Hermione Granger: Character Analysis

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by Yoana

I strongly disagree. There's something crucial that Hermione has and Umbridge doesn't which in my opinion is the main reason why Umbridge can be what she is and Hermione can't - compassion. You may nto like Hermione personally, but saying she could be like Umbridge - cruel with no remorse - is in my opinion insupportable.

Quite! I can't imagine Umbridge being concerned about house elf rights! Rather it showed Hermione's compassion (misdirected in this case) for the underdog. Underelf?

[Pearl_Took]

This discussion has been interesting to read.

I agree 100% with all of you who say that Hermione is never made to face up to her personal faults and this is a missing ingredient in her characterisation. Compare that with Ron, who is forced to face his tendency towards jealousy head-on and to overcome it. We never see an instance when Hermione ever has to admit she was in the wrong. I got intensely annoyed with Hermione for her behaviour in HBP when she castigated Harry for using Felix Felicis in Quidditch (this was a crock as it turned out, Harry was just pretending ) and yet hypocritically refused to feel guilty for having Confunded Cormac.

I agree with Meesha when she says that Jo treads a fine line with Hermione in virtually making her an untouchable 'Mary Sue'.

And yet ... and yet ... Hermione as a character is very believable to me, on many levels. Her insecurity, for one thing, her constant need to prove herself, makes her endearing, even if she can be annoying. We've all behaved like Hermione at times: I know I have.

There is also the nasty prejudice she has to face from people like Draco because she is Muggleborn: Hermione can lash out, sure, but she often reacts to this pressure with a great deal of grace and maturity.

So she is a believable and well-rounded mixture of qualities. She has a mean streak (e.g. the vicious jinxing of the DA list that resulted in Marietta's disfigurement, the magical birds that peck Ron) but I don't see that as incompatible with her better qualities. Many people have a mean streak!

I don't think Hermione would ever become an Umbridge. Hermione can be self-righteous, sure, and she has a temper, but she is a compassionate person who cares deeply about justice.

I thought Hermione absolutely rocked in DH. That to me was Hermione at her best: the girl has a brain, but also a big heart, and stackloads of courage and tenacity. Her motherly tendencies towards both Ron and Harry make me but I also find it believable.

[Yoana]

I think she does have to face her flaws, actually - after Ron almost died in HBP. I think her unusual quietness in the hospital wing, and her making up with him after that, even though he was still with Lavender, indicates that she had realised she had behaved horribly. When she sees Ron almost dead, I think she does realise how petty she had been. She may not verbalise it, but I think her meekness in the hospital wing and her changed behaviour afterwards are strong enough indicators that she had learnt her lesson.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by Yoana

I think she does have to face her flaws, actually - after Ron almost died in HBP. I think her unusual quietness in the hospital wing, and her making up with him after that, even though he was still with Lavender, indicates that she had realised she had behaved horribly. When she sees Ron almost dead, I think she does realise how petty she had been. She may not verbalise it, but I think her meekness in the hospital wing and her changed behaviour afterwards are strong enough indicators that she had learnt her lesson.

Good call. (I had forgotten that bit. )

I would also say that Hermione wasn't arrogant. Bossy and self-righteous, sure. I'm not sure that's the same as being arrogant. The bossiness came from her insecurity. Arrogance is believing you are better than everyone else: I don't think Hermione ever thought that ... even if she was convinced of the rightness of her views. But I don't think that's quite the same as arrogance ...

[Yoana]

No, nor do I. You may have noticed I defend Hermione rather fervently; it's because I identify so closely with her. I think I'm just like her in her negative traits and I feel the need to explain why she is like this and why it doesn't necessarily mean evilness. Yet I honestly believe she was never arrogant. Arrogance excludes humility, and I do believe Hermione had humility. The most obvious example, to me, is her devotedly helping Hagrid with his defence in the Buckbeak case. Even though she had little attachment to the Hippogriff himself, even though she was under enormous pressure from school and shunned by her only friends, even though she stood to gain nothing from this and could have easily excused herself and devoted more time to proving her academic brilliance, she found the time, energy and will to help Hagrid just because she's that kind of a friend. That, to me, speaks volumes about her personality, and excludes both arrogance and evil tendencies completely.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by Yoana

... Yet I honestly believe she was never arrogant. Arrogance excludes humility, and I do believe Hermione had humility. The most obvious example, to me, is her devotedly helping Hagrid with his defence in the Buckbeak case. Even though she had little attachment to the Hippogriff himself, even though she was under enormous pressure from school and shunned by her only friends, even though she stood to gain nothing from this and could have easily excused herself and devoted more time to proving her academic brilliance, she found the time, energy and will to help Hagrid just because she's that kind of a friend. That, to me, speaks volumes about her personality, and excludes both arrogance and evil tendencies completely.

Completely agree.

