meesha1971
October 7th, 2005, 1:48 am
Well, look at it this way: Hermione is based on JKR. Hermione thinks it's wrong. So, what must it be in Potterverse?

Again, House-elves have been deprived of free-will. One of the primary themes of HP is that it is our choices that make us what we are. So, what does this say when there is an entire sentient race magically enslaved so as to deprive them of free will?

The point is that Hermione is trying to do the same thing. She is not offering them free will. She is saying "it has to be done my way". Her behavior is just as bad as the people who enslaved them in the first place.

Nowhere in the books does it say that the house-elves were magically brainwashed or coerced into slavery. We do not know the entire story behind their enslavement. The house-elf situation appeared to be intended as a learning process for Hermione - for her to learn that she is not always right and she should take other's opinions and wishes into consideration.


There was no indication that Malfoy was not a skilled wizard. He seemed well versed in jinxes. He was (presumably) an "Outstanding" OWL potions student, as he registered prior to learning that Snape was no longer teaching the course.

I never said Malfoy was not a skilled wizard or that he wasn't intelligent. I said he was a cowardly bully. Malfoy has never shown that he would be capable of being a DE at 16. He has never made an aggressive move without having Crabbe and Goyle standing behind him flexing their muscles. He is a show off and a braggart. He was an unlikely choice as a DE at the age of 16.

The point is that Hermione and Ron have never taken Malfoy as a serious threat. It was not out of character for Hermione not to take him seriously.

This will sound harsh, but I think that you are missing some of the key points of the HP books. Sentient races do not have characters any more than do any others, unless they are magically enslaved (a la House Elves). You also are misreading what Ron's mistakes are, and thus grossly misreading his character. Now, Ron has native intelligence, but he does not think. He does not process individual events into generalizations. He is intellectually lazy. This is understandable: he grew up in this world and he takes it for granted. However, understandable does not alter what it is.

We do not know that the house-elves were magically enslaved. That has never been said. We only know that they like being slaved and find it shameful to be freed. Dobby is the exception because of the treatment he received from the Malfoys. There may be other exceptions as well. Hermione's heart is in the right place but she is going about it the wrong way because she refuses to listen to anyone whose opinion differs from hers. She should be following Dumbledore's example and advocating the freedom of choice.

I am not misreading Ron's mistakes. I do see his flaws. I choose not to focus on only his flaws and look at his overall character. Overall he is a decent person who makes mistakes. To truly understand any of the characters you have to look at the good and the bad and look at the underlying motivations. It helps to have an open mind and not be influenced by your own beliefs and to try and see things from the character's POV.

Once you understand this, then you will see why most readers (and almost none of them Harry/Hermione shippers as they represent a tiny fraction of the readers) view Ron as a bit thick.

Again, I am not referring to people who say that Ron is "a bit thick". I am referring to those who see him as an idiot with no purpose to the story other than comic relief - who question why he is there at all. Those who refuse to look at his good qualities and weigh them in with his bad qualities and instead focus only on the bad. The majority of the posts that I have seen that degrade Ron's character to this extent came from shippers.

I also see Ron as a bit thick but by no means stupid. I also see that he takes some things for granted. I also see that he is sometimes right about those things. I choose not to infer a "real world" mentality when it comes to sentient races that do not exist in the real world. I go by the facts given in the books - not my own personal beliefs.

The giants were vicious. Being forced to live bunched up together made them more vicious. However, there were ways to communicate with them and not get killed. Ron told Harry the truth as he knew it and he was right for the most part. Hermione's attitude would have gotten her killed had she ever come into contact with giants but she was right in the sense that the wizarding community should put more effort into maintaining good relations.

The stuff on the movies we're going to have to agree to disagree. I never agreed with the corporate mentality on those issues. I think its a crock to be honest. I pay no attention to "demographic studies" because they don't show anything. They take a small percentage, average the numbers, and that is supposed to represent the entire population. You can't "predict" how well a movie will do that way. Case in point - Star Wars was expected to be a flop based on those demographic studies. The same thing goes for the TV rating system. Many good shows get cancelled because they have low ratings but the ratings don't actually represent the number of people who actually watch the show - hence numerous letter writing campaigns done in attempt to prevent favorite shows from being cancelled. The system doesn't work and hopefully someday they will realize that and stop trying to "predict" what people want to see.

Couple of things I forgot before.

My high school history book showed pictures of people holding signs saying "N* go home" during the early attempts to integrate schools.

Of course they can. Book critics point it out all of the time. To an extent, this is a small plot-hole.

There is no reason for Hogwarts, A History of include a derogatory racial slur. It has the story of Slytherin and Gryffindor's fight but uses the word muggleborns. I am sure Hermione was aware that the prejudice existed but she was not aware of the word mudblood or what it meant until Ron and Hagrid explained it.

JKR wrote it so that Hermione did not know. This is not a plot-hole. It made perfect sense that Hermione did not know what mudblood meant. It was not a mistake that needed to be fixed. It should have been left the way it was written. Having Hermione know what mudblood meant did not make any sense and created a plot hole.

We have no examples of Grawp being vicious without provocation. You are putting deeds in the character's "mouth."

So, Hagrid beat himself up while he was trying to teach Grawp English? I don't think so. That was not provocation. Hagrid was doing his best to be nice to Grawp and teach him and was beaten in return.

Krumpet
October 7th, 2005, 2:34 am
Not necessarily. DD is a wise man. He would know that even though the house elf enslavement is wrong, it is not simply a matter of freeing them. If it were that simple, then why did the house elves avoid picking up Hermione's clothes? ( for more see my post above) Also, supposing that DD freed all of the Hosue elves at Hogwarts, then what do they do? Their only choice would be to remain working at Hogwarts for wages. If they left Hogwarts would they really be free? How would they make a living? what would they do? Would wizardkind easily accept them as being free? Probably not immediately, if ever. DD, with his wisdom and experience would recognize that this is not a winable battle yet. Hermione on the other hand, does not have the wisdom or experience to understand this.

Dumbledore could have forced the House Elves at Hogwarts to except wages, and clothes. They would not have had to leave, and face a world not ready for them. But could have staid at Hogwarts in their current capacity only "free". However he didn't. If one such as Dobby wanted payment he was willing to oblige but he seemed to realize the exception is not the majority.

I dont think it is that simple. I dont think he has ever questioned whether it is right or wrong, but he knows that it is not safe to free Kreacher, either. His orders to kreacher are limited also. he only seeks Kreacher out when he believes his need is for the greater good, not for some simple personal gain.

Nothing about Harry's life is simple. ;) However if Harry had an honest objection to it I doubt he would have used Kreacher even for the greater good. Dobby had volunteered to do it. Once Dobby volunteered; there really was not the NEED to make Kreacher do something he didn't want to do. However Harry did make Kreacher fulfill a task against his will. This makes me think that Harry doesn't see the anything inherently wrong with the House Elf enslavement; but rather with the abuse of an elf.

I dont think that you can really compare house elves and dogs. A dog simply is unable to sit down to tea and have a chat. A house elf is capable of doing so, though it is not in his nature. House elves are much more sentient a being than dogs. And they are capable of many of the activities that humans do.

Perhaps I should have chosen a better example. Though I will never agree that a house elf is more sentient then a dog, I've known to many dogs that where people. However you get the jest of it. There are things that Humans do that other non-humans would not understand, not enjoy, or else not function well doing. Especially in the world of Harry Potter not all "people" are humans; and so not all people should be treated as humans. However all people should be treated like people.

This I totally agree with. It will take some time before all hosuelves can see what freedom would mean to them.

Yeah for agreement. :D


So, Hagrid beat himself up while he was trying to teach Grawp English? I don't think so. That was not provocation. Hagrid was doing his best to be nice to Grawp and teach him and was beaten in return.

Here I do disagree with you. Hagrid effectively kidnapped Grawp; and forcibly assimilated him into a culture against Grawp's will. Did Hagrid have noble intentions? Absolutely, but that doesn't change the fact that Grawp was well within his rights to fight Hagrid physically.

The Giant's may not be the gentlest race in the world, but they aren't as vicious as the wizarding community believes them. The simple fact that Hagrid and Maxine exist is proof of that. If Giants where as vicious as their rep made them then Hagrid's mom would have killed Hagrid's dad long before Hagrid was conceived, and would have killed Hagrid if he was born.

GinnyRules
October 7th, 2005, 2:53 am
The really good bands have been around for a while. AC/DC was around when my parents were in college, as well as Aerosmith, The Rolling Stones... I will never forget the shock I recieved when I found out my parents were *gasp* cool! They liked all of "my" favorite bands. Imagine my surprise, when I found out how long those bands had been around. :rotfl:

As for the movies, a lot of the things that I didn't like can be blamed on Steve Kloves - he's the one giving all of Ron's good lines to Hermione. :grumble: I'm sure the director plays a part in that too but Kloves wrote the script that way. If he has Hermione telling Harry about the giants in GOF, I'm gonna be mad. I'm looking forward to having a new screenwriter for OOTP. Hopefully they'll get one who will put the balance back into the trio.
I am annoyed about the changes they made in the movies, but I guess they have to emphasise on specifeic aspects of the characters in the movies. Hermione is the information giver and Ron is the comic relief.I really hope they show how Hermione and Ron (especially Ron) mature in later movies, because if they don't I'll be angry.

One of my favourite singers who comes from a while ago is Bob Dylan. I've always listened to his music. :eyebrows: (I have no idea why I put that smiley there).

meesha1971
October 7th, 2005, 3:12 am
Here I do disagree with you. Hagrid effectively kidnapped Grawp; and forcibly assimilated him into a culture against Grawp's will. Did Hagrid have noble intentions? Absolutely, but that doesn't change the fact that Grawp was well within his rights to fight Hagrid physically.

The Giant's may not be the gentlest race in the world, but they aren't as vicious as the wizarding community believes them. The simple fact that Hagrid and Maxine exist is proof of that. If Giants where as vicious as their rep made them then Hagrid's mom would have killed Hagrid's dad long before Hagrid was conceived, and would have killed Hagrid if he was born.

I think Grawp's reaction was extreme, especially considering the size advantage he has. But the giants were vicious and made even more vicious by their exile. I'm not saying they were so vicious they killed their own children or anything like that and I do think that the wizarding world should put aside their fear and try to facilitate communication with the giants but, if they do, it will have to be done carefully in the manner that Hagrid described to prevent anyone from getting killed.

I am annoyed about the changes they made in the movies, but I guess they have to emphasise on specifeic aspects of the characters in the movies. Hermione is the information giver and Ron is the comic relief.I really hope they show how Hermione and Ron (especially Ron) mature in later movies, because if they don't I'll be angry.

Same here.

One of my favourite singers who comes from a while ago is Bob Dylan. I've always listened to his music. :eyebrows: (I have no idea why I put that smiley there).

I like too many different types of music to pick a favorite. Lynard Skynard is a good one.

random_musing
October 7th, 2005, 3:20 am
I don't think Hogwarts: A History or History of Magic would use the term mudblood since it's considered offensive. These textbooks seem very formal and just provide readers with background information on the magical world. They might've referred to it as muggleborn, which is the appropriate name for people with no magical background. And Hermione had these books memorized by the time she joined Hogwarts so she was bound to be familiar with the word mudblood if it was mentioned.
Well I would think that at least some of the books would have some reference to the..."m" word lets say. I would also think Hermione would at least try to learn more about her muggle-born heritage and I'm sure mudblood would come up somewhere. But you know what, its not important, forget it.

Krumpet
October 7th, 2005, 3:24 am
I think Grawp's reaction was extreme, especially considering the size advantage he has.

I still disagree. Imagine what your own reaction would be if you where kidnapped, taken to a place far away from your home, continually bound, and then forced to learn the language of you kidnapper. What would your reaction be?

Hagrid said that Grawp wanted to go home; so it stands to reason that many of Hagrid's injuries may have happened while Grawp was trying to escape, and not simply beating up Hagrid for the fun of it.

I'm not saying they were so vicious they killed their own children or anything like that and I do think that the wizarding world should put aside their fear and try to facilitate communication with the giants but, if they do, it will have to be done carefully in the manner that Hagrid described to prevent anyone from getting killed.

I completely agree here. :)

meesha1971
October 7th, 2005, 3:57 am
I still disagree. Imagine what your own reaction would be if you where kidnapped, taken to a place far away from your home, continually bound, and then forced to learn the language of you kidnapper. What would your reaction be?

Hagrid said that Grawp wanted to go home; so it stands to reason that many of Hagrid's injuries may have happened while Grawp was trying to escape, and not simply beating up Hagrid for the fun of it.

No, I don't think Grawp beat him up for the fun of it. I was thinking in terms of later on in the year, after Hagrid has been working with and Grawp has learned some English. Hagrid was still getting a lot of "mysterious" injuries.

marlysg
October 7th, 2005, 4:00 am
I still disagree. Imagine what your own reaction would be if you where kidnapped, taken to a place far away from your home, continually bound, and then forced to learn the language of you kidnapper. What would your reaction be?

Hagrid said that Grawp wanted to go home; so it stands to reason that many of Hagrid's injuries may have happened while Grawp was trying to escape, and not simply beating up Hagrid for the fun of it.
:)


I totally agree with you here. Grawp probably does not realize how strong he is compared to humans. I imagine him trying to pick up Hermione or Harry would be like a human child trying to catch a butterfly without hurting it.

glowing_ice
October 7th, 2005, 4:08 am
Yes, Hermione did have a HUGE change in personality, but perhaps we're looking at it from the wrong angle. Maybe she had always been like that, but had never really opened up until this book.

And not to mention her crush on and Ron, and Won-Won and Lav-Lav making out 24/7. I could totally relate to how she was feeling, because a guy I really liked last year turned out to be ---erm, I'm going to get in trouble if I say the word. But you know what I mean. I wasn't myself for a whole semester. I was really moany groany, and had a quick temper.

People don't need to hate Hermione for who she became, because she's always going to be our special friend, Hermione Granger. I truly respect Jo's plot, so yeah, don't hate, appreciate.

Krumpet
October 7th, 2005, 4:31 am
No, I don't think Grawp beat him up for the fun of it. I was thinking in terms of later on in the year, after Hagrid has been working with and Grawp has learned some English. Hagrid was still getting a lot of "mysterious" injuries.

It's still hard to know though. We never see any of Hagrid's lessons; we don't know when Grawp changed his mind about going home.

Grawp doesn't appear to want to harm either Harry or Hermione though when Hagrid brings them to him He reaches out for Hermione but, I think this more to do with curiosity then anything else. In all Grawp's actions where pretty understandable, and many humans would have acted worse in the same predicament.

One of the things I find interesting about Grawp in relation to Hermione is that Hermione seems take a bit of a hypocritical stance on it. She tells Hagrid that he shouldn't have forced Grawp to come. This is her being a bit of hypocrite. Hagrid's reason's for wanting Grawp in the Forbidden Forest are equally as noble as Hermione's reason's for trying to trick the House Elves into freedom. Both where imposing authority on an unwilling subject, in order "better" the subjects' lives. Hermione's attempts where unsuccessful; Hagrid's where.

I totally agree with you here. Grawp probably does not realize how strong he is compared to humans. I imagine him trying to pick up Hermione or Harry would be like a human child trying to catch a butterfly without hurting it.

I agree with this especailly in reference to Harry and Hermione. I think Grawp held a fair grudge against Hagrid for quite a while.

meesha1971
October 7th, 2005, 5:15 am
It's still hard to know though. We never see any of Hagrid's lessons; we don't know when Grawp changed his mind about going home.

Grawp doesn't appear to want to harm either Harry or Hermione though when Hagrid brings them to him He reaches out for Hermione but, I think this more to do with curiosity then anything else. In all Grawp's actions where pretty understandable, and many humans would have acted worse in the same predicament.

That's true, we don't. We do see that Hagrid is injured frequently right up to the time he was "fired" in OOTP though. I think Hagrid and Grawp came to an understanding sometime during the summer.

I always picture King Kong when I read that bit where Grawp meets Hermione. I don't think he noticed Harry.

One of the things I find interesting about Grawp in relation to Hermione is that Hermione seems take a bit of a hypocritical stance on it. She tells Hagrid that he shouldn't have forced Grawp to come. This is her being a bit of hypocrite. Hagrid's reason's for wanting Grawp in the Forbidden Forest are equally as noble as Hermione's reason's for trying to trick the House Elves into freedom. Both where imposing authority on an unwilling subject, in order "better" the subjects' lives. Hermione's attempts where unsuccessful; Hagrid's where.

That is a good comparison, although there is a little bit of a difference. Hagrid did try to explain to Grawp what he was doing - Grawp couldn't understand. I'm not even sure if he understood Hagrid was his brother. That may have made the difference - realizing that they were brothers.

Wimsey
October 7th, 2005, 6:03 am
The point is that Hermione is trying to do the same thing. She is not offering them free will. She is saying "it has to be done my way". Her behavior is just as bad as the people who enslaved them in the first place.

Again, you completely misunderstand what Hermione is doing. She is saying "live for yourselves, not other people." That requires free will.

Nowhere in the books does it say that the house-elves were magically brainwashed or coerced into slavery.

This is given in CoS, when Dobby explains the terms of the House-elve enslavement. How else are they enslaved, if not by magic, anyway?


I am not misreading Ron's mistakes. I do see his flaws. I choose not to focus on only his flaws and look at his overall character. Overall he is a decent person who makes mistakes.

Of course: I never said that Ron is a bad one. However, he is one that frequently does not think. He fails to learn, in the sense that he treats observations contrary to generalizations as exceptions. This is elementary logic: when given "All X are Y" statements and you see an X that is not Y, then the thinking person goes: "Not all X are Y", not "All X but my chum Hagrid are Y."

Ron's problem is that he's learned that "All A are B" is false and "All K are L" is false, yet when given another generalization with a contradiction, he still thinks of it as an exception rather than a falsification.

This is why most people perceive Ron as a bit thick and good generally for comic relief. Remember, this view of Ron predates the movies considerably.


The giants were vicious. Being forced to live bunched up together made them more vicious.

There is no evidence for this except the beliefs of wizards who held other erroneous beliefs. Again, why would Dumbledore urge that envoys be sent to the Giants if they were naturally vicious? Again (again), this is one of the primary themes of the books: stereotypes of this nature are false.


Ron told Harry the truth as he knew it and he was right for the most part.

We have no evidence of that. Yes, there were some giants who sided with the Death Eaters. But the initial Gurg was willing to listen to Dumbledore's envoy. After he was killed, many others were willing to listen, until they were terrorized by those siding with the DEs.

Now, you might say "Well, humans are vicious animals, too" and you would be right. However, we have no evidence that giants are naturally any more vicious than are humans.


I never agreed with the corporate mentality on those issues. I think its a crock to be honest. I pay no attention to "demographic studies" because they don't show anything.

As someone who does and teaches statistics professionally, I can assure you that you have not got a clue about what you are writing.



There is no reason for Hogwarts, A History of include a derogatory racial slur. It has the story of Slytherin and Gryffindor's fight but uses the word muggleborns. I am sure Hermione was aware that the prejudice existed but she was not aware of the word mudblood or what it meant until Ron and Hagrid explained it.

It has the same reason for doing so as current history books have for including racial slurs: to warn the potential targets of these slurs what kind of people they are facing and to teach others the barbarity of the historical figures who used them.


JKR wrote it so that Hermione did not know. This is not a plot-hole. It made perfect sense that Hermione did not know what mudblood meant. It was not a mistake that needed to be fixed.

Many if not most people disagreed.


So, Hagrid beat himself up while he was trying to teach Grawp English? I don't think so. That was not provocation. Hagrid was doing his best to be nice to Grawp and teach him and was beaten in return.

Hagrid had abducted Grawp from his home and was refusing to allow Grawp to return. In Grawp's mind, he was kidnapped. Grawp never wanted to go with Hagrid in the first place.

Now, I will not state that what Hagrid did was "wrong": he genuinely thought (and perhaps correctly) that he was doing it for his brother's own good. However, Grawp clearly did not see it that way. It is not vicious to attack your kidnapper: it is common sense.

Had Grawp done it just for fun or because of his "nature," then your belief would have some support. However, there is no indication that Grawp attacked Hagrid for any other reason than to attempt to escape and return to his (Grawp's) home.

meesha1971
October 7th, 2005, 7:28 am
Again, you completely misunderstand what Hermione is doing. She is saying "live for yourselves, not other people." That requires free will.

No, I am not misunderstanding. Hermione refuses to listen to anyone who doesn't completely agree with her about the house-elves. She refuses to listen to the house-elves themselves. When they won't listen to her, she tries to trick them into freedom - offending them to the point that none of them will clean Gryffindor tower and Dobby has to do it alone.

Hermione is not going to the house-elves and saying you should have the right to choose. She is going to them and saying they should think like she does. Their wishes don't matter because she is right and they are wrong. They should do what she wants them to do regardless of what they want for themselves.

Dumbledore advocates the right for them to choose. If they want to be slaves, he allows them to be slaves and treats them very well. If they want to be free and get paid, he allows that and pays them. He leaves the choice up to the house-elves. It appears that Dobby and Winky are the only ones who are free - the others wish to remain slaves.

This is given in CoS, when Dobby explains the terms of the House-elve enslavement. How else are they enslaved, if not by magic, anyway?

There is a magical binding to their family but there is nothing that says they were magically brainwashed. Dobby was magically bound to the Malfoys but he certainly wasn't brainwashed - he wanted to be free. That says that none of them are brainwashed. They like being slaves and being freed is a disgrace. There are exceptions, such as Dobby but the majority of them like it.

Dumbledore's actions also enforce this. He appeared to give them the choice. Dobby wanted to remain free and be paid - Dumbledore allowed that. The other house-elves felt the mere idea of being freed was disgraceful, Dumbledore allowed them to remain enslaved.

Hagrid told Hermione that freeing them would be doing them an unkindness. Taking away their work would make them unhappy and offering to pay them would insult them. If there were some sort of magical brainwashing in effect, I think he would have mentioned it. He knows about magical creatures.

Of course: I never said that Ron is a bad one. However, he is one that frequently does not think. He fails to learn, in the sense that he treats observations contrary to generalizations as exceptions. This is elementary logic: when given "All X are Y" statements and you see an X that is not Y, then the thinking person goes: "Not all X are Y", not "All X but my chum Hagrid are Y."

Ron's problem is that he's learned that "All A are B" is false and "All K are L" is false, yet when given another generalization with a contradiction, he still thinks of it as an exception rather than a falsification.

This is why most people perceive Ron as a bit thick and good generally for comic relief. Remember, this view of Ron predates the movies considerably.

Let me put it this way. I've been coming to these forums since February. The majority of the posts that I see flaming Ron's character have come from people whose views were skewed by the movies - a lot of them posted "evidence" from the movies saying it was from the books. Now, I'm not talking about people saying he's "a bit thick". I'm talking about the extreme hatred - the ones saying DIE RON DIE - saying he's nothing short of a wife abuser in the making and couldn't add 2 + 2 without help because he's dumb as a rock - extremely negative posts.

Yes, Ron is a bit thick at times, immature at times, and unintentionally mean at times. Overall, he is a decent person. He is not stupid. He is just lazy when it comes to schoolwork. He is intelligent. He gets the same grades as Harry. He's brilliant at chess, which requires intelligence and strategical thinking. There are times when he "gets" something that Hermione misses. He has a good heart and is very loyal to his friends and family.

Ron's biggest problem is his insecurity, his lack of confidence in himself. As he gains confidence in himself, he becomes more mature. Ron has a lot of potential if you're willing to look for it.

There is no evidence for this except the beliefs of wizards who held other erroneous beliefs. Again, why would Dumbledore urge that envoys be sent to the Giants if they were naturally vicious? Again (again), this is one of the primary themes of the books: stereotypes of this nature are false.

We have no evidence of that. Yes, there were some giants who sided with the Death Eaters. But the initial Gurg was willing to listen to Dumbledore's envoy. After he was killed, many others were willing to listen, until they were terrorized by those siding with the DEs.

Now, you might say "Well, humans are vicious animals, too" and you would be right. However, we have no evidence that giants are naturally any more vicious than are humans.

My impression was that Dumbledore wanted to get the giants on their side before Voldemort got them on his. Being vicious by nature, it would be difficult to get them to their side - Voldemort's side would have more appeal. Getting them to join their side would require re-building communication and getting the giants to curb their vicious tendencies. It would be a long process.

Hagrid enforced this impression. They had to walk into the camp with their present held high so the other giants wouldn't kill them on sight. In order to get the initial Gurg to listen, they had to genuflect and offer presents - basically, they had to suck up a great deal before he would even listen to them and they had to take it slow so he wouldn't kill them just for telling him too much information at once.

Hagrid kept saying things like "they would've killed us but..." or "they would've attacked us but...". So, it appears that Dumbledore realizes that the giants natural tendencies are to be vicious but those tendencies can be curbed with the proper communication. It would be better to have them on their side than on Voldemort's.

As someone who does and teaches statistics professionally, I can assure you that you have not got a clue about what you are writing.

I took statistics - got an A too. ;) I really hated that class but it met a general ed requirement. My professor told us that the larger the population you are trying to predict, the greater the margin for error. He used the TV rating system as an example. We also discussed the flaws in the system for demographic studies.

How many movies have been huge successes in spite of the demographics saying they wouldn't? How many movies have flopped in spite of the demographics saying they would be a success? It's a flawed system because we are not just a bunch of numbers. We are individuals.

It has the same reason for doing so as current history books have for including racial slurs: to warn the potential targets of these slurs what kind of people they are facing and to teach others the barbarity of the historical figures who used them.

Many if not most people disagreed.

There's no reason for a racial slur to be included in Hogwart's, A History. It is not a textbook used in class. It is a book about the history of the school. Slytherin's prejudice was included but the racial slur does not appear to be. There is no reason for it to be.

The majority of the people I have chatted with in here and on other boards agree that Hermione would not have known what that word meant. There was no reason for her to know until she was exposed to it. It made more sense the way it was written in the book. It makes Hermione more human for her not to know everything.

Hagrid had abducted Grawp from his home and was refusing to allow Grawp to return. In Grawp's mind, he was kidnapped. Grawp never wanted to go with Hagrid in the first place.

Now, I will not state that what Hagrid did was "wrong": he genuinely thought (and perhaps correctly) that he was doing it for his brother's own good. However, Grawp clearly did not see it that way. It is not vicious to attack your kidnapper: it is common sense.

Had Grawp done it just for fun or because of his "nature," then your belief would have some support. However, there is no indication that Grawp attacked Hagrid for any other reason than to attempt to escape and return to his (Grawp's) home.

No, I'm not saying Grawp beat him up for fun. However, he was still beating him up at the end of the year - months later - after Hagrid has taught him some English. I guess it depends on when Hagrid was able to make it clear to him that they were brothers.


ETA

I think we should probably drop all the stuff that doesn't have anything to do with Hermione because we are way, way off topic now and we aren't going to agree on it anyway. :)

marlysg
October 7th, 2005, 7:22 pm
There's no reason for a racial slur to be included in Hogwart's, A History. It is not a textbook used in class. It is a book about the history of the school. Slytherin's prejudice was included but the racial slur does not appear to be. There is no reason for it to be.

The majority of the people I have chatted with in here and on other boards agree that Hermione would not have known what that word meant. There was no reason for her to know until she was exposed to it. It made more sense the way it was written in the book. It makes Hermione more human for her not to know everything.


As to whether Hermione would have heard this term before, I can see both sides. It most likely would not be included in a text used today due to the climate of political correctness ( extreme at times). But as to whether it could be mentioned in a text, it is certainly possible. It all depends on the climate of the times. For example, my grandmother, who was a child in the 20's and 30's, gave me a text that she had in school for social studies. At that time, the Civil War was refered to as the war between the states and it was not at all unusual to find references (in the book) to the abolition of slavery ( in negative terms, as she grew up in rural South Georgia) and the problems of controling the n**** population, after slaves were freed. AS a child of the seventy's and 80's, I was very shocked the first time I read it, but looking back at social history, I really would not be today.

Another example would be during WWII. I would not be at all surprised to find school texts and "history" books referring to Jews using racial slurs. What we have to remember is who's perspective is used in writing the text. Obviously if written from the Majority POV, those derrogatory terms would be considered acceptable, whereas if written from a neutral POV or from the POV of the minority, you would find much less acceptance for such terms.

Scatterbrain
October 7th, 2005, 7:36 pm
And of course ultimately the term was only changed to being explained by Hermione in the movies, not because the scriptwriter thought it was a plot hole, but because their lovely 2-dimensional dumbing down of the characters must be maintained with Hermione spouting out all knowledge or wisdom (including stealing some of Dumbledore's fine lines) and Ron looking like an idiot only there for comic relief. Having Ron explain what a mudblood is makes a lot of sense, considering this is the world he grew up in and Hermione is a relative newcomer who has just experienced prejudice against her that she's not familiar with. However the movies just couldn't have Ron explaining anything important. Anyway..off topic no doubt.

meesha1971
October 7th, 2005, 7:44 pm
And of course ultimately the term was only changed to being explained by Hermione in the movies, not because the scriptwriter thought it was a plot hole, but because their lovely 2-dimensional dumbing down of the characters must be maintained with Hermione spouting out all knowledge or wisdom (including stealing some of Dumbledore's fine lines) and Ron looking like an idiot only there for comic relief. Having Ron explain what a mudblood is makes a lot of sense, considering this is the world he grew up in and Hermione is a relative newcomer who has just experienced prejudice against her that she's not familiar with. However the movies just couldn't have Ron explaining anything important. Anyway..off topic no doubt.

A little off topic yes, but part of the problem with the misinterpretation of Hermione's character. The movies built her up and people expect the books to follow the same formula.

We can only be grateful that JKR remained true to the characters. ;)

Narsil
October 7th, 2005, 7:53 pm
No, I am not misunderstanding. Hermione refuses to listen to anyone who doesn't completely agree with her about the house-elves. She refuses to listen to the house-elves themselves. When they won't listen to her, she tries to trick them into freedom - offending them to the point that none of them will clean Gryffindor tower and Dobby has to do it alone.

Hermione is not going to the house-elves and saying you should have the right to choose. She is going to them and saying they should think like she does. Their wishes don't matter because she is right and they are wrong. They should do what she wants them to do regardless of what they want for themselves.


I have to agree there. But Hermione is acting as you would expect anyone, specially a teenager, to act about something they are pasionate about. Hermione has got this ideal in her head and she won't hear a word against it, because she believes she's doing the right thing. It's the same as when she nags Harry about something, she doesn't do it to annoy him, but because she believes (correctly, more often than not) that she is right. I also think she's going through that 'change the world' phase lots of people go through. She wants to do something she feels has importance.

What's more once she becomes entangled with her feelings, SPEW takes a backseat and the phase is over, or put on hold. I think SPEW was there to fill a vacum. You've heard that people get lost in their work to forget their personal problems, well I think it may have been like that. SPEW acted a sort of buffer, something Hermione could feel happy about when she thought nobody would ask her to the Ball, something to fall back on when Ron seemed to be completely unable to figure out a girl's (i.e. her own) feelings. It was there to give her a purpose that was her own, not Harry Potter's.

meesha1971
October 7th, 2005, 8:30 pm
I have to agree there. But Hermione is acting as you would expect anyone, specially a teenager, to act about something they are pasionate about. Hermione has got this ideal in her head and she won't hear a word against it, because she believes she's doing the right thing. It's the same as when she nags Harry about something, she doesn't do it to annoy him, but because she believes (correctly, more often than not) that she is right. I also think she's going through that 'change the world' phase lots of people go through. She wants to do something she feels has importance.

What's more once she becomes entangled with her feelings, SPEW takes a backseat and the phase is over, or put on hold. I think SPEW was there to fill a vacum. You've heard that people get lost in their work to forget their personal problems, well I think it may have been like that. SPEW acted a sort of buffer, something Hermione could feel happy about when she thought nobody would ask her to the Ball, something to fall back on when Ron seemed to be completely unable to figure out a girl's (i.e. her own) feelings. It was there to give her a purpose that was her own, not Harry Potter's.

I agree, it's all a part of who Hermione is. I was just making a point regarding Ron and Hermione's opposing views on SPEW. ;)

SSJ_Jup81
October 9th, 2005, 8:30 am
Not sure if this would be completely OT, but do you think that Hermione may be more active in ref to SPEW for book 7 as opposed to how she was for book 6? Do you feel it may finally play a significant role?

Deevo
October 9th, 2005, 8:52 am
Not sure if this would be completely OT, but do you think that Hermione may be more active in ref to SPEW for book 7 as opposed to how she was for book 6? Do you feel it may finally play a significant role?
:no: I really don't. Hermione, with Ron, is now fully comitted to backing up Harry's quest to defeat Voldemort. Unless the elves become crucial in this (a possibility but an unlilely one as a group) campaigning for their welfare is really going to have to take a back seat to the primary job at hand.

Mind you, this 'campaign' of hers could make for a useful public front to cover other activities, it would be consistant with the way she's gone about such things in the past.

meesha1971
October 9th, 2005, 10:46 am
Not sure if this would be completely OT, but do you think that Hermione may be more active in ref to SPEW for book 7 as opposed to how she was for book 6? Do you feel it may finally play a significant role?

:no: I really don't. Hermione, with Ron, is now fully comitted to backing up Harry's quest to defeat Voldemort. Unless the elves become crucial in this (a possibility but an unlilely one as a group) campaigning for their welfare is really going to have to take a back seat to the primary job at hand.

Mind you, this 'campaign' of hers could make for a useful public front to cover other activities, it would be consistant with the way she's gone about such things in the past.

I don't think Hermione has given up on SPEW. Hopefully, she learned her lesson about tricking them and is rethinking her methods. She obviously still cares about the issue - look at her reaction when she found out that Dobby hadn't slept when he was following Malfoy for Harry and she was still trying to be nice to Kreacher.

I still think the whole SPEW thing was meant to be some sort of life lesson for Hermione - she needs to learn to take others opinions into consideration. I hadn't thought about them using it as a cover though. That could be interesting.

DragonFly11
October 9th, 2005, 6:12 pm
I don't think Hermione has given up on SPEW. Hopefully, she learned her lesson about tricking them and is rethinking her methods. She obviously still cares about the issue - look at her reaction when she found out that Dobby hadn't slept when he was following Malfoy for Harry and she was still trying to be nice to Kreacher.

I still think the whole SPEW thing was meant to be some sort of life lesson for Hermione - she needs to learn to take others opinions into consideration. I hadn't thought about them using it as a cover though. That could be interesting.I don't think she's given up either, just put it on the back burner. Her emotions are a bit overwhelmed in HBP and there are so many other things she is focusing on. I think once things settle down, Voldemort is defeated, she will regain momentum on her plight for SPEW. Actually, I think she will choose a profession that allows her to promote rights of all magical creatures. She has a strong belief that all creatures should be treated with care. I don't think that belief will leave her suddenly, I just think that she has had other things to focus on this past year.

As meesha points out, "She obviously still cares about the issue - look at her reaction when she found out that Dobby hadn't slept when he was following Malfoy for Harry and she was still trying to be nice to Kreacher."

She still cares about their rights, but needs to figure out a better way to go about helping them. Maybe we'll hear about it in that fatefull last chapter, the one in which we find out what happens to the survivors. ;)

Dasha
October 9th, 2005, 6:41 pm
I think Hermione is just going through some more growing up. She's not used to either Ron or Harry beating her in academics, and when Harry does it, and in her opinion in a dishonest fashion, she gets irritated. Can one blame her? Yes and no. Academic dishonesty is not exactly praised anywhere, so in that aspect one can at least see her point. However, to be upset that someone is better then you are is ver immature. In life we all meet people who are smarter then us in one aspect or another, so it's better to get used to it wihile young. Hermione has never faced that type of challange, because throughout her career at Hogwarts she has been labelled 'top student' by practiclly all her professors (Snape labelled her 'an insufferable Know-It-All' in book three, but perhaps in his own twisted way he was acknowledging her intelligence). It was hard for her to swallow the pill of being second best in even one subject, and that made her a bit irritable.

As for her behavior towards Ron, it's just jealousy. Perhaps she's tired of not being noticed by the guy that she likes, and seeing him with another girl makes her go over the edge. Is that normal? Sure is. Many teenage girls go through that type of experience as well. Should she have handled it differently? Perhpas, but Rowling is making it all realistic, so basically even the smart and rational Hermione can loose her head and just act out. Add to all that the presures of being a top student, a Prefect and Harry Poter's best friend. It's enough to drive almost anyone almost insane. She's just a teenage girl growing up.

Is Rowling ruining her? I don't think so. I'm still quite partial to her, and maybe because I can relate to some of her experiences I can understand her feelings.

These are just my feelings and thoughts. I hope I made some sort of sense here.

Horace_Slughorn
October 9th, 2005, 7:06 pm
Come on, give the poor girl a break! Obviously she is jealous and what with Bill and Fleur, Tonks and Lupin, Ginny and Harry and Ron and Lavender she must feel left out. She obviously didn't like McLaggen but went with him cos she was a bit lonely. Also theres the threat of being killed tomorrow by some Death Eater and she probably feels that time is running out.

silvery orb
October 10th, 2005, 12:43 am
She's not used to either Ron or Harry beating her in academics, and when Harry does it, and in her opinion in a dishonest fashion, she gets irritated. Can one blame her? Yes and no.
Dasha, I really enjoyed your post. I'm on the fence about Hermione's jealousy in Potions. Yes, she is a know-it-all. But at the same time she's never shown the slightest jealousy when Harry has beat her time and again in Defense Against the Dark Arts - instead she pressured him into teaching a class! Harry using a Potions book with helpful notes written in the margin seems like no big deal to me. Its slightly cheating, but not really enough to make Hermione into the jealous shrew of HBP!
Perhaps she's tired of not being noticed by the guy that she likes, and seeing him with another girl makes her go over the edge. Is that normal? Sure is. Many teenage girls go through that type of experience as well. Should she have handled it differently? Perhpas, but Rowling is making it all realistic, so basically even the smart and rational Hermione can loose her head and just act out.
Well, ok, I can see the "Hermione's just a teenager" thing for attacking Ron with the birds. It was extreme behavior, but believable. I find Hermione allowing Mcwhomever to paw at her during a party a little more of a stretch. Ron was always insanely jealous of Victor Krum, and Hermione would get embarassed everytime Ron confronted her about it. She could have brought Vctor for a visit (how great would THAT have been!) or picked some guy she didn't dislike as much as Mclaggin(?) to date. But maybe.