That's why I think Hermione is a convincing mixture of qualities. Humility and self-righteousness can co-exist in the same person.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by Yoana

I strongly disagree. There's something crucial that Hermione has and Umbridge doesn't which in my opinion is the main reason why Umbridge can be what she is and Hermione can't - compassion. You may nto like Hermione personally, but saying she could be like Umbridge - cruel with no remorse - is in my opinion insupportable.

Well, not quite. It was cruel of Hermione to jinx the parchment the DA signed without telling anyone - and she expressed no remorse over Marietta being permanently disfigured. Umbridge did the same to Harry with her "special quill" with the purpose of protecting the Ministry. Hermione jinxed the parchment to protect the DA. Neither expressed remorse. Is there really any difference in regards to the behavior? I don't think there is to be honest.

Nor does she express any remorse over Confunding McLaggen - or trying to use him to make Ron jealous later on. Hermione does quite a few things over the course of the series that were mean or cruel that she never expressed any remorse over. I love Hermione's character, but she has a mean streak.

Of course, I'm not saying that Hermione is exactly like Umbridge - being friends with Ron and Harry had a positive influence on her after all - but there are quite a few similarities in regards to how they behaved. The underlying reasons were not always the same - but even there parallels can be drawn.

Hermione is the one who stands up to Umbridge in her class with sound resolution. Hermione is the one who has so little tolerance fo Umbridge's regime and way of doingt things that she cannot just sit and take it, and decides to start the DA. The fact that they both supposedly like order and lecturing others (which I don't think is true of Umbridge, by the way - I never saw her lecturing anyone, just hadning out punishments) is such a superficial and unconsequential similarity that it hardly warrants mentioning, let alone building whole parallels over it. It's like saying saying Harry could have become Voldemort because he they both felt Hogwarts was their real home. What's the main and final difference between Harry and Voldemort? Compassion. Well, I think the same is true for Hermione and Umbridge. Liking order and rules (not to mention that Hermione does compromise with the rules more than once when she knows it's the better decision to do so) was not what made Umbridge cruel and narrow-minded, so I don't see any support for the claim that Hermione was likely to become like Umbridge. Even if Umbridge was like Hermione when she was young (which is just speculation anyway), there's no evidence that she would have grown to be like her at all. There's no link between being orderly and strict and being cruel that I can see.

Well, the parallel goes beyond that in terms of how they each behaved and why they did it. As I said above, they both chose a cruel form of punishment as a means to protect an organization they were loyal to. They both demonstrated an attitude that certain "creatures" were inferior to wizards and set about trying to make changes regarding those "creatures" based on their personal beliefs and opinions rather than the "creatures" - Hermione with SPEW and trying to force her views on the house-elves and Umbridge with laws regarding werewolves, Centaurs, merpeople, etc... Hermione's intentions were certainly better than Umbridge's, but the behavior exhibited was just as bad because she demonstrated that she didn't see them as equals, but as inferiors who needed to be told what they wanted to be happy. They both demonstrated the same views regarding the Centaurs almost exactly - Hermione even went so far as to call them "horses".

They both preferred order and structure. They both demonstrated a deep seated need to be right all the time and they both demonstrated a tendency to disregard any opinion that was different from their own. They both believed in following the rules - Hermione only relaxed about that due to Harry and Ron's influence, IMO. She was quite rigid about that before they became friends. They both demonstrated a belief that authority figures were always right - again, Hermione improves on this issue due to Harry and Ron's influence, but still tends to be more comfortable with ideas and concepts "approved" by authority figures. They both had a tendency to be condescending in how they addressed people. They were both narrow-minded - though I would agree that Hermione might have become a little bit more open minded after discovering the Hallows did exist. Still that's not something that would have been likely without her becoming friends with Harry and Ron, IMO. They both demonstrated a tendency to be controlling.

Again, I'm not saying they're exactly alike, but there are a lot of similarities between their personalities. Hermione's compassion gives her better motives/intentions sometimes, but the behavior and choices made are similar between the two.

Another glaring difference between Hermione and Umbridge is conformity - Umbridge is shown always conforming to the order of *** day - she was with Fudge when Fudge was in office, she then went on with Voldemort's regime of rounding up muggleborns - while Hermione is by no means afraid of resistence and sticking to her beleifs, no matter how dangerous it would be for her personally, and I think we see that very early, before she became friends with Rona dn Harry, when she tried to stop them in their midnight meeting with Malfoy in the first year, or when she stand up for Neville and helps him even though it's clear he's the most uncool kid there is. Hermione and Umbridge are nothing like each other.

Actually, I would say that Hermione trying to stop Harry and Ron for the midnight duel was an example of her desire to conform. She wasn't trying to conform with her peers - she was trying to conform to the adults - the authority figures at Hogwarts. Hermione was trying to present herself as a "mini adult" from the first time they met her. Why she felt that was a good thing we don't know because her character was never fully fleshed out, but we see that quite a bit in her early behavior. I would compare that to Umbridge's efforts to conform to whoever was in charge at the Ministry because it's essentially the same underlying reason, IMO - wanting the "authority figures" to be impressed. In Hermione's case, the authority figures were Dumbledore and the teachers and she conformed to the type of student she felt would most impress them. For Umbridge it was the Minister of Magic and senior staff and she conformed to the type of employee she felt would impress them.