But I can't reconcile that the character we've known and loved (and been irritated with) for 5 books would illegally fix quidditch tryouts. It's just not who Hermione is. When someone becomes a teenager they may act irrationally, but they don't turn their back on everything they think is right.

Potency
October 10th, 2005, 12:55 am
But I can't reconcile that the character we've known and loved (and been irritated with) for 5 books would illegally fix quidditch tryouts. It's just not who Hermione is. When someone becomes a teenager they may act irrationally, but they don't turn their back on everything they think is right.




I think it was more the attitude of taking McClaggen down a peg or two, because she was angry about what he was saying, than deliberately trying to "fix" the quidditch tryouts.

TonyJoe
October 10th, 2005, 1:03 am
But I can't reconcile that the character we've known and loved (and been irritated with) for 5 books would illegally fix quidditch tryouts. It's just not who Hermione is. When someone becomes a teenager they may act irrationally, but they don't turn their back on everything they think is right.
That's a bit much to say fixing a tryout is turning her back on everything she thinks is right. She cheated for a friend. How long has she been letting HP and RW copy her homework? How long has she been sneaking around at night to help others or save something or other. She's broken rules and cheated before, it's nothing totally foriegn to her, it's just a new extreme. And really hasnt she, and Ron and Harry just been pushing the boundaries further and further every book?

iaintacracka
October 10th, 2005, 1:07 am
Hermione didnt change. :huh: She just had a lot put on her emotional plate. It happens.

cgold
October 10th, 2005, 1:14 am
Dasha, I really enjoyed your post. I'm on the fence about Hermione's jealousy in Potions. Yes, she is a know-it-all. But at the same time she's never shown the slightest jealousy when Harry has beat her time and again in Defense Against the Dark Arts - instead she pressured him into teaching a class! Harry using a Potions book with helpful notes written in the margin seems like no big deal to me. Its slightly cheating, but not really enough to make Hermione into the jealous shrew of HBP! I don't think Hermione was simply jealous of Harry's potions success. She was slightly jealous of Harry's success in DADA but this was acceptable to her because he did it fair and square as he is naturally talented at it. In HBP, Harry was essentially "cheating" in her mind and this is definitely a NO NO with Hermione.

She also started the DA club for her benefit as much as anyone else because it was her OWLs year and she was learning nothing from Umbridge. It may have been a very good thing for Harry because he grew as a leader, etc. but really, why did Hermione want to start the DA in the first place. I don't know why people make it out like it was totally for Harry. Hermione is important to Hermione too, as is right.


But I can't reconcile that the character we've known and loved (and been irritated with) for 5 books would illegally fix quidditch tryouts. It's just not who Hermione is. When someone becomes a teenager they may act irrationally, but they don't turn their back on everything they think is right.Hermione wasn't "fixing" a tryout because as you said that is against her nature. If you'll recall she confunded McLaggen BEFORE Ron even tried out. What is perfectly in Hermione's character is getting back at someone who hurts her friends like she did with Malfoy and with Rita Skeeter. If you're able to understand that Hermione wasn't trying to get Ron on the team but instead trying to hurt McLaggen for "dissing" Ron and Ginny to her then you'll see that she's completely in character. If Hermione thought she would help Mr. I Panic and Miss Everything When Other People Are Watching Ron, by causing McLaggen to miss one goal, then she's not as smart as we all thought now is she?

Cheers :tu:

meesha1971
October 10th, 2005, 3:12 am
Dasha, I really enjoyed your post. I'm on the fence about Hermione's jealousy in Potions. Yes, she is a know-it-all. But at the same time she's never shown the slightest jealousy when Harry has beat her time and again in Defense Against the Dark Arts - instead she pressured him into teaching a class! Harry using a Potions book with helpful notes written in the margin seems like no big deal to me. Its slightly cheating, but not really enough to make Hermione into the jealous shrew of HBP!

Harry was cheating. Plain and simple. Hermione was working hard and trying to learn the material and Harry was cheating and getting all kinds of praise and credit for things he didn't know how to do. She wasn't jealous that he got better grades. She was mad because he didn't earn them.

Well, ok, I can see the "Hermione's just a teenager" thing for attacking Ron with the birds. It was extreme behavior, but believable. I find Hermione allowing Mcwhomever to paw at her during a party a little more of a stretch. Ron was always insanely jealous of Victor Krum, and Hermione would get embarassed everytime Ron confronted her about it. She could have brought Vctor for a visit (how great would THAT have been!) or picked some guy she didn't dislike as much as Mclaggin(?) to date. But maybe.

She didn't "allow" McLaggen to paw at her. She got away from him when he tried that. Her plan was to take him to the party to annoy Ron. She didn't count on McLaggen wanting to attack her under the mistletoe.

But I can't reconcile that the character we've known and loved (and been irritated with) for 5 books would illegally fix quidditch tryouts. It's just not who Hermione is. When someone becomes a teenager they may act irrationally, but they don't turn their back on everything they think is right.

Honestly, Hermione did not do anything to "fix" the tryouts. She couldn't have. McLaggen tried out first. There was no way that Hermione could have known how well Ron would do on his tryout. She was simply trying to take McLaggen down a peg because he insulted Ron and Ginny. Her actions did not affect Ron making the team. Ron made all five of his saves on his own.

Hinoema
October 10th, 2005, 4:38 am
O
Originally Posted by silvery orb

But I can't reconcile that the character we've known and loved (and been irritated with) for 5 books would illegally fix quidditch tryouts. It's just not who Hermione is. When someone becomes a teenager they may act irrationally, but they don't turn their back on everything they think is right.

Oh, give me a break. She had been sitting there watching him act like a jackass, and wanting Gryffindor (and Harry) to have a good team. His behavior angers and upsets her. She is frustrated and indignant by his ego and arrogance. Then, when he basically equates one of her dearest friends (and secret love) and his sister, a good friend, to wiz-trash, she has a brain siezure and whaps him with a spell. She probably immediately thinks "Shirte, I so shouldn't have done that, I hope no one noticed, but what a jerk! He deserved it..." Then, afterward, Ron tries out and does perfectly, on his own.

People need to quit playing it out like premeditated murder just becuase they can't get down with Hermione doing anything that could possibly benefit Ron, since it popped thier bubble that she lived only and solely for Harry. *snort* It did benefit Harry, as we saw later- the second that jerk got on the team, he almost destroyed it.

Altjeringa
October 10th, 2005, 6:10 am
But I can't reconcile that the character we've known and loved (and been irritated with) for 5 books would illegally fix quidditch tryouts. It's just not who Hermione is. When someone becomes a teenager they may act irrationally, but they don't turn their back on everything they think is right.

I beg to differ, what she did was totally in character. Rita Skeeter? Let me ask you, can you reconcile the fact that she kept Rita in a jar for a few weeks, then blackmailed her for an entire year? I'd say that that's worse than affecting a silly quidditch try out.

I've read all of the arguments that Hermione was different, and so far I'm not convinced. To me, she was the same bossy, know-it-all nag that we all knew and love from books 1-5.

blue3ski
October 10th, 2005, 10:56 am
Dasha, I really enjoyed your post. I'm on the fence about Hermione's jealousy in Potions. Yes, she is a know-it-all. But at the same time she's never shown the slightest jealousy when Harry has beat her time and again in Defense Against the Dark Arts - instead she pressured him into teaching a class! Harry using a Potions book with helpful notes written in the margin seems like no big deal to me. Its slightly cheating, but not really enough to make Hermione into the jealous shrew of HBP!

Hermione didn't mind Harry beating her at DADA--because she knew he was honestly and truly good at it. He had a natural flair for the subject, and he really worked. In Potions, Harry cheated. It was obvious. He didn't really know a thing about what he was doing--proven when they were working on the antidotes. He was just relying on all the Prince's instructions--he never bothered to work things out for himself. Hermione knew it, and it irked her to see him getting so much credit for work that was never actually his--especially considering how hard she works to achieve the right potion and to understand the concepts that go into the potion-making process.

Well, ok, I can see the "Hermione's just a teenager" thing for attacking Ron with the birds. It was extreme behavior, but believable. I find Hermione allowing Mcwhomever to paw at her during a party a little more of a stretch. Ron was always insanely jealous of Victor Krum, and Hermione would get embarassed everytime Ron confronted her about it. She could have brought Vctor for a visit (how great would THAT have been!) or picked some guy she didn't dislike as much as Mclaggin(?) to date. But maybe.

But I can't reconcile that the character we've known and loved (and been irritated with) for 5 books would illegally fix quidditch tryouts. It's just not who Hermione is. When someone becomes a teenager they may act irrationally, but they don't turn their back on everything they think is right.

Krum wasn't exactly Hermione's slave, that she could just say 'Come!' and he would. He has a life of his own, not just waiting for Hermione to give him a call. I don't think Hermione was too thrilled to have McLaggen paw at her either. She mentions 'escaping' him, meaning he must've cornered her (not hard to do--he's the size of troll, apparently) and she just barely wriggled away. Besides, her aim was to annoy Ron--she WANTED to find someone Ron would tear his hair out at seeing her with. (Before it is said that she 'manipulated' McLaggen, asking someone on a date is not manipulation) She wanted to wound Ron that way he had her, and this was the best thing she could think of.

I fail to see how was and why Hermione would fix Quidditch tryouts. As reiterated many times, one miss wouldn't have helped Ron's confidence any. It would just bring to light that what he was up against was good, and pressure him to have to PERFECT the tryout to beat it. If anything, it would've shattered his confidence more. Also, the only thing that Hermione had on her mind at the time was revenge. McLaggen was talking trash about Ron and Ginny to anyone who would listen. He was publicly humiliating them. Hermione heard it, got mad, and decided to give him a taste of his own medicine by humiliating him in front of the crowd to whom he had been bragging about his skills. She doesn't really care about Quidditch--it was her friends that mattered.

She never turned her back on what she thought was right. She has always proved throughout the past five books that she is willing to risk everything for her friends. She broke school rules, hit a student, and blackmailed a reporter when she felt they brought injustice upon her friends. Avenging Ron and Ginny was completely in-character for her.

Deevo
October 10th, 2005, 12:22 pm
Dasha, I really enjoyed your post. I'm on the fence about Hermione's jealousy in Potions. Yes, she is a know-it-all. But at the same time she's never shown the slightest jealousy when Harry has beat her time and again in Defense Against the Dark Arts - instead she pressured him into teaching a class!
Actually when she first suggested his teaching and the subject of their respective performance came up her response was less than enthusiastic.
Harry was grinning now, sure that the pair of them were pulling his leg.
'But I'm not a teacher, I can't -'
'Harry, you're the best in the year at Defence Against the Dark Arts,' said Hermione.
'Me?' said Harry, now grinning more broadly than ever. 'No I'm not, you've beaten me in every test -'
'Actually, I haven't,' said Hermione coolly. 'You beat me in our third year - the only year we both sat the test and had a teacher who actually knew the subject. But I'm not talking about test results, Harry. Think about what you've done!'
Highlites mine.

In this exchange the instant actual academic results are mentioned Hermione goes cool and quickly changes the subject. While I wouldn't call it outright jealousy she could be seen to be a little miffed here. Add to that it's their OWL year, she wants to pass, something pretty unlikely with Umbridge as a teacher.

But I can't reconcile that the character we've known and loved (and been irritated with) for 5 books would illegally fix quidditch tryouts. It's just not who Hermione is. When someone becomes a teenager they may act irrationally, but they don't turn their back on everything they think is right.
But did she 'fix the tryouts'? Ron still had to perform flawlessly to get in and she had no way of knowing that he would.

meesha1971
October 10th, 2005, 1:33 pm
Actually when she first suggested his teaching and the subject of their respective performance came up her response was less than enthusiastic.
Harry was grinning now, sure that the pair of them were pulling his leg.
'But I'm not a teacher, I can't -'
'Harry, you're the best in the year at Defence Against the Dark Arts,' said Hermione.
'Me?' said Harry, now grinning more broadly than ever. 'No I'm not, you've beaten me in every test -'
'Actually, I haven't,' said Hermione coolly. 'You beat me in our third year - the only year we both sat the test and had a teacher who actually knew the subject. But I'm not talking about test results, Harry. Think about what you've done!'
Highlites mine.

In this exchange the instant actual academic results are mentioned Hermione goes cool and quickly changes the subject. While I wouldn't call it outright jealousy she could be seen to be a little miffed here. Add to that it's their OWL year, she wants to pass, something pretty unlikely with Umbridge as a teacher.

Exactly. Hermione doesn't like it when anyone does better than her in class or on tests. The difference is that, when they have earned it, she will deal with it. She did not like that Harry had done better than her on the DADA exam and quickly changed the subject. She was more comfortable with discussing his abilities than his test scores. It was easier for her to accept that he had greater abilities than her because of everything that he has been through.

Harry was cheating. He wasn't learning anything. He couldn't do that well without the Prince's book. Add to that the "suspicious" spells written in the margins and Hermione's reaction was completely in character.

But did she 'fix the tryouts'? Ron still had to perform flawlessly to get in and she had no way of knowing that he would.

Absolutely. What Hermione did could have cost Ron his spot on the team. She knows he has low self-confidence and tends to perform poorly under pressure. She clearly wasn't thinking about Ron's tryout here. If she were, she would have made McLaggen miss more than one goal. The only things she accomplished were humiliating McLaggen (her true intention) and ensuring that Ron had to be perfect on his tryout in order to make the team. Ron could have gone either way with his tryout. He could have been so flustered because McLaggen only missed one goal that he screwed up his own tryout. Luckily, he didn't and performed brilliantly but Hermione didn't have anything to do with that. Ron did it on his own.

GinnyRules
October 10th, 2005, 6:26 pm
I still disagree. Imagine what your own reaction would be if you where kidnapped, taken to a place far away from your home, continually bound, and then forced to learn the language of you kidnapper. What would your reaction be?

Hagrid said that Grawp wanted to go home; so it stands to reason that many of Hagrid's injuries may have happened while Grawp was trying to escape, and not simply beating up Hagrid for the fun of it.
Grawp was probably angry and wanted to go home, but he would have injured Hagrid anyways. He was just a stupid giant (he's gotten a lot better though, thankfully).

Abak
October 10th, 2005, 6:31 pm
Harry was cheating. He wasn't learning anything. He couldn't do that well without the Prince's book. Add to that the "suspicious" spells written in the margins and Hermione's reaction was completely in character.
I totally disagree. He essentially just had a better textbook than Hermione did. Or something like a tutor. It's not cheating to find a good resource and use it. Hermione should have used it too, as she would have learned its valuable insights as well.

Machiavelli
October 10th, 2005, 6:35 pm
I totally disagree. He essentially just had a better textbook than Hermione did. Or something like a tutor. It's not cheating to find a good resource and use it. Hermione should have used it too, as she would have learned its valuable insights as well.I agree - it wasn't cheating, but it was stepping outside of established academic protocol and that hits Hermione right where she lives. Of course, it would have been useful for Harry to study a bit and figure out why the HBP instructions worked better so he understood the theory behind it! I think Hermione's problem was that her precious books were letting her down.

PotionA
October 10th, 2005, 6:56 pm
I totally disagree. He essentially just had a better textbook than Hermione did. Or something like a tutor. It's not cheating to find a good resource and use it. Hermione should have used it too, as she would have learned its valuable insights as well.

He wasn't cheating in the literal sense. Hermione thought he was because he had his easy way around in Potions because he got lucky with the book whereas Hermione had to dedicate her time and energy to get good grades. She didn't approve of Harry taking help from the book because she thought that like her, he should be working for his grades too. Ron also got slightly upset with him when Harry couldn't make the antidote and gave Slughorn the bezoar and ended up getting the highest marks whereas they all had to work hard for it, something which was quite unfair to the rest of the class.

DragonFly11
October 10th, 2005, 7:05 pm
I totally disagree. He essentially just had a better textbook than Hermione did. Or something like a tutor. It's not cheating to find a good resource and use it. Hermione should have used it too, as she would have learned its valuable insights as well.In college you can buy used books. Many times the books are written in and are quite helpful. Sometimes, however, the notes in the book lead you to the wrong answers and are best to be avoided. They (the answers and notes) may cause you problems later if you start trusting them early on. Some say it is better to learn for yourself from the beginning than to trust someone else's judgement on an issue, or in this case, subject.

I see Hermione as one who thinks it is a shame to not find things out for yourself. She takes her learning to heart, always has. She reads the books before the term, checks out extra books for a little "light reading" and always chastises the boys for leaving their homework too late and trying to find a way to get by anyway. Hermione used to help them. She used to correct their answers and guided them to complete their homework. But she stopped doing that. She wants them to learn on their own. To Hermione, this is just another way for Harry to get around having to do the work completely by himself. It is another shortcut. Hermione's reaction doesn't seem at all out of character.

Machiavelli
October 10th, 2005, 7:12 pm
Hermione also, with good reason, feels Harry needs to know the theory behind the practice. He needs to know why things work the way they do, or he won't be able to go past the sort of cookery-book type of potions making. If he's faced with something unkown, he's sunk. That was Hermione's point with the puzzle that led to the bezoar incident. If Harry or a friend were to be poisoned in the next book, and if he didn't happen to have a bezoar handy, what would he do to save them?

Krumpet
October 10th, 2005, 8:07 pm
Grawp was probably angry and wanted to go home, but he would have injured Hagrid anyways. He was just a stupid giant (he's gotten a lot better though, thankfully).

This is a bit off topic, but...

I don't think Giant's are that stupid. Madame Maxine runs one of the finest schools for magic in Europe; I doubt she's there because of her bloodlines. While Hagrid can be unobservant about things; he still is an intelligent man, especially considering he stopped formal schooling at about 15.

We haven't seen any other Giants (other then Grawp) up close but from Hagrid's account of them they don't seem moronic.

Grawp had reasons for the way he acted, his anger at Hagrid came justly. More over in a little over a year he learned a whole new language, which does take some skill.

Hermione seems to be right that Giant's don't deserve all of the wrap sheet they've been given.

hermionegirl1
October 10th, 2005, 8:26 pm
well i think shes going trough that period that everyone goes through and she is wondering whos shes gonna date and things like that you know??

Abak
October 10th, 2005, 8:28 pm
I see Hermione as one who thinks it is a shame to not find things out for yourself. She takes her learning to heart, always has. She reads the books before the term, checks out extra books for a little "light reading" and always chastises the boys for leaving their homework too late and trying to find a way to get by anyway.
Finding things out for yourself is experimentation not reading a book. Harry was essentially doing the exact same thing as she was, he just was learning from the Prince's notes. Albeit he was not studying as much. Technique can make up for lack of understanding sometimes, though.

Hermione also, with good reason, feels Harry needs to know the theory behind the practice. He needs to know why things work the way they do, or he won't be able to go past the sort of cookery-book type of potions making.
This is the real reason why Harry's way is not the best. If he would have sat down and learned why the Prince's notes were useful, then he would have been set. I have to admit that this part of the book bothered me. If he and Hermione had sat down together to learn from the Prince's notes and reason out the theory behind it, they could have improved so much. Hermione is just so set in her ways. Snape never seemed to push them past cook book type potions making, though. It seemed like Slughorn tried, but he just threw them in without any direction.

I guess I am getting off topic, though.

meesha1971
October 10th, 2005, 8:41 pm
I totally disagree. He essentially just had a better textbook than Hermione did. Or something like a tutor. It's not cheating to find a good resource and use it. Hermione should have used it too, as she would have learned its valuable insights as well.

Harry was cheating in the most literal sense of the word. He was using someone else's notes. Copying their work. He didn't learn anything. The minute he didn't have that book to copy from, his grades in potions dropped because he didn't have a clue what he was doing.

Finding things out for yourself is experimentation not reading a book. Harry was essentially doing the exact same thing as she was, he just was learning from the Prince's notes. Albeit he was not studying as much. Technique can make up for lack of understanding sometimes, though.

But he wasn't learning anything. He was just following the Prince's directions. Without the book, he couldn't do it. The whole point of the class is to be able to eventually do it on your own. Harry didn't learn anything from that book. He just copied from it.


This is the real reason why Harry's way is not the best. If he would have sat down and learned why the Prince's notes were useful, then he would have been set. I have to admit that this part of the book bothered me. If he and Hermione had sat down together to learn from the Prince's notes and reason out the theory behind it, they could have improved so much. Hermione is just so set in her ways. Snape never seemed to push them past cook book type potions making, though. It seemed like Slughorn tried, but he just threw them in without any direction.

I guess I am getting off topic, though.

Hermione wouldn't do that. It wasn't an "approved" source. She will research on her own in the library and learn the theory behind what she's learning but she only uses approved sources. She didn't trust the Potions book.

Now that they know the book belonged to Snape it could turn out to be useful. They might be able to learn more about Snape. Hermione might be more willing to study the methods for the potions out of it knowing that Snape wrote those instructions and he was an excellent Potioneer - terrible teacher but excellent at potions.

The point is that Harry was basically cheating. He wasn't looking at those instructions and studying them - figuring out why they worked. He just did what it said without understanding why. He didn't learn anything. He just copied someone else's work and took all the credit for their brilliance. That's what made Hermione mad. For someone like her, who works hard to earn her grades, that is cheating. Harry didn't earn the praise he was getting from Slughorn. He knew it too. He knew he was cheating because he did everything he could not to let Slughorn know how he was doing so well - even exchanging the cover from the new book to the Prince's book so he could keep using it.

Hermione's reaction was completely within her character. There she was working hard, studying, going to the library to look things up and learning the theory behind it. There was Harry, copying someone else's work, not learning anything, and getting praised for someone else's brilliance. It's not surprising at all that she was mad about it.

TonyJoe
October 10th, 2005, 8:45 pm
Harry was cheating in the most literal sense of the word. He was using someone else's notes. Copying their work. He didn't learn anything. The minute he didn't have that book to copy from, his grades in potions dropped because he didn't have a clue what he was doing.
Come on. If i use someone elses recipe to make a batch of cookies, without memorizing the actual formula and relying on the book every time, does that make me a cheater? I dont think so.

Harry didn't learn anything from that book. He just copied from it. I cant find my book, but didnt he learn that thing about those goat's stomach thingies that saved Ron's life?

Hermione's reaction was completely within her character. There she was working hard, studying, going to the library to look things up and learning the theory behind it. There was Harry, copying someone else's work, not learning anything, and getting praised for someone else's brilliance. It's not surprising at all that she was mad about it.

Hermione never seemed to mind when HP and RW were getting by on coppying her work. Now all of sudden their copying makes her angry. Either this is a character change or she's jealous at either harry for stealing academic glory from her, or at the Prince for his support of her friends. In either case, the jealousy wouldnt be anything new (first showing up in GOF).

PotionA
October 10th, 2005, 8:56 pm
Come on. If i use someone elses recipe to make a batch of cookies, without memorizing the actual formula and relying on the book every time, does that make me a cheater? I dont think so.

You can't exactly compare the two because a recipe doesn't involve something as sensitive as grades like Potions does. The fact that Harry took advantage of the book was unfair to the class because they were working hard to get good grades.

meesha1971
October 10th, 2005, 9:05 pm
Come on. If i use someone elses recipe to make a batch of cookies, without memorizing the actual formula and relying on the book every time, does that make me a cheater? I dont think so.

That depends. Are you taking a class where you are graded against others where everyone is supposed to be using the same source and learning the same method? Are you possibly going to have to make that batch of cookies from memory someday and someone's life may depend on it?

This is not a cooking class. This is a potions class. The equivilent in the real world would probably be closest to those who make the medicines we take everyday. Who would you want to make your medicine? Someone who understands what they are doing or someone who can't do it without copying someone else's notes?

TonyJoe
October 10th, 2005, 9:13 pm
You can't exactly compare the two because a recipe doesn't involve something as sensitive as grades like Potions does. The fact that Harry took advantage of the book was unfair to the class because they were working hard to get good grades.
It does in a cooking class.

Krumpet
October 10th, 2005, 9:28 pm
That depends. Are you taking a class where you are graded against others where everyone is supposed to be using the same source and learning the same method? Are you possibly going to have to make that batch of cookies from memory someday and someone's life may depend on it?

This is not a cooking class. This is a potions class. The equivilent in the real world would probably be closest to those who make the medicines we take everyday. Who would you want to make your medicine? Someone who understands what they are doing or someone who can't do it without copying someone else's notes?


I completely agee. And would like to add another way of think of it. Harry's Potion Book was a little like using an old test to prepare for a current test. It's common practice on many college campus's to have friends keep the tests for teachers and course when they take them; so that they can pass them on to their younger friends.

This is cheating. And it defeats a lot of purpose in taking the class. If all you learn is that on the first test there are a lot trues; and on the second exam there are a lot of falses; then you don't take much a way from the class.

That said Harry did take away a lot of from having the book. Most notably that the Bezoar, is a powerful anti-poison. Which he would not have known if he hadn't keep the book to use. One might have thought that after Ron's Birthday that Hermione may have lightened up on the Prince. But she didn't. And in that I think she staid very consistent.

PotionA
October 10th, 2005, 9:30 pm
It does in a cooking class.

*chuckles* ok maybe grades matter in a cooking class (something which I've never taken and it would be disastrous if I do) but Potions is a school subject and they have to pass it in order to pursue their desired careers. And they are expected to achieve those marks and grades fair and square and it involves hard work and dedication from everyone. It's not that Harry wasn't learning anything from it but he wasnt putting in the effort that everyone else was. That's what got Hermione annoyed, not to mention Ron, who was upset about the bezoar incident also.

Potency
October 10th, 2005, 9:40 pm
I think if Harry had said to Slughorn, "I have this book that has other directions that lead to the potions", then he wouldn't have been cheating. But the fact that as far as Slughorn was concerned, Harry was doing his own work, the same work as the other students, so he was cheating. It might be difficult to see cheating from Hermione's perspective, but I think its easier to see from Snape's perspective, when he calls Harry a liar and a cheat. It's Snape's work (and maybe Lily's?) that Harry is taking credit for.

Machiavelli
October 10th, 2005, 10:03 pm
It does in a cooking class.Right - so let's say you're in a cookery class and you are told to make toad-in-the-hole. The whole class uses the same book, but you happen to have one that says: add a bit of sage and some onion. Into the oven with everyone's effort, out they come, and the teacher raves about yours. How clever, he says, to think of putting in sage and onion, how original - take 10 extra points and have a marshmallow. If you pipe up and say, well, sir actually I have this book and... then you're fine, but if you happily accept the points and marshmallow (and praise) without mentioning that it wasn't actually your doing at all well...

I think if Harry had said to Slughorn, "I have this book that has other directions that lead to the potions", then he wouldn't have been cheating. But the fact that as far as Slughorn was concerned, Harry was doing his own work, the same work as the other students, so he was cheating. It might be difficult to see cheating from Hermione's perspective, but I think its easier to see from Snape's perspective, when he calls Harry a liar and a cheat. It's Snape's work (and maybe Lily's?) that Harry is taking credit for.Yah - what Potency said.

TonyJoe
October 10th, 2005, 10:15 pm
That depends. Are you taking a class where you are graded against others where everyone is supposed to be using the same source and learning the same method? Are you possibly going to have to make that batch of cookies from memory someday and someone's life may depend on it?

This is not a cooking class. This is a potions class. The equivilent in the real world would probably be closest to those who make the medicines we take everyday. Who would you want to make your medicine? Someone who understands what they are doing or someone who can't do it without copying someone else's notes?
Ok I screwed up the order, so now i'm replying. I made the point in an edited post (and consequently probrablly unread), that harry did learn from the book how to save ron from his poisoning (I think). The book did help him save a life on his own.

Whose to say that Harry after doing a potion with the Princes help, wouldnt have been able to recreate it on his own later through memorization? He never had the opritunity did he? When he was forced to work without the book, he never did an old one, always a new one, and indeed with out the book he failed on the new ones. But who can say that he wouldnt have been able to masterfully do a potion on his own after having been helped with the same one by the prince?

In any event none of this (the importance of saving lives through potions on your own), entered into hermiones mind (god i wish i had my book to check). She was thinking only "Well it's just not right harry using another book," and then grasping (blindly and by chance rightly) at straws, she said the book might be dangerous or written by some shady character. Hermione's rebukes seem to follow along the lines of petty jealousy because Harry was getting a teacher's praise instead of her (a little about the general rules too), jealousy not to foreign to her in this book, and arguably her character.

*chuckles* ok maybe grades matter in a cooking class (something which I've never taken and it would be disastrous if I do) but Potions is a school subject and they have to pass it in order to pursue their desired careers. And they are expected to achieve those marks and grades fair and square and it involves hard work and dedication from everyone. It's not that Harry wasn't learning anything from it but he wasnt putting in the effort that everyone else was. That's what got Hermione annoyed, not to mention Ron, who was upset about the bezoar incident also.
I still dont see whats unfair and unsquare (circular? :p) about it. Harry did the exact same work as everyone else, which was turning in a potion at the end of the period. It's not a matter of work, if anything it's a matter of advantage. Maybe if HP was competing against his classmates (A thought probrablly not far from Mione's mind and maybe a root cause of her reaction), i'd feel different, but he's not, so this advantage doesnt seem to be any different or any more meaningful than a student whose grown up in a wizarding family and has watched his parents make the days potion a thousand times. Harry is simply using anothers experience the same way a pure blood would use their own and their parent's in the class, but ultimately the work is still their own.

Edit:
Right - so let's say you're in a cookery class and you are told to make toad-in-the-hole. The whole class uses the same book, but you happen to have one that says: add a bit of sage and some onion. Into the oven with everyone's effort, out they come, and the teacher raves about yours. How clever, he says, to think of putting in sage and onion, how original - take 10 extra points and have a marshmallow. If you pipe up and say, well, sir actually I have this book and... then you're fine, but if you happily accept the points and marshmallow (and praise) without mentioning that it wasn't actually your doing at all well...

I think if Harry had said to Slughorn, "I have this book that has other directions that lead to the potions", then he wouldn't have been cheating. But the fact that as far as Slughorn was concerned, Harry was doing his own work, the same work as the other students, so he was cheating. It might be difficult to see cheating from Hermione's perspective, but I think its easier to see from Snape's perspective, when he calls Harry a liar and a cheat. It's Snape's work (and maybe Lily's?) that Harry is taking credit for. Yah - what Potency said.

Passing off the theory that led to the potion as your own, might be a little dishonest but in the context of Potions class, where all that is graded is the result, its not the same as cheating.

Again Harry did do his own work. Following directions and making your own potion isnt the same as passing anothers work off as your own (cheating), if that's the case then everyone who makes their potion according to the standard book is a cheater. If thats the case Hermione doing Neville's potion, or instructing him on how to do it, is Cheating. Hermione would then be a cheater, so why then is she so angry at harry's cheating, when she herself is a cheater?

Krumpet
October 10th, 2005, 10:55 pm
Passing off the theory that led to the potion as your own, might be a little dishonest but in the context of Potions class, where all that is graded is the result, its not the same as cheating.

Because Hermione was cheating to help someone other then herself out. In PoA when she helps Neville, it is because Trevor's life is on the line. She risks her own grade to help someone out. She didn't get praise from the teacher for her work, she got points knocked off and an angry comment.

Harry's cheating is more selfish. He enjoys the fact that Slughorn thinks he's a gifted potions maker. He excepts all the credit, for clever ideas that aren't his.

Abak
October 10th, 2005, 10:56 pm
It seems to me like the entirety of their class is based on simply following a recipe. I never saw insight into Hermione understanding the reasoning behind the formulations anymore than Harry does. He simply had better instructions than she did, and she didn't trust them but was upset when they did indeed turn out to be better than her own.

How is using the information that squeezing the ingredient will result in better results than cutting the ingredient cheating? I actually teach cooking classes (in order to demonstrate food science principles), so they are necessary for my student's careers as food scientists. Should I tell my students who have learned good technique from their grandmother that they are to forget that and follow my instructions only, because they would be cheating otherwise?

Hermione uses textbooks from the library sometimes. Is that cheating, because it isn't the official course textbook?

Truly successful students take advantage of their resources. It is not like he had the answers to a test. He had information about better methods available, and he used it.

Potency
October 10th, 2005, 11:04 pm
It seems to me like the entirety of their class is based on simply following a recipe. I never saw insight into Hermione understanding the reasoning behind the formulations anymore than Harry does. He simply had better instructions than she did, and she didn't trust them but was upset when they did indeed turn out to be better than her own.

How is using the information that squeezing the ingredient will result in better results than cutting the ingredient cheating. I actually teach cooking classes (in order to demonstrate food science principles). Should I tell my students who have learned good technique from their grandmother that they are to forget that and follow my instructions only, because they would be cheating otherwise?

Hermione uses textbooks from the library sometimes. Is that cheating, because it isn't the official course textbook?

Truly successful students take advantage of their resources. It is not like he had the answers to a test. He had information about better methods available, and he used it.


Its cheating when Harry keeps this a secret. He's hoarding this knowledge, that isn't even his, and taking the credit for it. Again, look at it from Snape's perspective. This is Snape's work, yet Harry is getting all the praise. It wouldn't be cheating if Harry was honest with Slughorn about what he was doing. But instead, he keeps it all hush-hush. Its the dishonesty of what he's doing that makes it cheating, not the simple fact that he's using another method.

Deevo
October 10th, 2005, 11:07 pm
Harry was cheating. He wasn't learning anything. He couldn't do that well without the Prince's book. Add to that the "suspicious" spells written in the margins and Hermione's reaction was completely in character.
I totally disagree. He essentially just had a better textbook than Hermione did. Or something like a tutor. It's not cheating to find a good resource and use it. Hermione should have used it too, as she would have learned its valuable insights as well.
Actually I'm not sure if I either agree or disagree with either viewpoint here (how's that for sitting on the fence? :p) on one hand Harry was gaining merit from the teacher with outside help yet on the other hand when put to the test in the antidote scene he only suceeded because of a bluff and really didn't deserve the glowing praise which he received. That the knowledge he gained saved Ron's life down the track is offset by the fact that he originally learned this five years earlier so in reality gained nothing.

As Machiavelli said he's really nothing more than a 'cook book' potions brewer.

The point is that Harry was basically cheating. He wasn't looking at those instructions and studying them - figuring out why they worked. He just did what it said without understanding why. He didn't learn anything. He just copied someone else's work and took all the credit for their brilliance. That's what made Hermione mad. For someone like her, who works hard to earn her grades, that is cheating. Harry didn't earn the praise he was getting from Slughorn. He knew it too. He knew he was cheating because he did everything he could not to let Slughorn know how he was doing so well - even exchanging the cover from the new book to the Prince's book so he could keep using it.

Hermione's reaction was completely within her character. There she was working hard, studying, going to the library to look things up and learning the theory behind it. There was Harry, copying someone else's work, not learning anything, and getting praised for someone else's brilliance. It's not surprising at all that she was mad about it.
That's it, she wasn't so much angry that Harry was outperforming her as much as he really wasn't but getting credit for doing so anyway.

I cant find my book, but didnt he learn that thing about those goat's stomach thingies that saved Ron's life?
Don't forget that he originally learned of the bezoar some five years earlier in his very first potions class with Snape.

Hermione never seemed to mind when HP and RW were getting by on coppying her work. Now all of sudden their copying makes her angry. Either this is a character change or she's jealous at either harry for stealing academic glory from her, or at the Prince for his support of her friends. In either case, the jealousy wouldnt be anything new (first showing up in GOF).
Actually from fairly early on in the piece she made them do their own work but relented enough to check it over for them. Somehow I don't think they're (that's Harry and Ron) as bad a students as they think. After all the fact that Ron was selected as prefect in fifth year (because Harry had too much to be going on with) pretty much shows them as being the top two Gryffindor boys of their year.

Abak
October 10th, 2005, 11:07 pm
It's dishonest to keep it secret, but how is it cheating? If I do additional internet research on a subject in my statistics class and I don't tell my prof, am I cheating? No.

Now if I claimed I had invented a theory I found on the internet that would be cheating. Snape didn't invent the idea of a bezoar saving someone from poison, though. Slughorn didn't think Harry did. He just thought that it was cheeky of Harry to grab the bezoar.

Machiavelli
October 10th, 2005, 11:13 pm
It's dishonest to keep it secret, but how is it cheating? If I do additional internet research on a subject in my statistics class and I don't tell my prof, am I cheating? No.No... because that would be studying - doing work for yourself, finding out more on the subject... learning. Harry does none of that. He just follows the directions without looking further in - he's not doing any good.

However, I'll agree with dishonourable.

Krumpet
October 10th, 2005, 11:15 pm
It seems to me like the entirety of their class is based on simply following a recipe. I never saw insight into Hermione understanding the reasoning behind the formulations anymore than Harry does. He simply had better instructions than she did, and she didn't trust them but was upset when they did indeed turn out to be better than her own.

How is using the information that squeezing the ingredient will result in better results than cutting the ingredient cheating. I actually teach cooking classes (in order to demonstrate food science principles). Should I tell my students who have learned good technique from their grandmother that they are to forget that and follow my instructions only, because they would be cheating otherwise?

Of course not. However if you students you students used a technique that they learned it would be a lot different then Harry coping something out of a book. There is a difference between learning and coping.

Hermione uses textbooks from the library sometimes. Is that cheating, because it isn't the official course textbook?

The only time I remember Hermione taking hints from a library book about a potion where when they illegally brewed the Polyjuice potion. Which was breaking quite a number a school rules.

meesha1971
October 10th, 2005, 11:19 pm
Ok I screwed up the order, so now i'm replying. I made the point in an edited post (and consequently probrablly unread), that harry did learn from the book how to save ron from his poisoning (I think). The book did help him save a life on his own.