We also see this type of behavior from Percy - who I would also compare with Hermione and Umbridge in that they all three have very similar personalities.

Though Hermione and Percy both had morals as well so neither of them would be likely to go along with the things the Death Eaters had Umbridge doing in DH.

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

This discussion has been interesting to read.

I agree 100% with all of you who say that Hermione is never made to face up to her personal faults and this is a missing ingredient in her characterisation. Compare that with Ron, who is forced to face his tendency towards jealousy head-on and to overcome it. We never see an instance when Hermione ever has to admit she was in the wrong. I got intensely annoyed with Hermione for her behaviour in HBP when she castigated Harry for using Felix Felicis in Quidditch (this was a crock as it turned out, Harry was just pretending ) and yet hypocritically refused to feel guilty for having Confunded Cormac.

Well, I do think Hermione felt some guilt about confunding Cormac - she did it because she lost her temper over what he was saying and she did flush when Harry called her on it. But even that was glossed over because she didn't do anything in regards to Ron's tryout and Jo made sure to "prove" that Hermione had been right about how Harry would not have wanted Cormac on the team because he was not a team player and the one game he did play in was a disaster with Harry ending up with a fractured skull. So we get a bit of guilt there, but not in the sense that she wouldn't do it again if she lost her temper in another situation like that.

But I agree with you overall - particularly when compared with Ron. Ron had to deal with something in each of the last four books. GOF was the fight with Harry and the beginning of the whole situation with Krum. OOTP continues with him being jealous of Krum and adds in him being insecure about Quidditch and dealing with that. HBP has Ron taking a pretty big step backwards and being insecure about Quidditch all over again AND the jealousy of Krum comes to a head AND deals with his first relationship, which does not go well. DH has Ron taking a step backward with Harry and rehashing the same issues that were supposed to have been dealt with in GOF.

Hermione doesn't get anywhere near that level of character development. Her mistakes are glossed over and never really addressed on page. Even the romantic issues with Ron were not dealt with from the angle of what her mistakes were. Her mistakes were shown, but not really addressed with her admitting that she messed up. So it's not really clear if she actually realized that she had screwed up as well or if Ron almost dying led to her deciding to forgive him for what he did. And - like I said before - Jo could have very easily shown Hermione struggling with that by having her say something while they were waiting to find out if Ron was okay. She could have been lamenting about how she'd acted and worried that she'd never get a chance to apologize - but she doesn't. So we don't really know what's going on inside Hermione's head there. And we don't get any indication of how they made up - if they talked about the situation, etc... I like to think that they did, but that's pure speculation because we don't really have any indication of it in the text.

I agree with Meesha when she says that Jo treads a fine line with Hermione in virtually making her an untouchable 'Mary Sue'.

A very fine line.

And yet ... and yet ... Hermione as a character is very believable to me, on many levels. Her insecurity, for one thing, her constant need to prove herself, makes her endearing, even if she can be annoying. We've all behaved like Hermione at times: I know I have.

There is also the nasty prejudice she has to face from people like Draco because she is Muggleborn: Hermione can lash out, sure, but she often reacts to this pressure with a great deal of grace and maturity.

So she is a believable and well-rounded mixture of qualities. She has a mean streak (e.g. the vicious jinxing of the DA list that resulted in Marietta's disfigurement, the magical birds that peck Ron) but I don't see that as incompatible with her better qualities. Many people have a mean streak!

For the most part, I agree actually. Hermione is believable - particularly in the first four books. We do see her flaws and can identify the mistakes she made so that does prevent her character from becoming a "Mary Sue". It's not that difficult to identify with Hermione on some level - the bookworm, the know-it-all, the insecurity, etc...

However, I wouldn't call Hermione a fully fleshed out character though - not completely. Harry observes her behavior, but he doesn't really care why Hermione is a bookworm - it's useful to him so he just accepts that she's "just weird that way". He never stops to wonder why she has such a deep seated need to always be right or why she feels it necessary to go way above and beyond what is expected of them as students and try so hard to impress the teachers.

With Ron, Harry doesn't just observe - he stops and thinks about why Ron is acting that way and what might have caused him to be insecure. And Ron is more open as well so the reader is able to identify the causes for those things as well. Harry does that for a lot of the other characters too - Ginny, Neville, Luna - even with some of the adults like Hagrid and Lupin. But not with Hermione. And Hermione doesn't really share anything so all we can do is speculate. There are large gaps in her development because of that - her life away from Hogwarts, her relationship with her parents, the causes for her insecurities and need to prove herself - there is so much of Hermione's character that remains a mystery. So she's believable, but not always understandable because we don't know why she's like that.