A fact that they learned in first year from Snape. A bezoar will save you from most poisons - not all. Slughorn mentioned that as well, it is important to know the theory - to understand how to make an antidote. Harry bought Ron some time with the bezoar but Madame Pomfrey gave him the antidote.

Now, what if that were to happen while they're out searching for the Horcruxes. What if it were Hermione - the only one who understood the theory - who was poisoned and there was no bezoar handy or the bezoar didn't work? What is he going to do then? He didn't have a clue what he was doing on his own.

Whose to say that Harry after doing a potion with the Princes help, wouldnt have been able to recreate it on his own later through memorization? He never had the opritunity did he? When he was forced to work without the book, he never did an old one, always a new one, and indeed with out the book he failed on the new ones. But who can say that he wouldnt have been able to masterfully do a potion on his own after having been helped with the same one by the prince?

I doubt it. He just copied what the Prince's instructions said. He didn't study. He didn't learn. Had he studied, his potions grades wouldn't have dropped when he no longer had the book. He didn't remember the techniques written in the book - like crushing that bean with the flat of the knife instead of cutting it. Those were the type of instructions written as well as additional ingredients for specific potions. In the first potion he copied, it was the technique that helped him - crushing the bean, adding a stir in the opposite direction - which logically would help with other potions as well. He didn't learn anything.

Another point that he didn't learn anything. Slughorn said that someone with his skill in potions should be able to whip up a love potion antidote quite easily. Harry didn't have a clue what to do. He wasn't learning anything from the book. He was just copying the instructions someone else had written and accepting the praise as though he were the one coming up with things like adding a sprig of peppermint and so on.

In any event none of this (the importance of saving lives through potions on your own), entered into hermiones mind (god i wish i had my book to check). She was thinking only "Well it's just not right harry using another book," and then grasping (blindly and by chance rightly) at straws, she said the book might be dangerous or written by some shady character. Hermione's rebukes seem to follow along the lines of petty jealousy because Harry was getting a teacher's praise instead of her (a little about the general rules too), jealousy not to foreign to her in this book, and arguably her character.

Hermione was right all the way around. Harry took a big risk in following those directions. It paid off because the Prince was a good potioneer. But Hermione was right. Harry had no way of knowing that risk would pay off. They go to a school of witchcraft and wizardry - books are not always what they seem. The person who wrote those instructions could have been an idiot and caused Harry to make some sort of poison or blow something up. The person could have been into the Dark Arts and who knew what kind of changes he was making to the potion. There could have been some sort of spell on the book itself. Hermione was right to be suspicious from the beginning.

Again, it is within Hermione's character to react that way. In her eyes, Harry cheated. I agree with her but that's mainly because my high school did not allow textbooks to be written in. Any book that was written in was confiscated, destroyed, and replaced at the cost of the student with an automatic failing grade for any work turned in from that textbook. It was considered cheating. A few of my college professors had the same rules. Any used textbook that was written in could not be used in their class. If you were caught with one, you got an automatic failing grade for any work turned in using that book.

For someone like Hermione, that would be infuriating. She takes pride in her good grades because she works hard to earn them. She refuses to let Ron and Harry copy her work. She makes them do it on their own and then goes over it for them. She helps them, not by letting them copy, but by making them learn. The only class she would let them copy notes from is History of Magic and, even then, she would only let them copy the notes - not the work.

I still dont see whats unfair and unsquare (circular? :p) about it. Harry did the exact same work as everyone else, which was turning in a potion at the end of the period. It's not a matter of work, if anything it's a matter of advantage. Maybe if HP was competing against his classmates (A thought probrablly not far from Mione's mind and maybe a root cause of her reaction), i'd feel different, but he's not, so this advantage doesnt seem to be any different or any more meaningful than a student whose grown up in a wizarding family and has watched his parents make the days potion a thousand times. Harry is simply using anothers experience the same way a pure blood would use their own and their parent's in the class, but ultimately the work is still their own.

He didn't do the exact same work as everyone else. He copied someone else's work and passed it off for his own. He had a distinct advantage over everyone else in the class. He had access to information they did not have. He didn't learn anything. He just followed someone else's instructions.

Edit:
Passing off the theory that led to the potion as your own, might be a little dishonest but in the context of Potions class, where all that is graded is the result, its not the same as cheating.

Sounds like cheating to me. The end result does not always justify the means. Why was he so secretive about the book if he didn't know he was cheating? He knew the book would be taken away from him. He didn't want anyone to know about it. He worried that Slughorn would catch him with it several times and was extremely relieved when Slughorn attributed it to him inheriting his mother's ability.

Again Harry did do his own work. Following directions and making your own potion isnt the same as passing anothers work off as your own (cheating), if that's the case then everyone who makes their potion according to the standard book is a cheater. If thats the case Hermione doing Neville's potion, or instructing him on how to do it, is Cheating. Hermione would then be a cheater, so why then is she so angry at harry's cheating, when she herself is a cheater?

Harry did not do his own work. He did not follow the directions in the standard textbook. He followed handwritten notes added to the book by someone else. Nobody else had access to that information. Different techniques - additional ingredients - and so on. Nobody else in the class had access to that information.

I'm not sure if it was on this thread or not but someone else pointed out that Snape rarely used the textbook - he wrote the instructions on the board for everyone to follow. Again, everyone had access to the same information - the same instructions. The instructions Hermione gave Neville came from the standard textbook or the instructions Snape wrote on the board - the same information that everyone else was using. Completely different scenario. Everyone had access to the same information.

If it wasn't cheating, then why didn't Harry show the book to Slughorn? Why not give this extremely helpful information to the teacher for everyone to learn? Why try so hard to hide it and keep it a secret from the teacher? Because he was cheating and he knew it.

PotionA
October 10th, 2005, 11:27 pm
Again Harry did do his own work. Following directions and making your own potion isnt the same as passing anothers work off as your own (cheating), if that's the case then everyone who makes their potion according to the standard book is a cheater. If thats the case Hermione doing Neville's potion, or instructing him on how to do it, is Cheating. Hermione would then be a cheater, so why then is she so angry at harry's cheating, when she herself is a cheater?

Yes the end product is Harry's work but the way he achieved it was inappropriate because he didn't put in half the effort his classmates did to keep up with the course. It would've been fair if Harry had told Slughorn how he managed to concoct such perfect potions in class instead of taking full credit for it. And Hermione helping Neville out doesn't make her a cheater and has no similarities with the potions book because Hermione always helps out her friends as much as she can and it's not like she's showing Neville the easy way round to make a potion. Her instructions to Neville were confined within her knowledge and not where she could've made him pass the class effortlessly like Harry did.

Machiavelli
October 10th, 2005, 11:34 pm
Yes the end product is Harry's work but the way he achieved it was inappropriate because he didn't put in half the effort his classmates did to keep up with the course. It would've been fair if Harry had told Slughorn how he managed to concoct such perfect potions in class instead of taking full credit for it. And Hermione helping Neville out doesn't make her a cheater and has no similarities with the potions book because Hermione always helps out her friends as much as she can and it's not like she's showing Neville the easy way round to make a potion. Her instructions to Neville were confined within her knowledge and not where she could've made him pass the class effortlessly like Harry did.Quite true.

And here's another point. Harry was cheating himself. He had done better than he expected on his exam, had suddenly gotten a chance to go on with his studies when he thought he had no chance, and was for the first time presented with a situation where he could learn without the stress and emotional strain of dealing with Snape. But he learns nothing - he takes the easy way out, and instead of trying to make the most of even this opportunity he uses it to skive off.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that it was a great temptation, and he certainly had enough going on that year already. But at the very least Hermione, with her emphasis on traditional learning and her concern with doing things the 'right' way, was well within her character to be increasingly irritated with Harry's attituted towards the book and the class.

SSJ_Jup81
October 10th, 2005, 11:51 pm
It's dishonest to keep it secret, but how is it cheating? If I do additional internet research on a subject in my statistics class and I don't tell my prof, am I cheating? No.It's like obtaining a workbook for a course, with the answers already written in it. Instead of reading the chapters to do the work, one wouldn't have to bother, since the answers are already there.

That's how it was cheating on Harry's part. He didn't learn the stuff on his own, and followed someone else's recipe.

I will admit, I probably would've done the same thing as Harry. It would've been so cool if my College Chem Workbook or my Biology Chem workbook or my Trig workbook would've come with the answers already in it. I would've aced those courses. :lol: Of course, it wouldn't help come test-time because I wouldn't have really learned much of anything. ><

PotionA
October 11th, 2005, 12:16 am
Quite true.

And here's another point. Harry was cheating himself. He had done better than he expected on his exam, had suddenly gotten a chance to go on with his studies when he thought he had no chance, and was for the first time presented with a situation where he could learn without the stress and emotional strain of dealing with Snape. But he learns nothing - he takes the easy way out, and instead of trying to make the most of even this opportunity he uses it to skive off.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that it was a great temptation, and he certainly had enough going on that year already. But at the very least Hermione, with her emphasis on traditional learning and her concern with doing things the 'right' way, was well within her character to be increasingly irritated with Harry's attituted towards the book and the class.

Exactly. Harry was given a second chance but he took it for granted and succumbed to unfair means instead of learning the conventional way where a lot of dedication and effort is required. And Hermione had always stuck to solid facts and it's definitely within her character to react when Harry was following the instructions of an unknown person, even if he was doing badly in class by doing so.

TonyJoe
October 11th, 2005, 12:47 am
It's dishonest to keep it secret, but how is it cheating? If I do additional internet research on a subject in my statistics class and I don't tell my prof, am I cheating? No.
:agree:

A fact that they learned in first year from Snape. A bezoar will save you from most poisons - not all. Slughorn mentioned that as well, it is important to know the theory - to understand how to make an antidote. Harry bought Ron some time with the bezoar but Madame Pomfrey gave him the antidote.

Now, what if that were to happen while they're out searching for the Horcruxes. What if it were Hermione - the only one who understood the theory - who was poisoned and there was no bezoar handy or the bezoar didn't work? What is he going to do then? He didn't have a clue what he was doing on his own.
What does it matter if he learned it first year? He forgot it, the the Prince's book reminded him, Ron lives, ergo, the book is useful. Lets say that Harry doesnt "cheat", and he uses a regular book. Does anyone here really think that harry still learns the theory behind the antidote to Ron's potion? Of course not. No matter what book he uses he wont learn the theory, because he doesnt care to. Either a standard book or the Prince's could potentially teach him the theory, yet in both cases he doesnt learn it. The problem isn't his "cheating" its Harry's constant refusal to actually learn. Your quarrel isnt with the book, it's with Harry's stubborn stupidity. His stupidity is going to Kill hermione in your hypothetical, not the book. Perhaps this is another layer of Hermione's reaction (i'm still holding out on jealousy though).

He didn't do the exact same work as everyone else. He copied someone else's work and passed it off for his own. He had a distinct advantage over everyone else in the class. He had access to information they did not have. He didn't learn anything. He just followed someone else's instructions.
He did the exact same work as everyone else (making the same potion)everyone else did, with his own hands. Not learning isnt cheating, and again, no matter what Book harry used to make the potion, his lack of intrest in the class isnt going to allow him to learn anything anyway. And why does his advantage matter anyway, is he competing against others? How is having a better source for information cheating. Is independent research illegal at Hogwarts?

Hermione was right all the way around. Harry took a big risk in following those directions. It paid off because the Prince was a good potioneer. But Hermione was right. Harry had no way of knowing that risk would pay off. They go to a school of witchcraft and wizardry - books are not always what they seem. The person who wrote those instructions could have been an idiot and caused Harry to make some sort of poison or blow something up. The person could have been into the Dark Arts and who knew what kind of changes he was making to the potion. There could have been some sort of spell on the book itself. Hermione was right to be suspicious from the beginning. Found the book! In the beginning Hermione never showed suspicion just a "bad temper" as Harry out performed her under the prince's instruction. Her first reaction was a bit of competitiveness and dare I say (hah! I already have) jealousy, it wasnt until Harry showed his utter lack of common sense and tried out one of the HBP's spells on ron that she rightly became concerned about the saftey of the book. Jealousy first, saftey second.

And Hermione helping Neville out doesn't make her a cheater and has no similarities with the potions book because Hermione always helps out her friends as much as she can and it's not like she's showing Neville the easy way round to make a potion. Her instructions to Neville were confined within her knowledge and not where she could've made him pass the class effortlessly like Harry did.
Only her knowledge? Hermione's never done any outside of the classroom potions reading that has helped her in potions? Did she not once sneak into the restricted section to gain additionl knowledge in potions making
(knowledge her class mates didnt have access to)? Do you think she never used this info to help her in the class, or pass it on to a class mate in need? Do you believe her potions technique is gained soley from the standard book of potions? Doubtful. And definitely not cheating.

it was inappropriate because he didn't put in half the effort his classmates did to keep up with the course.
I dont put half the effort some of my other classmates do into term papers, because I'm a pretty good writer (at least in my opinion), many of them dont put half the amount of effort i do into math, because it comes easier to them. Because some of us put more effort into certain things, does that mean that in either case were being unfair to each other, or behaving inappropriately. Because harry is using a book that shows him how to cut corners hes behaving inappropriately? I dont think so.

It's like obtaining a workbook for a course, with the answers already written in it. Instead of reading the chapters to do the work, one wouldn't have to bother, since the answers are already there.
It's nothing like that. The actual work is the text of the book in that case. In potions, the work, is the bottle you made with your own hands at the end of the period. The Prince didnt make the bottle for him, it gave him great instructions to do so, instructions with which Harry could have still failed the class, if he didnt make the potion or do his work correctly.

Potency
October 11th, 2005, 1:01 am
I think the fact that some people don't consider what Harry did cheating does show how Harry could also consider in not cheating. I definately consider it cheating, but I can see how people can convince themselves otherwise as well, and I think that's what Harry did in this story.

PotionA
October 11th, 2005, 1:26 am
Only her knowledge? Hermione's never done any outside of the classroom potions reading that has helped her in potions? Did she not once sneak into the restricted section to gain additionl knowledge in potions making (knowledge her class mates didnt have access to)? Do you think she never used this info to help her in the class, or pass it on to a class mate in need? Do you believe her potions technique is gained soley from the standard book of potions? Doubtful. And definitely not cheating.

The only time she sneaked into the Restricted Section was to find out the ingredients and the process to make Polyjuice Potion, which was a desperate measure that the Trio took in order to find out whether Malfoy was the heir of Slytherin or not, and not because Hermione wanted to score brownie points in Potions class. Apart from that, she does her research and extra reading at the libarary, gains additional knowledge and applies them in class, a fact that the teachers are well aware of.

I dont put half the effort some of my other classmates do into term papers, because I'm a pretty good writer (at least in my opinion), many of them dont put half the amount of effort i do into math, because it comes easier to them. Because some of us put more effort into certain things, does that mean that in either case were being unfair to each other, or behaving inappropriately. Because harry is using a book that shows him how to cut corners hes behaving inappropriately? I dont think so.

But that is totally different from Harry's case. Harry's no natural in Potions (even though his OWL score was good because he worked hard for it) and he had to resort to a book which made him the favorite student without putting in the hard work he was supposed to. Suppose Ernie Macmillan or Zabini weren't all that great in NEWT Potions (on Harry's standard maybe), do you think it would've been fair on them that Harry was having it all easy whereas they had to put in extra work to get a pass in the subject?

Krumpet
October 11th, 2005, 1:27 am
I think the fact that some people don't consider what Harry did cheating does show how Harry could also consider in not cheating. I definately consider it cheating, but I can see how people can convince themselves otherwise as well, and I think that's what Harry did in this story.

You hit on an important point for this thread too. Perception. It doesn't matter if Harry did cheat or didn't; (at least as far as this thread is concerned), what matters is that Hermione viewed it as cheating. And I think that this discussion shows that the view has a lot of merit.

Abak
October 11th, 2005, 1:39 am
I think that Harry learned some really good technique from the book, and it would have been silly to disregard it, because it wasn't "approved." Hermione kills herself as a student, because she can't think outside the box.

I think it is very comparable to learning cooking techniques from your Grandma. Harry "learned" from the prince, you "learned" from your grandma. The prince didn't tell Harry why crushing the ingredient works better than cutting. Your grandma might tell you why she does something when cooking, but I can pretty much guarantee you as a food scientist that she is wrong in her reasoning anyway. It it still useful information to have. It would be far more useful if you studied your theory and worked out why it worked better, but you are still better off knowing it even if you don't know why.

Following a formula to produce a product is not original work. The idea of copying does not apply. It's not like the goal of the class was to come up with your own way to do the potion.

Slughorn should have provided assignments that rose beyond following a recipe, if that is what he wanted to teach. Harry did better, because he had a better recipe. Even with the Prince's book, if they had been tested on theory Harry would have done badly. The fact that Harry didn't study the theory behind the potions is partly because his teacher didn't require him too.

In reality, people have advantages over each other in classes. Having a home computer is an advantage. Having an extensive collection of books is an advantage. Have older brothers and sisters who have taken a subject before you is an advantage. Being able to hire a tutor is an advantage. Being naturally talented is an advantage.

meesha1971
October 11th, 2005, 2:26 am
What does it matter if he learned it first year? He forgot it, the the Prince's book reminded him, Ron lives, ergo, the book is useful. Lets say that Harry doesnt "cheat", and he uses a regular book. Does anyone here really think that harry still learns the theory behind the antidote to Ron's potion? Of course not. No matter what book he uses he wont learn the theory, because he doesnt care to. Either a standard book or the Prince's could potentially teach him the theory, yet in both cases he doesnt learn it. The problem isn't his "cheating" its Harry's constant refusal to actually learn. Your quarrel isnt with the book, it's with Harry's stubborn stupidity. His stupidity is going to Kill hermione in your hypothetical, not the book. Perhaps this is another layer of Hermione's reaction (i'm still holding out on jealousy though).

I never said the book wasn't useful. Cheat sheets are very useful but they are still cheat sheets and that's basically what that book was.

Harry didn't learn about the bezoar from the book at all. Here is the quote.

And there it was, scrawled right across a long list of antidotes.

Just shove a bezoar down their throats.

Harry stared at these words for a moment. Hadn't he once, long ago, heard of bezoars? Hadn't Snape mentioned them in their first ever Potions lesson? 'A stone taken from the stomach of a goat, which will protect from most poisons.'

The book told him what to do - not what a bezoar was or what it did. He learned that from Snape in first year. Had he not learned that, he wouldn't have had any idea what that sentence meant. He didn't learn anything from the book.

He did the exact same work as everyone else (making the same potion)everyone else did, with his own hands. Not learning isnt cheating, and again, no matter what Book harry used to make the potion, his lack of intrest in the class isnt going to allow him to learn anything anyway. And why does his advantage matter anyway, is he competing against others? How is having a better source for information cheating. Is independent research illegal at Hogwarts?

He did not do the same work as everybody else. He had help and extra instructions that they had no access to at all. That book was not "independent research". Independent research would involve material that anyone else in the class could find and use themselves if they took the initiative. That book was his alone and nobody had access to it unless he showed it to them.