I don't think Hermione would ever become an Umbridge. Hermione can be self-righteous, sure, and she has a temper, but she is a compassionate person who cares deeply about justice.

I wouldn't say she would ever be a carbon copy of Umbridge under any circumstances - she does have morals so I would say there would always be lines that Hermione would not cross. But I do see where Hermione's personality is very similar and I can see where she could have grown up to behave along similar lines without the influence of Harry and Ron's friendship. Not anything like the muggleborn trials in DH - the parallel I see is more general. More that I think Hermione could have easily stayed on that same path of rigidly following the rules, blindly accepting authority figures as always being right, and always conforming to what she perceived would impress authority figures the most.

I thought Hermione absolutely rocked in DH. That to me was Hermione at her best: the girl has a brain, but also a big heart, and stackloads of courage and tenacity. Her motherly tendencies towards both Ron and Harry make me but I also find it believable.

I agree for the most part, but I think it was a bit too much to be completely believable. That fine line got much thinner in DH. We still saw Hermione make some mistakes, but even there, it was glossed over and not really addressed. She never falters, never really questions - though she does refuse point blank to consider a few thing, but even that was not something that had any consequences for her in particular.

The one time it did appear that she might have faltered was when Harry suspected that Ron and Hermione were talking about him and getting upset because he didn't know what to do next. But Hermione denies it so it's not clear if they actually were questioning the validity of Dumbledore's plan and how Harry was handling everything or if that was just more of the locket twisting things around in Ron's mind. I love Hermione, but I think we should have seen her stumble and fall, make a major mistake, and have to deal with the consequences of such.

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

Good call. (I had forgotten that bit. )

I would also say that Hermione wasn't arrogant. Bossy and self-righteous, sure. I'm not sure that's the same as being arrogant. The bossiness came from her insecurity. Arrogance is believing you are better than everyone else: I don't think Hermione ever thought that ... even if she was convinced of the rightness of her views. But I don't think that's quite the same as arrogance ...

I wouldn't say she was completely arrogant - she did have insecurities even if we didn't really get to see that addressed on page. But I think there were times when she was arrogant and saw herself as superior in certain ways - usually in regards to her intellect. Not being willing to give credence to opinions that differed from hers was arrogant, IMO - that was emphasized with how she treated the house-elves in GOF and OOTP.

[stumps101]

Originally Posted by Yoana

I strongly disagree. There's something crucial that Hermione has and Umbridge doesn't which in my opinion is the main reason why Umbridge can be what she is and Hermione can't - compassion. You may nto like Hermione personally, but saying she could be like Umbridge - cruel with no remorse - is in my opinion insupportable.

I'm not saying that Hermione wouldhave been Umbridge had she not met Harry or Ron, but that, if she had gone down that route due to additional circumstances, I would have bought it. It did not go that way, because, as you say, Hermione has heaps of compassion, which Umbridge did not. I do recognize that, regardless of my personal feelings on her. And that does set them apart. Even if I do have some issues with how Hermione went about with her compassionate ideas But because it didn't actually happen doesn't make it an unsupportable opinion IMO. It's not something which I am basing on superficial similarties but what I think to be real genuine similarities in personality, traits and actions. We do see Hermione being cruel and showing no remorse in two situations that I can think off - when she sents birds at Ron and when she hexes Marietta. or when she messes with another guys memory ? Oh and there's the part where she leads Umbridge to the centuars - though for that, I atleast see some reasoning. Does that mean that I am basing my entire view of her character on those instances ? No of course not, she is compassionate and even though she can be condescending at times and self-righteous and as much as that annoys me, I know that she still has many, many positive attributes to her that Umbridge does not and doesn't even come close to having. But does that change the fact that they both seem to have this view that what they do is ok if the desired end result is achieved ? That they both value authority ? Not in my opinion it doesn't.

Sorry but it seems like I have offended you personally with what I said. It was not my intention at all - I was just saying that I do think there are real, genuine, valid parallels between Hermione and Umbridge. I am not saying that Hermione's flaws make her evil (they don't !) nor am I saying she is a second version of Umbridge but, that IMO, had she not unwound herself a bit and continued on her rigid and unfriendly path that she seemed to be on before the trio became friends, yeah I could see her being something like Umbridge. Not that Umbridge is an example of what Hermione would have been like, but an example of what she could have been like.

Just my opinion of course I probably haven't explained myself properly but that was just really my two cents on it. I could link you to some of the essays that are out there with the same view that probably explain it a lot better

I did enjoy her the most in DH but it was a bit much to be believable. I do agree with the others that Jo treads a fine line with Hermione in virtually making her an untouchable 'Mary Sue'. Yeah I do know a lot of people do identify with her and her flaws and attributes but as time went on, she became more unbelievable to her. I don't think she was as fleshed out as well as Ron was for example, though his development has its own issues but on the whole, the only timeI felt she came close to her facing her flaws was when Ron was poisoned. Other than that, it just didn't really well like she had to face upto it - in glaring contrast with Ron who had to face it a lot.