Hermione was upset with him because he was getting credit and praise for being brilliant at potions and he did not deserve it. He had no clue what he was doing. She was working hard, studying, and trying to learn while he was using a cheat sheet, making no effort, not learning anything, and getting praised and making good grades.

Whether or not it was right or wrong is not the issue. The issue is whether or not Hermione would have felt it was wrong. Was it within character for her to get mad because she felt Harry cheated? It was definitely within her character to do that.

Found the book! In the beginning Hermione never showed suspicion just a "bad temper" as Harry out performed her under the prince's instruction. Her first reaction was a bit of competitiveness and dare I say (hah! I already have) jealousy, it wasnt until Harry showed his utter lack of common sense and tried out one of the HBP's spells on ron that she rightly became concerned about the saftey of the book. Jealousy first, saftey second.

Wrong again. There was no jealousy. Another quote.

Harry slipped the tiny bottle of golden liquid into his inner pocket, feeling an odd combination of delight at the furious looks on the Slytherins' faces and guilt at the disappointed expression on Hermione's. Ron looked simply dumbfounded.

"How did you do that?" he whispered to Harry as they left the dungeon.

"Got lucky, I suppose," said Harry, because Malfoy was within earshot.

Once they were securely ensconced at the Gryffindor table for dinner, however, he felt safe enough to tell them. Hermione's face became stonier with every word he uttered.

"I s'pose you think I cheated?" he finished, aggravated by her expression.

"Well, it wasn't exactly your own work, was it?" she said stiffly.

Bold mine. Hermione was disappointed because Harry did better than her. That's all. Disappointed. When she found out how he did it, she got upset and said it wasn't Harry's work. No jealousy. Disappointment. Disappointement that she didn't do the best and disappointment in Harry for cheating.

Then Ginny comes up and questions the book - Harry realizes she's thinking of Riddle's diary and tries to pacify her. At that point, Hermione becomes suspicious and checks the books for spells. Again, no jealousy. Disappointment and suspicion from the beginning. That's all it was.

Only her knowledge? Hermione's never done any outside of the classroom potions reading that has helped her in potions? Did she not once sneak into the restricted section to gain additionl knowledge in potions making
(knowledge her class mates didnt have access to)? Do you think she never used this info to help her in the class, or pass it on to a class mate in need? Do you believe her potions technique is gained soley from the standard book of potions? Doubtful. And definitely not cheating.

Hermione goes to the library and does outside reading - anyone in the class could do that if they chose to. They all have the same access to the same books. That is independent research - anyone could do it who chose to. Harry's potions book belongs to him alone. Nobody has access to that information unless he shares it with them. That is cheating.

The Polyjuice Potion was not for class and was not being graded. She did that to save the school from a monster - not to improve her grade.

I dont put half the effort some of my other classmates do into term papers, because I'm a pretty good writer (at least in my opinion), many of them dont put half the amount of effort i do into math, because it comes easier to them. Because some of us put more effort into certain things, does that mean that in either case were being unfair to each other, or behaving inappropriately. Because harry is using a book that shows him how to cut corners hes behaving inappropriately? I dont think so.

Oh, it is definitely cheating because he is taking credit for knowledge that he does not have. He is not doing "independent research". He is flat out copying someone else's work. Snape did all the research and studying to find those things out. Harry's just copying. He can't do the work properly without the book. As someone else said, he was given a second chance to actually learn something in potions without the stress of having Snape as a teacher. He blew it off and copied. He took the easy way out.

Would I have done it? Probably, if I could get away with it. In my school, I wouldn't have been able to get away with it though. They actually checked students books for things like that. Would Hermione do it? Not a chance. In Hermione's mind, Harry was cheating and getting praise he didn't deserve. Her reaction was completely within character.

It's nothing like that. The actual work is the text of the book in that case. In potions, the work, is the bottle you made with your own hands at the end of the period. The Prince didnt make the bottle for him, it gave him great instructions to do so, instructions with which Harry could have still failed the class, if he didnt make the potion or do his work correctly.

It's still cheating because nobody else had access to that information. He wasn't getting help from a library book that anyone could have checked out. If you really want to get technical - he had the answers from a teacher. The book was Snapes and Snape used to be their teacher. It would be the same thing as having the teacher's edition of the textbook. All the answers are in it and you don't have to do anything but copy them down.

You hit on an important point for this thread too. Perception. It doesn't matter if Harry did cheat or didn't; (at least as far as this thread is concerned), what matters is that Hermione viewed it as cheating. And I think that this discussion shows that the view has a lot of merit.

Exactly. That is the whole issue. Would Hermione consider it cheating? Yes, she would. It was completely within character for her to get mad because she felt Harry was cheating.

Hulk
October 11th, 2005, 2:53 am
You hit on an important point for this thread too. Perception. It doesn't matter if Harry did cheat or didn't; (at least as far as this thread is concerned), what matters is that Hermione viewed it as cheating. And I think that this discussion shows that the view has a lot of merit.

Yes. This thread is about Hermione's character change, not if Harry was cheating in potion class. Is it normal of Hermione to consider Harry cheating? Is it normal for her to be upset because of it? These are the real questions here.

TonyJoe
October 11th, 2005, 5:18 am
You hit on an important point for this thread too. Perception. It doesn't matter if Harry did cheat or didn't; (at least as far as this thread is concerned), what matters is that Hermione viewed it as cheating. And I think that this discussion shows that the view has a lot of merit.Exactly. That is the whole issue. Would Hermione consider it cheating? Yes, she would. It was completely within character for her to get mad because she felt Harry was cheating.
*sigh* Absolutely irrefuteable. However she certainly didnt consider it to be cheating because no one else had access to the knowledge Harry had. Surely Hermione has an expansive collection of private books, that aids her in class, that others donít possess, and indeed may not be able to possess for whatever reasons. She herself would be behaving inappropriately in having a private library if she held harry to be a cheater for using privately held and unshared knowledge. That would definitely be a shift in her character to the "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" line of thinking. But then again. Who knows, maybe it's more of a decleration than a shift. It would be hilarious if Hermione turned out to be a Marxist or Socialists or Communist.... :rotfl:

Anyway
Then Ginny comes up and questions the book - Harry realizes she's thinking of Riddle's diary and tries to pacify her. At that point, Hermione becomes suspicious and checks the books for spells. Again, no jealousy. Disappointment and suspicion from the beginning. That's all it was.
*shrug* maybe i was wrong. Disapointment at losing Slug's challenge, to five minutes of suspicion. Her tests fail, she cant prove the book unsafe and her suspicions of if being the next Riddle diary falls as she would obviously have reported it to McG as she did the broom stick. Either she was supspicious and lazy in protecting harry (shift in character), or she didnt have any strong suspicions toward the book itself and didnt bother.

Then she would go on to acquire a bad temper in potions class when her results yielded poorer results then the prince's (poor sport and mild jealousy). Suspicions resurface in the fall hogsmead trip at which time she would insult the Prince, calling him dodgy.

Deevo
October 11th, 2005, 12:10 pm
The only time she sneaked into the Restricted Section was to find out the ingredients and the process to make Polyjuice Potion, which was a desperate measure that the Trio took in order to find out whether Malfoy was the heir of Slytherin or not, and not because Hermione wanted to score brownie points in Potions class. Apart from that, she does her research and extra reading at the libarary, gains additional knowledge and applies them in class, a fact that the teachers are well aware of.
Actually I've always felt that Hermione was so enthusiastic about the polyjuice in COS because it was something new to learn, the fact they could use it to gain information from Malfoy was secondary.

Machiavelli
October 11th, 2005, 12:59 pm
*sigh* Absolutely irrefuteable. However she certainly didnt consider it to be cheating because no one else had access to the knowledge Harry had. Surely Hermione has an expansive collection of private books, that aids her in class, that others donít possess, and indeed may not be able to possess for whatever reasons. She herself would be behaving inappropriately in having a private library if she held harry to be a cheater for using privately held and unshared knowledge. That would definitely be a shift in her character to the "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" line of thinking. But then again. Who knows, maybe it's more of a decleration than a shift. It would be hilarious if Hermione turned out to be a Marxist or Socialists or Communist.... :rotfl: Yet I feel it would be thoroughly in Hermione's character to share her books - assuming anyone were even interested. She is constantly harrassing the boys to read more, to look into Hogwarts a History for example. So I don't think she is hoarding information to herself by any means.

*shrug* maybe i was wrong. Disapointment at losing Slug's challenge, to five minutes of suspicion. Her tests fail, she cant prove the book unsafe and her suspicions of if being the next Riddle diary falls as she would obviously have reported it to McG as she did the broom stick. Either she was supspicious and lazy in protecting harry (shift in character), or she didnt have any strong suspicions toward the book itself and didnt bother.

Then she would go on to acquire a bad temper in potions class when her results yielded poorer results then the prince's (poor sport and mild jealousy). Suspicions resurface in the fall hogsmead trip at which time she would insult the Prince, calling him dodgy.Again, this is an interesting advance in Hermione's character. She is disappointed at her failure, then immediately recognises Ginny's very valid point (classic Hermione) and becomes concerned. However, now rather than run to authority as she would have three years ago, she has confidence in her own ability to recognise a problem, and probably a slightly lowered expectation of those in command (since the Umbridge fiasco that's rather understandable). So she runs her own diagnostic and cannot find anything. However, she now reconises that Harry beat her at a contest not through his own skill, but through an advantage no one else had. Okay, one time lucky break - no worries. But he continues to use it, without question, without further effort on his part. Being Hermione she is nettled at his lack of academic integrity, and still suspicious of the book. Also being Hermione she becomes increasingly stubborn over the whole issue.

Again - this is all within character as it has developed within the books.

SSJ_Jup81
October 11th, 2005, 1:01 pm
*sigh* Absolutely irrefuteable. However she certainly didnt consider it to be cheating because no one else had access to the knowledge Harry had. Surely Hermione has an expansive collection of private books, that aids her in class, that others donít possess, and indeed may not be able to possess for whatever reasons.Since Hermione is, for the most part, a stickler to the rules, I highly doubt this. Probably whatever book she has in her private collection can be attainable to most any student and I doubt that for any of her books, unless she wrote guides and notes in it, it didn't come that way, therefore, she still learned her own work. Harry breezed by in the course in a dishonest fashion.She herself would be behaving inappropriately in having a private library if she held harry to be a cheater for using privately held and unshared knowledge.Harry had a book with directions and answers already scribbled in it. Harry did not obtain this on his own, nor were they his own notes. Harry was following someone else's work and taking full credit. I don't blame Hermione (who always uses good old hardwork) for considering it cheating. It's like that workbook scenario I mentioned earlier.

Krumpet
October 11th, 2005, 1:31 pm
Yet I feel it would be thoroughly in Hermione's character to share her books - assuming anyone were even interested. She is constantly harrassing the boys to read more, to look into Hogwarts a History for example. So I don't think she is hoarding information to herself by any means.

I'd also like to add that Hermione does her research outside of class. While "Hogwart's a History" would be useful in History of magic, she doesn't bring it there. She relies on her memory and what she has learned to help her out in her class. Harry didn't even have to memorize, or study the book because it was always right there in class.

blue3ski
October 11th, 2005, 2:53 pm
I totally disagree. He essentially just had a better textbook than Hermione did. Or something like a tutor. It's not cheating to find a good resource and use it. Hermione should have used it too, as she would have learned its valuable insights as well.

It is essentially cheating when Harry doesn't really know what he's doing. He doesn't really know what goes into the concoctions, what the ingredients really do, and the concepts involved.

Why wouldn't Hermione use the book? Because for her, it is cheating as she doesn't really understand the extra instructions, and thereby for her, it would be cheating, just like copying off someone's paper. Also, she had her reasons for doubting the textbook: the spells that grew increasingly nasty.

Finding things out for yourself is experimentation not reading a book. Harry was essentially doing the exact same thing as she was, he just was learning from the Prince's notes. Albeit he was not studying as much. Technique can make up for lack of understanding sometimes, though.

There was no technique on Harry's part. He was taking credit for someone else's. He wasn't learning from the Prince--he was copying from him. Really learning and just copying are two different things altogether. You might sit in a class and copy notes the whole time, but that doesn't mean you are necessarily learning. The Prince was just a shortcut for Harry so he could attain good grades without studying or working hard at all

This is the real reason why Harry's way is not the best. If he would have sat down and learned why the Prince's notes were useful, then he would have been set. I have to admit that this part of the book bothered me. If he and Hermione had sat down together to learn from the Prince's notes and reason out the theory behind it, they could have improved so much. Hermione is just so set in her ways. Snape never seemed to push them past cook book type potions making, though. It seemed like Slughorn tried, but he just threw them in without any direction.

I guess I am getting off topic, though.

That is Harry's problem. He doesn't really care about the theory behind the Prince's notes--as long as he got Harry through Potions. This has been his attitude since the first book--just copying/allowing Hermione to fix his homework without really knowing/bothering to know what it was that she was correcting.

Snape did no such thing. Why do you think he keeps setting essays on them? To make them understand what they were doing.

Come on. If i use someone elses recipe to make a batch of cookies, without memorizing the actual formula and relying on the book every time, does that make me a cheater? I dont think so.).

That depends on the situation. If you are making it for fun, and credit the person you got the recipe from, perhaps not. But when you are doing it for a class or contest, it most certainly does, because while other people work hard, you don't, and just use that recipe to coast through.

I cant find my book, but didnt he learn that thing about those goat's stomach thingies that saved Ron's life?

He got it, as usual, from the book. In their past lesson, Slughorn was having them make antidotes, and Harry was falling apart, not having understood what he was supposed to do now since the Prince didn't have instructions for making them. He finally spotted a note on bezoars scrawled across a list of antidotes, and it was only after this that he remembered Snape's mentioning the bezoar once.

Hermione never seemed to mind when HP and RW were getting by on coppying her work. Now all of sudden their copying makes her angry. Either this is a character change or she's jealous at either harry for stealing academic glory from her, or at the Prince for his support of her friends. In either case, the jealousy wouldnt be anything new (first showing up in GOF).

A thing with Hermione is that she likes to feel that she is needed. Before, Harry needed her help to get through Potions. Now, he is doing even better than she is, and through a source she does not trust at all.

*shrug* maybe i was wrong. Disapointment at losing Slug's challenge, to five minutes of suspicion. Her tests fail, she cant prove the book unsafe and her suspicions of if being the next Riddle diary falls as she would obviously have reported it to McG as she did the broom stick. Either she was supspicious and lazy in protecting harry (shift in character), or she didnt have any strong suspicions toward the book itself and didnt bother.

Then she would go on to acquire a bad temper in potions class when her results yielded poorer results then the prince's (poor sport and mild jealousy). Suspicions resurface in the fall hogsmead trip at which time she would insult the Prince, calling him dodgy.

She did greatly suspect the book. The annoyed manner was her making it clear she was not pleased with it and didn't trust it. She didn't report it however, because she thought it was still Harry's choice to give it up. He's a grown man--it's to be up to him to make his decisions. She can't force him. She saw what happened when she turned in the broom in PoA--Harry refused to talk to her and she was deemed a tattletale. She didn't want that to happen again, especially as she and Ron were already not on good terms and she was needing Harry's companionship. All she could do was show her opinion, but she can't do stuff like that without consulting him

Hermione's reactions to this situation were completely in-character--and all the more show how she has also grown up

meesha1971
October 11th, 2005, 9:00 pm
*sigh* Absolutely irrefuteable. However she certainly didnt consider it to be cheating because no one else had access to the knowledge Harry had. Surely Hermione has an expansive collection of private books, that aids her in class, that others donít possess, and indeed may not be able to possess for whatever reasons. She herself would be behaving inappropriately in having a private library if she held harry to be a cheater for using privately held and unshared knowledge. That would definitely be a shift in her character to the "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" line of thinking. But then again. Who knows, maybe it's more of a decleration than a shift. It would be hilarious if Hermione turned out to be a Marxist or Socialists or Communist.... :rotfl:

Anyway

Hermione doesn't have her own "private library". She goes to the Hogwarts library to study and research. Hermione does own books outside of the textbooks, like Hogwarts, A History but she bought those books at a shop. Any student could go into a shop and buy the same books if they chose to. She does not bring all of her books with her to school - she doesn't have room in her trunk. In COS, she had to leave Hogwarts, A History at home because she didn't have room to pack it with all the Lockhart books. Just a guess here, but I would say that she would have room to bring 5 or 6 books besides the actual textbooks and one of those would definitely be Hogwarts, A History because it seems to be her favorite. ;)

Someone else mentioned students owning computers or extra books being an unfair advantage. That is not so. Anyone can go to a public library and use a computer to research on the internet. Anyone can go to a public library to check out books and/or do research. The only advantage a student with their own computer or owning the books has is they don't have to go to the library to use them. Any student can access that information.

It is the same with Hermione. Hermione owns a lot of books but they were all purchased at a shop and any student could buy the same books if they chose to. They have access to the same information if they choose to use it. Harry's potions book is different. It contains handwritten notes that are not published anywhere. Those notes do not exist in any book that the other students would have access to. They would not be found in any book in the library or any book in any shop.

*shrug* maybe i was wrong. Disapointment at losing Slug's challenge, to five minutes of suspicion. Her tests fail, she cant prove the book unsafe and her suspicions of if being the next Riddle diary falls as she would obviously have reported it to McG as she did the broom stick. Either she was supspicious and lazy in protecting harry (shift in character), or she didnt have any strong suspicions toward the book itself and didnt bother.

Then she would go on to acquire a bad temper in potions class when her results yielded poorer results then the prince's (poor sport and mild jealousy). Suspicions resurface in the fall hogsmead trip at which time she would insult the Prince, calling him dodgy.

No, she wasn't jealous. She was mad and frustrated because Harry was cheating and getting all that praise and credit he didn't deserve. As long as he was getting good results, he wouldn't listen to her about how wrong it was and just accused her of being jealous.

She was not suspicious for just five minutes. She verified that there were no spells on the book but she still looked at it suspiciously. Then Harry started experimenting with the spells handwritten in the margins. She became increasingly suspicious - not of the book itself but the person who wrote the notes in it. She tried to make Harry see that what he was doing was dangerous - he didn't know what those spells did and was just trying them out at random to find out. Again, she was shot down and accused of being jealous.

What Harry should have done was shown that book to someone - he had a good opportunity at Christmas. He could have shown that book to Lupin and Lupin could have helped him determine if the spells were dark magic or not. He could have shown it to Dumbledore. Dumbledore definitely could have told him if the spells were dark magic. If he had listened to Hermione or shown the book to an adult he trusted, he might not have almost killed Malfoy. Not to mention, that they might have discovered that Snape was the HBP a lot sooner.

I think that book could end up being very valuable to them. Now that they know that it was Snape who wrote those notes and spells in it, they can study it and maybe figure out more about Snape. Knowing it was Snape, also lets them (particularly Hermione) know that the instructions on the potions are safe because he was an excellent potioneer. They can study the spells written in the margins and have an idea of what Snape (or other DE's) might use against them if they end up in a battle.