Anyways, carry on please.

[wickedwickedboy]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

Well, not quite. It was cruel of Hermione to jinx the parchment the DA signed without telling anyone - and she expressed no remorse over Marietta being permanently disfigured. Umbridge did the same to Harry with her "special quill" with the purpose of protecting the Ministry. Hermione jinxed the parchment to protect the DA. Neither expressed remorse. Is there really any difference in regards to the behavior? I don't think there is to be honest.

Nor does she express any remorse over Confunding McLaggen - or trying to use him to make Ron jealous later on. Hermione does quite a few things over the course of the series that were mean or cruel that she never expressed any remorse over. I love Hermione's character, but she has a mean streak.

Of course, I'm not saying that Hermione is exactly like Umbridge - being friends with Ron and Harry had a positive influence on her after all - but there are quite a few similarities in regards to how they behaved. The underlying reasons were not always the same - but even there parallels can be drawn.

Well, the parallel goes beyond that in terms of how they each behaved and why they did it. As I said above, they both chose a cruel form of punishment as a means to protect an organization they were loyal to. They both demonstrated an attitude that certain "creatures" were inferior to wizards and set about trying to make changes regarding those "creatures" based on their personal beliefs and opinions rather than the "creatures" - Hermione with SPEW and trying to force her views on the house-elves and Umbridge with laws regarding werewolves, Centaurs, merpeople, etc... Hermione's intentions were certainly better than Umbridge's, but the behavior exhibited was just as bad because she demonstrated that she didn't see them as equals, but as inferiors who needed to be told what they wanted to be happy. They both demonstrated the same views regarding the Centaurs almost exactly - Hermione even went so far as to call them "horses".

They both preferred order and structure. They both demonstrated a deep seated need to be right all the time and they both demonstrated a tendency to disregard any opinion that was different from their own. They both believed in following the rules - Hermione only relaxed about that due to Harry and Ron's influence, IMO. She was quite rigid about that before they became friends. They both demonstrated a belief that authority figures were always right - again, Hermione improves on this issue due to Harry and Ron's influence, but still tends to be more comfortable with ideas and concepts "approved" by authority figures. They both had a tendency to be condescending in how they addressed people. They were both narrow-minded - though I would agree that Hermione might have become a little bit more open minded after discovering the Hallows did exist. Still that's not something that would have been likely without her becoming friends with Harry and Ron, IMO. They both demonstrated a tendency to be controlling.

Again, I'm not saying they're exactly alike, but there are a lot of similarities between their personalities. Hermione's compassion gives her better motives/intentions sometimes, but the behavior and choices made are similar between the two.

I see what you are saying. But your tie-in is that she mellowed under Harry and Ron's influence - and yet it was due to Ron that she confunded McLaggen, and due to her idea for Harry teaching the DA and helping to form it with him that she protected that organization. Due to Harry, she came up with the polypotion juice idea, during which the trio cruelly poisoned Goyle and crabbe.

So I would have to conclude just the opposite. Without Harry and Ron's influence, she may have been straitlaced and strict in her ideas, but she wouldn't have done the above stuff. I don't think they necessarily influenced the methods she came up with, which were cruel, but they were a part of her reason for acting in nearly every case. So I agree that Hermione had a bit of a cruel streak, as did Harry and Ron - but I don't think their influence was at all positive in that - I think it was just the opposite.

Actually, I would say that Hermione trying to stop Harry and Ron for the midnight duel was an example of her desire to conform. She wasn't trying to conform with her peers - she was trying to conform to the adults - the authority figures at Hogwarts. Hermione was trying to present herself as a "mini adult" from the first time they met her. Why she felt that was a good thing we don't know because her character was never fully fleshed out, but we see that quite a bit in her early behavior. I would compare that to Umbridge's efforts to conform to whoever was in charge at the Ministry because it's essentially the same underlying reason, IMO - wanting the "authority figures" to be impressed. In Hermione's case, the authority figures were Dumbledore and the teachers and she conformed to the type of student she felt would most impress them. For Umbridge it was the Minister of Magic and senior staff and she conformed to the type of employee she felt would impress them.

This part of her character I agree is similar to Umbridge - but also similar to McGonagall. There was a bit of the prim and correct to Hermione's behavior that matched theirs, imo.

Though Hermione and Percy both had morals as well so neither of them would be likely to go along with the things the Death Eaters had Umbridge doing in DH.

I feel this line drawing is crucial though. This is precisely why Umbridge is distinct from Hermione, Percy and Mcgonagall. Umbridge was more of an "any and every means" kind of person to me. Whereas the others did have limits.