Anyway, Hermoine's reaction was completey within her character. She wasn't jealous. She was mad because, in her opinion, Harry was cheating. She was suspicious because of the handwritten spells - unapproved spells. She was worried because Harry and Ron were keen on using those spells when they didn't know what they did.

GoldenEgg
October 11th, 2005, 11:50 pm
*sigh* Absolutely irrefuteable. However she certainly didnt consider it to be cheating because no one else had access to the knowledge Harry had. Surely Hermione has an expansive collection of private books, that aids her in class, that others donít possess, and indeed may not be able to possess for whatever reasons. She herself would be behaving inappropriately in having a private library if she held harry to be a cheater for using privately held and unshared knowledge. That would definitely be a shift in her character to the "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" line of thinking.

*sigh* Absolutely irrefutable.

What you don't get is that Harry isn't just getting references from a book, he is passing it off as his own work. He is making it look like HE came up with all of the Princes fabulous ideas. If that isn't cheating, what is? Whereas if Hermione had "her own private library" (which is, as meesha1971 (http://member.php?u=60006) explained, totally different from written notes) she would be able to properly reference all of her work as being someone else's idea, not her own.

Going to the library or acquiring a private collection of books is something that anyone could do, if they were hardworking enough to do it. Only Hermione is a good enough student to go out and learn things by herself. She was perfectly justified in her irritation at Harry.

PotionA
October 12th, 2005, 12:05 am
What you don't get is that Harry isn't just getting references from a book, he is passing it off as his own work. He is making it look like HE came up with all of the Princes fabulous ideas. If that isn't cheating, what is? Whereas if Hermione had "her own private library" (which is, as meesha1971 explained, totally different from written notes) she would be able to properly reference all of her work as being someone else's idea, not her own.

Exactly. Harry takes all the credit for the Prince's work which makes it even more unfair because students have to stick to the assigned textbooks and work their around to earn a decent grade.

PhoenixSong27
October 12th, 2005, 12:12 am
i don't think hermione has ever had to deal with these feelings before, or rather she made herself avoid those feelings. she has always liked ron but this year she was truely jealous because of lavendar. also, i think hermione is realizing that she can't fight all of hagrid's battles for him. i'm not saying it was inconsiderate or a bit immature, but she's growing up.

meesha1971
October 12th, 2005, 1:08 am
*sigh* Absolutely irrefutable.

What you don't get is that Harry isn't just getting references from a book, he is passing it off as his own work. He is making it look like HE came up with all of the Princes fabulous ideas. If that isn't cheating, what is? Whereas if Hermione had "her own private library" (which is, as meesha1971 (http://member.php?u=60006) explained, totally different from written notes) she would be able to properly reference all of her work as being someone else's idea, not her own.

Going to the library or acquiring a private collection of books is something that anyone could do, if they were hardworking enough to do it. Only Hermione is a good enough student to go out and learn things by herself. She was perfectly justified in her irritation at Harry.

Exactly! Very well said. :tu:

Dagmar
October 12th, 2005, 2:47 am
Well if you'll notice Hermione changes through out the series. In the first book she was very uptight and basically a stick in the mud. To the point that the boys make fun of her.
Then she steps up and takes the blame in the bathroom with the Troll.
In the third book she punches Draco in the nose and is disrespectful to Trelawny. I think as the three grow they are taking on a bit of each others personas.

TonyJoe
October 12th, 2005, 3:03 am
Yet I feel it would be thoroughly in Hermione's character to share her books - assuming anyone were even interested. She is constantly harrassing the boys to read more, to look into Hogwarts a History for example. So I don't think she is hoarding information to herself by any means.And if she did choose to horad all of her knowledge, she would be unethical? There are (I think) fewer than twenty true ninja masters in the world and most people who petition them for instruction in the art are denied. They refuse to share knowledge. Why? It doesnt matter why they refuse the knowledge is theirs and theirs to share with whom ever they choose. Now if I stumbled upon a manual written by one of these masters I would be "cheating" for not sharing it? Since when is wrong to hoard anything, money, resources, knowledge? Tools, no matter how they are acquired, work or accident, are the holder's to do with what he/she wishes, and its not cheating the rest to do so.

I'd also like to add that Hermione does her research outside of class. While "Hogwart's a History" would be useful in History of magic, she doesn't bring it there. She relies on her memory and what she has learned to help her out in her class. Harry didn't even have to memorize, or study the book because it was always right there in class.
As opposed to everyone else including hermione who memorized everything they needed for potions, thus explaining the massive text book on their desk every day.
It is the same with Hermione. Hermione owns a lot of books but they were all purchased at a shop and any student could buy the same books if they chose to. They have access to the same information if they choose to use it. Harry's potions book is different. It contains handwritten notes that are not published anywhere. Those notes do not exist in any book that the other students would have access to. They would not be found in any book in the library or any book in any shop.
If sometime after Harry found the book Slughorn had given an open book test on the uses of the Beozar in relation to poison, Harry would have gotten it right, having learned it from the Prince. Hermione and the rest would probrablly have gotten it right as well having learned it from Professor Snape. Even though it wasnt pubished, Harry and his classmates had access to the same info.

Even if they themselves hadnt been taught by the prince, it wouldnt be cheating for Harry to do so as well. Here's a thought, I suck at math. I have a tudor who's awesome. I also took an SAT course. I apply lessons learned in both to my everyday class, and no one in my class has access to my tudor and access to the course would be limited to their ability to pay. Am I a cheater? Of course not. It cant be called cheating because you wisely apply outside info to your everyday work. It seems the most important question in on this topic however is is "harry not sharing" even apart of Hermione's reasoning in her calling him a cheater? If it did (which I absolutely can not find and do not believe), that seems to be a shift from her usual moral superiority to petty squabbling, even though in either case she's still obviously more moral than HP or RW.

What you don't get is that Harry isn't just getting references from a book, he is passing it off as his own work. He is making it look like HE came up with all of the Princes fabulous ideas. If that isn't cheating, what is?
The focus of the grading is on the work that sits on Slughorn's desk at the end of the period, not how smart he makes himself look before then, unless the teacher is dumb enough to grade on appearances instead of actual work which Hermione would not be able to lay at harry's feet. It's dishonest I confess, but not the same as ordering a love potion from Diagon Alley and turning it in and calling it his own.

She did greatly suspect the book. The annoyed manner was her making it clear she was not pleased with it and didn't trust it. She didn't report it however, because she thought it was still Harry's choice to give it up. He's a grown man--it's to be up to him to make his decisions. She can't force him. She saw what happened when she turned in the broom in PoA--Harry refused to talk to her and she was deemed a tattletale. She didn't want that to happen again, especially as she and Ron were already not on good terms and she was needing Harry's companionship. All she could do was show her opinion, but she can't do stuff like that without consulting him

Hermione's reactions to this situation were completely in-character--and all the more show how she has also grown up

The narrator does not say the bad temper was because she was suspicious, it's because her work could not yield the same result as Harry and the Prince. Though you are right, and I think Harry should indeed be grateful to her for showing a bit of maturity and graceously allowing him to make decisions for himself.

Going to the library or acquiring a private collection of books is something that anyone could do, if they were hardworking enough to do it. Only Hermione is a good enough student to go out and learn things by herself. She was perfectly justified in her irritation at Harry.
There are other ways of acquiring knowledge not all easily cited, and in any event unnessacary to do so in everyday class room conversation. Hermione would not suggest these sources not be used because they cant be shared or obtained by or with everyone else.

meesha1971
October 12th, 2005, 3:20 am
And if she did choose to horad all of her knowledge, she would be unethical? There are (I think) fewer than twenty true ninja masters in the world and most people who petition them for instruction in the art are denied. They refuse to share knowledge. Why? It doesnt matter why they refuse the knowledge is theirs and theirs to share with whom ever they choose. Now if I stumbled upon a manual written by one of these masters I would be "cheating" for not sharing it? Since when is wrong to hoard anything, money, resources, knowledge? Tools, no matter how they are acquired, work or accident, are the holder's to do with what he/she wishes, and its not cheating the rest to do so.

If you were studying to be a ninja with 11 other people and stumbled upon this manual - kept it to yourself and passed off the knowledge as your own, then yes, you would be cheating.

If sometime after Harry found the book Slughorn had given an open book test on the uses of the Beozar in relation to poison, Harry would have gotten it right, having learned it from the Prince. Hermione and the rest would probrablly have gotten it right as well having learned it from Professor Snape. Even though it wasnt pubished, Harry and his classmates had access to the same info.

Harry didn't learn about the bezoar from the Prince's book. He learned it from Snape in first year. If he hadn't already known, that sentence in the book would have made no sense to him. Harry didn't learn anything from the Prince's book. He just copied from it.

Even if they themselves hadnt been taught by the prince, it wouldnt be cheating for Harry to do so as well. Here's a thought, I suck at math. I have a tudor who's awesome. I also took an SAT course. I apply lessons learned in both to my everyday class, and no one in my class has access to my tudor and access to the course would be limited to their ability to pay. Am I a cheater? Of course not. It cant be called cheating because you wisely apply outside info to your everyday work. It seems the most important question in on this topic however is is "harry not sharing" even apart of Hermione's reasoning in her calling him a cheater? If it did (which I absolutely can not find and do not believe), that seems to be a shift from her usual moral superiority to petty squabbling, even though in either case she's still obviously more moral than HP or RW.

You had a tutor who offered their services to others as well. You did not have a tutor who was only helping you and nobody else. None of these things apply because others have access to them as well. I cannot afford to pay for a tutor for my kids - the school provided tutoring for them. Any book that Hermione has would be available in the library. It is shared knowledge.

The Prince's book was private, handwritten notes. Nobody had access to anything like that. Those hints and tips were not available to the other students - they couldn't buy them in a bookshop or find them in the library. They were only located in that book.

Harry passed off the work as his own work - hid the book under a new cover - strived to keep the book hidden so he wouldn't get caught with it. He knew he was cheating. If it was no big deal, why worry so much?

He didn't learn anything, it was not his own work, he had access to information that nobody else did - he cheated. In Hermione's opinion, he cheated and was irresponsible with the spells handwritten in the book.

It was completely within character for her to react the way she did because she felt that he was cheating.

griselmania
October 12th, 2005, 3:39 am
I also noticed how Hermione changed in this book. I don't like it either, the whole not going to Aragog's barial, and how she always put off on Harry wondering about what Draco was doing. I especially didn't like that whole taking McLaggen to the party thing, that really isn't like her.

Hopefully, in the next book she'll be her good-old reasonable self.

TonyJoe
October 12th, 2005, 3:43 am
If you were studying to be a ninja with 11 other people and stumbled upon this manual - kept it to yourself and passed off the knowledge as your own, then yes, you would be cheating.
And still like Harry the presentation of ideas isnt what matters it's your ability to perform the task in front of you, which in Harry's case is the day's potion. If harry had all of these fantastic new ideas from the prince and wasnt capable enough to use them, he would still have failed the class no matter how bright he sounded Slughorn. The key focus of the class, the actual physical work, was all harry's and not cheating.

You had a tutor who offered their services to others as well. You did not have a tutor who was only helping you and nobody else. None of these things apply because others have access to them as well. I cannot afford to pay for a tutor for my kids - the school provided tutoring for them. Any book that Hermione has would be available in the library. It is shared knowledge.
I dont think i'm going to be swayed on this point and you definitely aren't. The exclusivity of the knowledge doesnt matter. And the fact remains that Hermione never made the point that this was a reason for the book being cheating.


Harry passed off the work as his own work - hid the book under a new cover - strived to keep the book hidden so he wouldn't get caught with it. He knew he was cheating. If it was no big deal, why worry so much?*shrug* It was prudent to do so because obviously everyone wouldnt agree with Hermione's definiton of cheating. As far as i'm concerned he was protecting himself from the injustice that it would have been to have the book taken away from him.

It was completely within character for her to react the way she did because she felt that he was cheating.
Indeed, but if her justification was that it wasnt included in the common pool of knowledge it would be a leap into the absurd for her character.

fireangel265
October 12th, 2005, 3:44 am
and how she always put off on Harry wondering about what Draco was doing.


I don't think Hermione was out of character here. We believed Harry because we were 'there' with him. We saw what he saw. So his ideas make sense to us. But Hermione didn't see what he saw, and knows that Harry tends to over analyze things when it comes to Malfoy and Snape.

HedwigOwl
October 12th, 2005, 3:50 am
The Prince's book was private, handwritten notes. Nobody had access to anything like that. Those hints and tips were not available to the other students - they couldn't buy them in a bookshop or find them in the library. They were only located in that book.

Harry passed off the work as his own work - hid the book under a new cover - strived to keep the book hidden so he wouldn't get caught with it. He knew he was cheating. If it was no big deal, why worry so much?

He didn't learn anything, it was not his own work, he had access to information that nobody else did - he cheated. In Hermione's opinion, he cheated and was irresponsible with the spells handwritten in the book.

It was completely within character for her to react the way she did because she felt that he was cheating.
I agree that Hermione's reaction was normal, since she viewed it that way. But, when Hermione helps Neville, that's not his work it's hers. And she helps him quite a bit because Neville's grandmother mentions it to her. Personally I don't see a big difference with Harry's using the book notes -- he could have chosen to not use them. In fact, Harry told Hermione to add a clockwise stir to the potion, she refused saying the book says counterclockwise. Like Ron pointed out, he just chose to use different instructions which ironically were Snape's.

meesha1971
October 12th, 2005, 4:29 am
And still like Harry the presentation of ideas isnt what matters it's your ability to perform the task in front of you, which in Harry's case is the day's potion. If harry had all of these fantastic new ideas from the prince and wasnt capable enough to use them, he would still have failed the class no matter how bright he sounded Slughorn. The key focus of the class, the actual physical work, was all harry's and not cheating.

I dont think i'm going to be swayed on this point and you definitely aren't. The exclusivity of the knowledge doesnt matter. And the fact remains that Hermione never made the point that this was a reason for the book being cheating.

*shrug* It was prudent to do so because obviously everyone wouldnt agree with Hermione's definiton of cheating. As far as i'm concerned he was protecting himself from the injustice that it would have been to have the book taken away from him.

Indeed, but if her justification was that it wasnt included in the common pool of knowledge it would be a leap into the absurd for her character.


We're not accomplishing anything and getting way off topic by discussing Harry - although I will say that if Harry felt the need to protect himself from the book being taken away that supports the idea that he knew he was cheating. ;) The important thing is that Hermione was not behaving out of character. She considered it cheating - she did say so several times - it wasn't his work, he didn't deserve the credit, and so on. In her opinion, he was cheating and that's what upset her about him using the book in class.

The other things - the spells written in the margin - just made her suspicious about the Prince. She felt it was irresponsible for Ron and Harry to try those spells at random without knowing what they would do. They weren't "approved" spells as far as they knew. Again, in character for her to worry about things like that.

FangnFluffy
October 12th, 2005, 5:42 am
Hermione spends her time in HBP on a hormonal-induced joyride from hell.

I think JK did a fantastic job with Hermione in this book. Her behavior seems utterly erratic and off from the previous books, but then again, she's no longer 11. Her best friends already know how brilliant she is so she doesn't have to prove her brains to them anymore. In this book her heart is longing for complete acceptance with the person she loves and instead of finding joy with him - he sends her on an emotional trip from hell.

Hermione's having a personal bad year: the boy she loves is acting like a complete moron and is slobbering all over another annoying girl, her best friend is cheating his way towards a better grade than she in his least favorite class, and she's being forced to goto annoying parties that she has little interest in - which for some reason the boy she loves is angry about.

Harry & the HBP book:

Hermione the goddess of bookworms would be royally ticked off that Harry was doing better than she in Potions because he was "cheating." As a former A student, I completely identified with how she snubbed Harry and got very angry at him for cheating his way to victory. We have to remember that Snape never complimented Hermione oin potions, so w/ Slughorn, this was finally her chance to really shine in the class. Instead, what happens? Harry uses the Prince's book and becomes Slughorn's prized pet.

We have to remember that Harry wasn't listening to her in the slightest in this book - she suggested the Prince might be female and he completely ignored the idea (both were true, from a certain point of view) and he didn't listen to her when she warned him that trusting the book of unknown origins could lead to disaterous consequences (Malfoy attack.)

As the "brightest witch of her age" Hermione would loathe cheating, and as a result she would snub Harry and refuse to help him in other endeavors.

Ron and the Hormonal Horrors

Being a teenage girl is the most annoying thing in the entire universe...I can attest to this. Hermione has always been somewhat conscious of her looks - the spell w/ her teeth in GOF shows that. She would've been very annoyed that Ron was slobbering all over the lovely, yet annoying, Lavendar. There's little doubt that she was probably self-loathing her personal appearance and all of the other emotional trappings that go along w/ being a teenage girl.

In short, she finally had some self-esteem problems in this book.

If you've got a crush on someone, or are in love with them, and they're as utterly clueless as Ron, trust me when I say you'd act rather like Hermione did. I think that JK had a lot of fun with this book in that she had Hermione act out and behave in the way that most girls would LOVE to do - attack Ron w/ flying chicks, give him massive cold shoulders, ask other guys to a dance, etc.

Hermione IMO is finally behaving like a real teenager in this book - and even more importantly - she's a real person. I got the sense that she went off and had many gagging, crying fits off screen. Hermione was miserable in this book because of her hormones.

You'll note that after Ron's near poisoning and after he dumps Lavendar, she starts acting like herself again. She does listen to Harry and takes the lucky potion and goes off to guard Snape. At the end of the book, the Hermione that Harry trusts is back.

Both Hermione and Ron were more self involved in this book than any of the others in the series because of their raging teenage emotions. There were many, MANY hints of this sort of showdown coming from the previous books - JK just allowed for all of the teen-hormone junk to hit the fan (so to speak) now instead of muddying up the last book.

Using McLaggen

This isn't unprecedented. Hermione went to the dance in GOF as a sneaky way to get Ron's goat. Ron didn't ask her out soon enough, more as a careless afterthought, so she instead went out w/ the one person she knew would annoy him the most.

Being emotionally unbalanced, she thought McLaggen would give her the same effect. Unfortunately, it backfired on her and she was miserable.

rocky
October 12th, 2005, 5:45 am
why would it bother anyone that Hermione didnt go to aragog's funeral?! Harry was not supposed to be out and about that night, but because of Felix he was. Slughorn saw opportunity knocking for money during Aragog's funeral.

You are right that the prefect role and Hermione's studying was defo downplayed...but then again, this book was really about informing Harry about Voldemorts past. Hermione's role in book 6 is similar to her role in book 3, she was a lil distant and lets face it everyone was a lil blinded by love.

If the entire 7 book series was out and we could view all the books in context for what they are all worth Im sure that Hermione's role was very planned out. In the previous books, Hermione was used by JK to convey information. JK said on the CoS DVD extras that Dumbledore and Hermione could always fill the reader in on things they need to know and its always plausible that they know pretty much everything. SO.....since Dumbledore gave all the info away Hermione was not as needed.

Also since Hermione was attacked and knocked out while fighting the Death Eaters in OotP Im sure she is brushing up on DADA knowledge

meesha1971
October 12th, 2005, 5:48 am
Hermione spends her time in HBP on a hormonal-induced joyride from hell.