Hermione doesn't get anywhere near that level of character development. Her mistakes are glossed over and never really addressed on page. Even the romantic issues with Ron were not dealt with from the angle of what her mistakes were. Her mistakes were shown, but not really addressed with her admitting that she messed up. So it's not really clear if she actually realized that she had screwed up as well or if Ron almost dying led to her deciding to forgive him for what he did. And - like I said before - Jo could have very easily shown Hermione struggling with that by having her say something while they were waiting to find out if Ron was okay. She could have been lamenting about how she'd acted and worried that she'd never get a chance to apologize - but she doesn't. So we don't really know what's going on inside Hermione's head there. And we don't get any indication of how they made up - if they talked about the situation, etc... I like to think that they did, but that's pure speculation because we don't really have any indication of it in the text.

This is true - Hermione was the least developed in that regard - but it was also characteristic of the story. Ron and Harry simply had more opportunity to be together naturally, being both male, so JKR had to work within that scope as well, imo.

With Ron, Harry doesn't just observe - he stops and thinks about why Ron is acting that way and what might have caused him to be insecure. And Ron is more open as well so the reader is able to identify the causes for those things as well. Harry does that for a lot of the other characters too - Ginny, Neville, Luna - even with some of the adults like Hagrid and Lupin. But not with Hermione. And Hermione doesn't really share anything so all we can do is speculate. There are large gaps in her development because of that - her life away from Hogwarts, her relationship with her parents, the causes for her insecurities and need to prove herself - there is so much of Hermione's character that remains a mystery. So she's believable, but not always understandable because we don't know why she's like that.

Agreed again - but I still think it went for more realistic storytelling from Harry's POV. This is what I feel would really happen because they are both male and in their formative years. They were fairly traditional kids, so I didn't expect that either would be closer to Hermione when young and wonder about them. One reason a person wonders more significantly about their friends of the same sex is because they can relate it to their own experience, imo. So I think that is the phenomenon going on here - even if it is not explicitly mentioned, it is something that happens all the time in real life, imo.

I wouldn't say she would ever be a carbon copy of Umbridge under any circumstances - she does have morals so I would say there would always be lines that Hermione would not cross. But I do see where Hermione's personality is very similar and I can see where she could have grown up to behave along similar lines without the influence of Harry and Ron's friendship. Not anything like the muggleborn trials in DH - the parallel I see is more general. More that I think Hermione could have easily stayed on that same path of rigidly following the rules, blindly accepting authority figures as always being right, and always conforming to what she perceived would impress authority figures the most.

I think she would be more like McGonagall - because there was a vindictiveness about Umbridge that I don't feel was a part of Hermione's character in the same degree at all. Umbridge set out with vindictiveness, as if she expected to have to use it - her behavior taunting and cold in her understated subversive manner. I don't see Hermione like that at all - she is more like McGonagall to me, the same prim and proper idea - and strictness, but with a good and kind heart. Umbridge did not have a good and kind heart to me.

But this is why Ron was great for Hermione. If anyone would affect her lightening up, it would be Ron!

I wouldn't say she was completely arrogant - she did have insecurities even if we didn't really get to see that addressed on page. But I think there were times when she was arrogant and saw herself as superior in certain ways - usually in regards to her intellect. Not being willing to give credence to opinions that differed from hers was arrogant, IMO - that was emphasized with how she treated the house-elves in GOF and OOTP.

JKR's characters - each and everyone - behaves with arrogance, imo. The only reason it is notable in any one character is because she points it out or has others do so. But there is not one character (main/secondary and a large portion of the tertiary characters) that did not display arrogance at some point in the tale - and the more they appeared, the more arrogance one could see. I think that JKR simply likes self sufficient people and so her goodsiders and grey siders all had it (who didn't feel they were right? Best at something? Knowing the right thing, etc. - and they were generally arrogant about it) - but she also shows arrogance in the behavior of the badsiders, mainly in their ideas regarding superiority. Naturally those with tiny roles were not be granted too much emphasis in this regard, imo, but even then, it came through blaringly in Pansy and Blaise. Dobby and Luna had their own brand of it, but it was there nonetheless. I don't see it as a bad thing necessarily - although it can motivate bad things at times.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

I see what you are saying. But your tie-in is that she mellowed under Harry and Ron's influence - and yet it was due to Ron that she confunded McLaggen, and due to her idea for Harry teaching the DA and helping to form it with him that she protected that organization. Due to Harry, she came up with the polypotion juice idea, during which the trio cruelly poisoned Goyle and crabbe.

So I would have to conclude just the opposite. Without Harry and Ron's influence, she may have been straitlaced and strict in her ideas, but she wouldn't have done the above stuff. I don't think they necessarily influenced the methods she came up with, which were cruel, but they were a part of her reason for acting in nearly every case. So I agree that Hermione had a bit of a cruel streak, as did Harry and Ron - but I don't think their influence was at all positive in that - I think it was just the opposite.

I wouldn't completely attribute those things to Ron and Harry's influence though. Neither Ron nor Harry asked her to Confund McLaggen and Harry chastised her for it when he realized what she'd done. Ron would have been upset by that as well because he would have seen it that she doubted he could do it on his own rather than her losing her temper and reacting emotionally.

Hermione had different reasons from Umbridge for the things she did, but there was similarity in their behavior in regards to the choices they made. As you said, the methods Hermione chose were her own. Her reasoning might have involved Harry and/or Ron on the basis of something they needed, but how she chose to go about it came from the type of person she was. I don't think either Harry or Ron would have chosen permanent disfiguration as a punishment for someone who betrayed the DA - they weren't opposed to it when it was done, but it was not something they would have come up with on their own.

I think Hermione would have done things like that when she lost her temper regardless - though she certainly would have felt guilty for them afterwards. I would say her temper was one of the reasons that Hermione kept herself so tightly wound up - as a means of control because she was so rigid about following the rules. But when a person keeps themselves wound that tightly, they're going to crack at some point. If anything, I would say that Ron and Harry served as a pressure valve for Hermione that prevented her from cracking more often because they were able to get her to ease up on herself.

Imagine how Hermione's third year might have gone if she hadn't become friends with Harry and Ron. I know they weren't speaking to her for part of that time, but they had also introduced her to people like Hagrid and Ginny so she wasn't completely alone during that. If you remove the friendship with Harry and Ron, then it is unlikely that she would have formed a friendship with Hagrid so she wouldn't have been hanging around with him. She certainly wouldn't have been friends with Ginny - they probably wouldn't have ever really met since Ginny was a year below her. Hermione most likely would have been in the same position she was in first year - not having any real friends to hang around with and spending the majority of her time studying, doing homework, and reading. So she would have been trying to take on 12 classes, using the time turner, studying constantly with no one there at all to even try to get her to ease up, and putting tons of pressure on herself to excel in each and every one of those classes - not just to pass, but to be the top of the class. Putting that much pressure on herself with no release, what's she going to do when someone like Malfoy comes up and tries to harass her or calls her a mudblood? I'd say she would explode in those circumstances.

This part of her character I agree is similar to Umbridge - but also similar to McGonagall. There was a bit of the prim and correct to Hermione's behavior that matched theirs, imo.

I agree. I would say there is a greater similarity between McGonagall and Hermione overall actually. But I see the parallels with Umbridge in terms of some of the choices they made as well.

I feel this line drawing is crucial though. This is precisely why Umbridge is distinct from Hermione, Percy and Mcgonagall. Umbridge was more of an "any and every means" kind of person to me. Whereas the others did have limits.

Absolutely. That is the significant distinction and why Hermione would never have been exactly like Umbridge. There were lines that she would not cross. And the same can be said for Percy.

This is true - Hermione was the least developed in that regard - but it was also characteristic of the story. Ron and Harry simply had more opportunity to be together naturally, being both male, so JKR had to work within that scope as well, imo.

But that didn't prevent Jo from giving that type of development to other characters. Ginny, the twins, Percy, Neville, Luna - even Dean gets more development that Hermione in that regard.

Agreed again - but I still think it went for more realistic storytelling from Harry's POV. This is what I feel would really happen because they are both male and in their formative years. They were fairly traditional kids, so I didn't expect that either would be closer to Hermione when young and wonder about them. One reason a person wonders more significantly about their friends of the same sex is because they can relate it to their own experience, imo. So I think that is the phenomenon going on here - even if it is not explicitly mentioned, it is something that happens all the time in real life, imo.

It does happen in real life, but for developing a character in a story, the author needs to find a way to work around that limitation. I agree that the limitation was in the story being presented from Harry's point of view, but as I said above, that limitation didn't prevent Jo from giving such development to other characters. She found ways for Harry to discover things about the other characters even when he hadn't shown an interest - i.e. including the mention of what happened to Neville's parents in the pensieve. Luna volunteers information. Other people tell him things about Ginny.

There are a lot of ways that Jo could have developed Hermione's character more fully. Hermione could have shared information about herself from time to time. Ron - or even Ginny - could have asked her things when Harry was around. She could have had Hermione face a traumatic event due to her own mistake or failure and have to deal with the consequences - and show her dealing with the consequences.

I think she would be more like McGonagall - because there was a vindictiveness about Umbridge that I don't feel was a part of Hermione's character in the same degree at all. Umbridge set out with vindictiveness, as if she expected to have to use it - her behavior taunting and cold in her understated subversive manner. I don't see Hermione like that at all - she is more like McGonagall to me, the same prim and proper idea - and strictness, but with a good and kind heart. Umbridge did not have a good and kind heart to me.

I think Hermione could be vindictive - the jinx on the DA parchment was very vindictive, IMO. Her reasons for wanting to come up with a way to protect them were good, but the method she chose - as well as choosing not to tell anyone about it - showed vindictiveness.

But I do agree that Hermione had a good heart and that is a distinction between her and Umbridge. However, there were times when Hermione set herself above others without really meaning to simply because she couldn't understand why they didn't think exactly like she did. And there were times when she reacted that way out of fear of something that she did not understand and did not want to believe - i.e. the resurrection stone in DH.