I think JK did a fantastic job with Hermione in this book. Her behavior seems utterly erratic and off from the previous books, but then again, she's no longer 11. Her best friends already know how brilliant she is so she doesn't have to prove her brains to them anymore. In this book her heart is longing for complete acceptance with the person she loves and instead of finding joy with him - he sends her on an emotional trip from hell.

Hermione's having a personal bad year: the boy she loves is acting like a complete moron and is slobbering all over another annoying girl, her best friend is cheating his way towards a better grade than she in his least favorite class, and she's being forced to goto annoying parties that she has little interest in - which for some reason the boy she loves is angry about.

Harry & the HBP book:

Hermione the goddess of bookworms would be royally ticked off that Harry was doing better than she in Potions because he was "cheating." As a former A student, I completely identified with how she snubbed Harry and got very angry at him for cheating his way to victory. We have to remember that Snape never complimented Hermione oin potions, so w/ Slughorn, this was finally her chance to really shine in the class. Instead, what happens? Harry uses the Prince's book and becomes Slughorn's prized pet.

We have to remember that Harry wasn't listening to her in the slightest in this book - she suggested the Prince might be female and he completely ignored the idea (both were true, from a certain point of view) and he didn't listen to her when she warned him that trusting the book of unknown origins could lead to disaterous consequences (Malfoy attack.)

As the "brightest witch of her age" Hermione would loathe cheating, and as a result she would snub Harry and refuse to help him in other endeavors.

Ron and the Hormonal Horrors

Being a teenage girl is the most annoying thing in the entire universe...I can attest to this. Hermione has always been somewhat conscious of her looks - the spell w/ her teeth in GOF shows that. She would've been very annoyed that Ron was slobbering all over the lovely, yet annoying, Lavendar. There's little doubt that she was probably self-loathing her personal appearance and all of the other emotional trappings that go along w/ being a teenage girl.

In short, she finally had some self-esteem problems in this book.

If you've got a crush on someone, or are in love with them, and they're as utterly clueless as Ron, trust me when I say you'd act rather like Hermione did. I think that JK had a lot of fun with this book in that she had Hermione act out and behave in the way that most girls would LOVE to do - attack Ron w/ flying chicks, give him massive cold shoulders, ask other guys to a dance, etc.

Hermione IMO is finally behaving like a real teenager in this book - and even more importantly - she's a real person. I got the sense that she went off and had many gagging, crying fits off screen. Hermione was miserable in this book because of her hormones.

You'll note that after Ron's near poisoning and after he dumps Lavendar, she starts acting like herself again. She does listen to Harry and takes the lucky potion and goes off to guard Snape. At the end of the book, the Hermione that Harry trusts is back.

Both Hermione and Ron were more self involved in this book than any of the others in the series because of their raging teenage emotions. There were many, MANY hints of this sort of showdown coming from the previous books - JK just allowed for all of the teen-hormone junk to hit the fan (so to speak) now instead of muddying up the last book.

Using McLaggen

This isn't unprecedented. Hermione went to the dance in GOF as a sneaky way to get Ron's goat. Ron didn't ask her out soon enough, more as a careless afterthought, so she instead went out w/ the one person she knew would annoy him the most.

Being emotionally unbalanced, she thought McLaggen would give her the same effect. Unfortunately, it backfired on her and she was miserable.

Absolutely perfect! *wipes tear* You summed it up beautifully. :tu:

TonyJoe
October 12th, 2005, 6:41 am
Hermione IMO is finally behaving like a real teenager in this book - and even more importantly - she's a real person. I got the sense that she went off and had many gagging, crying fits off screen. Hermione was miserable in this book because of her hormones.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, overall good analysis, Ron/Lav and Potions just sort of pushed things to the surface that were always there, and didnt really imo (and yours it seems) signify a character change. The only thing I guess I sort of disagree with you on is the 'real person' thing. I've always seen her as a real person, and never found her to be an implausible character, though her emotional adolesence is obviously on full display in HBP where in other books it might have been not as glaring next to her intellect and sense of responsibility.

The one thing that to me definitely signifies a change in character or hopefully just a slight deviation to be corrected in book seven, is as Rocky mentioned Aragog's funeral.

"Harry you cant be thinking of going." said Hermione. "It's such a pointless thing to get detention for."
That she would think that going to console a great friend is a pointless and worthesss thing to get a detention for, when you consider that if faced with the choice Hagrid would endure far worse than detention for any of them, really sucks, and it is a change from whiney and naggy, but ultimately empathetic and kind, to just being unbelievably and uncharacteristically as FangnFluffy said, self involved. But hopefully like you said it's nothing more than hormones.This has probrablly been debated ad nauseam in this thread :p

meesha1971
October 12th, 2005, 7:11 am
The one thing that to me definitely signifies a change in character or hopefully just a slight deviation to be corrected in book seven, is as Rocky mentioned Aragog's funeral.

"Harry you cant be thinking of going." said Hermione. "It's such a pointless thing to get detention for."
That she would think that going to console a great friend is a pointless and worthesss thing to get a detention for, when you consider that if faced with the choice Hagrid would endure far worse than detention for any of them, really sucks, and it is a change from whiney and naggy, but ultimately empathetic and kind, to just being unbelievably and uncharacteristically as FangnFluffy said, self involved. But hopefully like you said it's nothing more than hormones.This has probrablly been debated ad nauseam in this thread :p

I have to disagree. This was completely in character for Hermione. Hagrid purposely asked them to break the rules - not for a good cause but to have the burial at night. He knew they weren't supposed to be out - he told them to use the invisibility cloak.

As Hermione said, it would have been different if it had been a matter of saving Aragog. This wasn't a situation where Hagrid needed their help with something. Had he held the funeral during the day, when they wouldn't be breaking any rules, they would have gone.

What was pointless was breaking the rules to bury the spider at night when it could have been done during the day. Hagrid never should have asked them to put themselves at risk like that, although his behavior is understandable because he was grieving.

Hermione knew they could comfort Hagrid during the day without breaking any rules. Hagrid would have understood - he did understand when only Harry showed up.

It was in character for her because Hermione does not break rules without good reason. She said it herself, if it had been a matter of saving Aragog, she would have broken the rules and gone to Hagrid's. Comforting Hagrid wasn't urgent and could have been done during the day without breaking rules.

Budderball
October 12th, 2005, 10:06 am
Note to Mods: I looked all over to see if this was discussed anywhere and couldn't find anything. But if you feel its inappropriate, then I'm sorry for troubling you.

Was it just me, or did Hermione seem...different in this book?

In all of the other books she has never failed to listen to what Harry has to say nor flagrantly refused to help Hagrid. All of a sudden she's not listening to anything Harry has to say (and he was right this time, go figure) and refused to go to Aragog's burial. Does none of this seem strange to anyone else?

Think about Hermione in previous books. She was always the mature, compassionate, sometimes nagging, but always righteous kind of person. I mean, remember how she was as a Prefect in OotP? But now she's confunding McLaggen and then asking him to Slughorn's party in order to make a guy jealous? And pelting canaries at Ron because he's kissing another girl? This is the petty behaviour that I've grown to expect from the likes of Lavendar or Parvati or Cho or maybe even Ginny...but Hermione? I know that that seems like something some girls would do but I never thought Hermione would ever...I dunno...sink that low.

I know that Hermione was very jealous of Lavendar about the whole Ron thing, but Hermione has always been rather guarded with her emotions. I feel that she could have handled the situation much better than she did.

I dunno. She just seemed really different to me in this book. Does anyone else think so?

I also noticed they mentioned words such as "slut" and "loser" which i noticed straight away.

You could tell she just wrote it!!

blue3ski
October 12th, 2005, 10:57 am
I also noticed how Hermione changed in this book. I don't like it either, the whole not going to Aragog's barial, and how she always put off on Harry wondering about what Draco was doing. I especially didn't like that whole taking McLaggen to the party thing, that really isn't like her.

Hopefully, in the next book she'll be her good-old reasonable self.

She didn't go to the burial because it wasn't worth breaking the very strict rule not to go wandering out after dark. They could always have visited Aragog's grave and "paid their respects" the next morning, couldn't they? Hagrid would have understood if they had explained to him that way. It wasn't urgent nor a life-or-death situation. It wasn't worth risking the trouble.

Let's face it, Harry's word is not much to go on. His hunches, especially last year's, nearly got her, Ron, and the others killed, and did in fact get Sirius killed. Also, why would she be inclined to suspect Draco--a person who, from what we've seen in the pre-HBP books, was nothing but a whiny little brat who needed Crabbe and Goyle to protect him from Neville and had an "all-bark-and-no-bite" attitude. He has never been a threat. Harry's evidences were also colored with his bias against Draco, leading to Hermione doubting him even more. Had we as readers not been given prior information that Draco was up to something, I might not have believed Harry either.

Her taking McLaggen was perfectly natural. Ron hurt her deeply. So she decided to get back at him by going to a party with the boy that annoys Ron most.

That she would think that going to console a great friend is a pointless and worthesss thing to get a detention for, when you consider that if faced with the choice Hagrid would endure far worse than detention for any of them, really sucks, and it is a change from whiney and naggy, but ultimately empathetic and kind, to just being unbelievably and uncharacteristically as FangnFluffy said, self involved. But hopefully like you said it's nothing more than hormones.This has probrablly been debated ad nauseam in this thread :p

They could very well console Hagrid the next day. It wasn't an urgent situation that required their assistance. It wasn't worth breaking the rule--especially since the rule is incredibly important at this time of open warfare. Hagrid can be irrational when he's emotional, remember--and this is a prime example. Hermione said it herself--had it been a question of saving Aragog, she would most certainly go, regardless of the rule. But this wasn't the situation.

Hermione was hardly being self-involved--she cares for Hagrid as much as she has always. She was the first person to note his reaction on the first day of class. She was willing to go to him and explain why they didn't take Care of Magical Creatures and reassure him. She's just got her priorities straight now. These are dangerous times--they just can't blindly go answering distress calls. She understands this.

Narsil
October 12th, 2005, 5:43 pm
She didn't "allow" McLaggen to paw at her. She got away from him when he tried that. Her plan was to take him to the party to annoy Ron. She didn't count on McLaggen wanting to attack her under the mistletoe.




Yes. Thank you. This bit drives me crazy. Hermione did not want McLaggen to kiss her. As soon as this happens, she basically starts hidding from him. The way she acts during the party, even how she looks (Harry notices she looks disheveled) is consistent with someone who probably struggled while getting the daylights snogged out of them. I wouldn't put it pass McLaggen to try, even if Hermione was not entirely willing.

For those who think Hermione wanted to hurt Ron, well I can prove you wrong. When Harry asks her if she's going to tell Ron about the tryouts, Hermione asks if he thinks she would stoop that low. Harry answers she just took out McLaggen and Hermione goes "There is a difference."

And of course there is. She wanted to make Ron jealous, she did not want to hurt him. This is, IMHO, entirely consitent with Ron's own aproach, because as I've said before, I don't think he set out to break Hermione's heart, but ended up doing so. Like everything that cause people pain, this is kinda of a cycle that only ends with Ron's poisoning, when each realizes they could have lost each other forever.

FangnFluffy
October 12th, 2005, 10:03 pm
I think there's one other thing to note w/ Hermione's character and her odd behavior in HBP. In all of the previous books we get to see that Hermione is highly analytical and observant towards human behavior. She stuns both Harry and Ron when she gives a complete and accurate account of Cho's feelings towards Harry in OOTP and apparently sometime off screen she gave Ginny some perfect love advice for eventually ensnaring Harry's affections.

As to Hermione herself, she's utterly hopeless with figuring out how to get Ron to notice her as more than a friend. Normal, subtle, "The Rules" types of hints pass right over his clueless block-head, and both of them seem to be like ships passing in the night with their emotions and willingness to admit things to each other.

Hermione may have all of the "book smarts" in the world, but when it comes to figuring out how to satisfy the desires of her own heart - she's stumped. And worse yet, she's an utter failure.

PotionA
October 12th, 2005, 10:38 pm
Hermione may have all of the "book smarts" in the world, but when it comes to figuring out how to satisfy the desires of her own heart - she's stumped. And worse yet, she's an utter failure.

Exactly. Smart, perfect Hermione Granger with all the answers in the world can't handle her own emotions and HBP emphasized that quality about her. It gave her personality a 3D view and made her more real. Plus there were hints of her emotional status in GoF when she used to get jealous of Fleur, when she blushed furiously in front of Ron when he asked her about Vicky, when she got furious at Ron for not realizing that she's a girl and so on.

Madnessisme
October 13th, 2005, 12:03 am
IMO, Hermione is good at other people's feelings, and that's the side we see in OotP and a small portion of HBP (Harry and Ginny, anyone?). In HBP, she's the one with all the problems, and sadly, there's no one who can give her *** advice she gave to other people. I mean, try talking to yourself and analysing your own feelings. It's a lot easier to just watch other people and analyse theirs.

cgold
October 13th, 2005, 12:59 am
About the Buckbeak issue, this was Hermione's reaction to Hagrid's request that they help Grawp a bit. Grawp is alive, he's a person (sort of) and he's Hagrid's half-brother, who Hagrid cares about very much and Hermione knows this:

"Oh come off it, Harry!" said Hermione angrily, stopping dead in her tracks so that people in her tracks had to swerve to avoid her. "Of course he's going to be chucked out and to be perfectly honest, after what we've just seen, who can blame Umbridge?"
<snip>
"But why does he have to make life so difficult for himself - for us?
This scene seems to have similar qualities to her reaction to Hagrid wanting them to attend Hagrid's funeral - exasperation of how unfair Hagrid can be in these situations.

"Oh for heaven's sake," she [Hermione] said, scanning it quickly and passing it to Ron, who read it through looking increasingly incredulous.
"He's mental!" he said furiously. "That thing told its mates to eat Harry and me! Told them to help themselves! And now Hagrid expects us to go down there and cry over its horrible hairy body!"
"It's not just that," said Hermione. "He's asking us to leave the castle at night, and he knows security's a million times tighter and how much trouble we'd be in if we were caught."
"We've been down to see him by night before," said Harry.
"Yes, but for something like this?" said Hermione. "We've risked a lot to help Hagrid out, but after all - Aragog's dead. If it were a question of saving him -"

I don't see any change at all. It's even worse that Aragog is dead and has tried to kill her love interest and best friend without remorse at some point in the past. Hermione is very logical and has always been very exasperated when Hagrid asks things like this of them. She however, also states that they have never done something like this for him before. She also makes it clear that if it were a matter of saving him then her decision would have been different. For the life of me I cannot fathom a reason Hermione would have gone willingly except there was a plot point to fulfill and there was but it included her not attending.

Cheers :tu:

TonyJoe
October 13th, 2005, 1:49 am
This scene seems to have similar qualities to her reaction to Hagrid wanting them to attend Hagrid's funeral - exasperation of how unfair Hagrid can be in these situations. Maybe but attending to a giant and attending a funeral are pretty different. Though personally I would attend to both (the giant of course to the best of my ability), because Hagrid even as a character means a lot to me.

I have to disagree. This was completely in character for Hermione. Hagrid purposely asked them to break the rules - not for a good cause but to have the burial at night. He knew they weren't supposed to be out - he told them to use the invisibility cloak.

As Hermione said, it would have been different if it had been a matter of saving Aragog. This wasn't a situation where Hagrid needed their help with something. Had he held the funeral during the day, when they wouldn't be breaking any rules, they would have gone.
Dear Harry, Ron, and Hermione,

Aragog died last night. Harry and Ron, you met him and you know how special he was. Hermione, I know you'd have liked him. It would mean a lot to me if you'd nip down for the burial later this evening. I'm planning on doing it round dusk, that was his favorite time of day. I know you're not supposed to be out that late, but you can use the cloak. Wouldn't ask, but I can't face it alone.

Hagrid That sounds like an excellent reason to go, a friend needs help, you help him. It's easy to go to a friend's aid during the day, but the true test of your friendship and loyalty seems to be your willingness to show up at night. Now that definitely sounds easier said than it might be done but before this chapter would anyone suggest that Hermione would simply go for the easy choice rather than the more difficult one that would help someone in need? And as for the rules, they've really held them in such high esteem in the past when it came to visiting Hagrid have they?

But as you said ďbreaking the rules to bury the spider at night when it could have been done during the day,Ē was pointless. Hermoine shares your view and hereís where I think itís a shift in her character. She seems to be oblivious to and even minimizing in her view of Hagrid and Aragogís relationship, she didnít seem to appreciate what ďsomething like thisĒ was to Hagrid. Aragog may very well have been Hagridís best friend (If you count DD as a Menor/Father figure of sorts), certainly one of the oldest. Hagrid must have meant a bit to Aragog too, (how often do acromantulas suspend their blood lust for the sake of a Human?). We donít really know what Hagrids life at Hogwarts was like, but itís most likely Hagrid didnít have many friends for whatever reason, that most likely drove Hagrid and Aragon closer. But hermione, whose shown a great ability to see and understand the emotions and motives of others seems to be utterly unaware of Hagridís.

She didn't go to the burial because it wasn't worth breaking the very strict rule not to go wandering out after dark. They could always have visited Aragog's grave and "paid their respects" the next morning, couldn't they? Hagrid would have understood if they had explained to him that way.Not so much about their respect, but about immediately needed emotional support, though I suppose that the sham respect might be apart of it *shrug*

Hermione knew they could comfort Hagrid during the day without breaking any rules. Hagrid would have understood - he did understand when only Harry showed up.

It was in character for her because Hermione does not break rules without good reason. She said it herself, if it had been a matter of saving Aragog, she would have broken the rules and gone to Hagrid's. Comforting Hagrid wasn't urgent and could have been done during the day without breaking rules. It was best that the funeral be done immediately as there were a very angry group of acromantulas near by, and again, as Harry himself says this isnt very different from the other times they've broken the rules for hagrid. The character change imo seems to come from her inability to gauge the meanigfulness of this event to Hagrid, and although yeah Hagrid would understand and indeed did understand their inability, because thats the kind of guy he is, but Hermione never before seemed like the kind of person to use this as an excuse to ignore a friend in need.

cgold
October 13th, 2005, 2:22 am
Maybe but attending to a giant and attending a funeral are pretty different. Though personally I would attend to both (the giant of course to the best of my ability), because Hagrid even as a character means a lot to me. Yes they were different. Grawp is alive and is much more important to Hagrid than Aragog. He's family. The point is Hermione objected to it in OotP and she objected to Aragog in HBP. Her character has not changed in her response to situations like this when it comes to Hagrid. She has remained the same.

Cheers :tu:

TonyJoe
October 13th, 2005, 3:00 am
Yes they were different. Grawp is alive and is much more important to Hagrid than Aragog. He's family. The point is Hermione objected to it in OotP and she objected to Aragog in HBP. Her character has not changed in her response to situations like this when it comes to Hagrid. She has remained the same.

Cheers :tu:
I think that Hagrid would definitely call Aragog family and she did definitely disapprove at first to Grawp but eventually she comits and stands by her promise. While in HBP she refuses outright to help Hagrid.