Just to be clear, I never said that Hermione would have ever been exactly like Umbridge - just that she had some negative traits in common with Umbridge that I think would have been more prevalent if she hadn't become friends with Harry and Ron. I do think the stronger comparison is with McGonagall.

But this is why Ron was great for Hermione. If anyone would affect her lightening up, it would be Ron!

Completely agree.

JKR's characters - each and everyone - behaves with arrogance, imo. The only reason it is notable in any one character is because she points it out or has others do so. But there is not one character (main/secondary and a large portion of the tertiary characters) that did not display arrogance at some point in the tale - and the more they appeared, the more arrogance one could see. I think that JKR simply likes self sufficient people and so her goodsiders and grey siders all had it (who didn't feel they were right? Best at something? Knowing the right thing, etc. - and they were generally arrogant about it) - but she also shows arrogance in the behavior of the badsiders, mainly in their ideas regarding superiority. Naturally those with tiny roles were not be granted too much emphasis in this regard, imo, but even then, it came through blaringly in Pansy and Blaise. Dobby and Luna had their own brand of it, but it was there nonetheless. I don't see it as a bad thing necessarily - although it can motivate bad things at times.

I agree. And that was the point actually. I think everyone is capable of arrogance depending on the circumstances. Ron displayed some arrogance during times when he got a confidence boost. Hermione displayed some arrogance in regards to her grades and performance in school. Everyone has moments like that and I think those are usually justified because there's nothing wrong with being proud of yourself for accomplishing something and wanting to be acknowledged for that, IMO.

Which is why I don't see any point in trying to say that a character was never arrogant - they all were at times. I don't see occasionally arrogance due to accomplishment as a bad thing.

[wickedwickedboy]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

I think Hermione could be vindictive - the jinx on the DA parchment was very vindictive, IMO. Her reasons for wanting to come up with a way to protect them were good, but the method she chose - as well as choosing not to tell anyone about it - showed vindictiveness.

Well I agree with what you have said at the beginning, now that I understand how you meant it. Overall there is one point in that and here also I would address. There is a distinction beyond the reasoning that Umbridge had that set her apart from Hermione, imo - and McGonagall too.

I don't know what you all it - but you know how at the trial or in class or whatever, when she speaks? To me it was written in such a way as to not only show that she would use a cruel means if necessary to get what she wanted (herself or on behalf of the ministry) - but that she planned very much ahead of time to have to use these cruel means. It wasn't so much that she was making threats - rather that I felt like she was making promises - if you know what I mean.

I agree that Hermione and even McGonagall could reach the level of cruel in their actions and contrivences - but it seemed to me that they didn't look forward to having to do so - whereas I felt like Umbridge did - like if it didn't occur naturally as she figured it would, she'd force the situation. That's an exaggeration if I meant it always - which I don't - I just mean that at times she came across like that to me. And of course that coupled with her desires being wrongful in my opinion, aided me in having no sympathy for her when she got hers - even if it was overpayment or not really deserved based on her just 'doing her job'. This is true of Filch also - I totally feel Harry was in the wrong humiliating him in a laughing crowd when Filch too was carrying out his duties in busting Harry for wrongful behavior - and Harry had the advantage of magic and all. But I felt no sympathy for Filch due to the way he was presented - that goes for Snape in SWM too. All these people were presented like Umbridge to me, beforehand and that ideology I spoke of above - promising to evoke mistreatment in my eyes - kept me from feeling sympathy. But I never felt that way about Hermione - so to me it was in the writing.

But I do agree that Hermione had a good heart and that is a distinction between her and Umbridge.

Um...lol....maybe that is exactly what it was - I said that before, but a good hearted person is perhaps the exact distinction I spoke of above when I said it was hard to define. Hermione's homebase was a good heart, even when her acts moved from good-heartedness, that was the overall characterization, so that must be what it is - at least I think so.

[darklordspal]

My take on the idea that Hermione is like Umbridge in some ways is based on the seeming ability of Hermione and Umbridge to accept the concept that "the ends justifies the means". The main difference is that Hermione's "ends" is looking to free the world of Voldemort and help her friends and Umbridges "ends" is to see those in authority have unquestioned control, whomever it may be (Fudge or Voldemort).

So I see that Hermione uses some methods that are like Umbridge but her reasons for doing so are more noble. I think Hermione is able to justify her occasional cruelty to herself. That is a potentially dangerous attitude, morally speaking.

However...

I also agree that if Hermione had remained lonely and isolated as she often was in SS then it is possible with her personality she could have walked down a darker path. I don't mean she would have been a Death-eater (she had muggle parents that she dearly loved), bur she could have developed even more vindictive traits without the influence of Harry and Ron. The fact that was she ready and willing to hex the man she loved after he returned shows a very nasty temper. I can understand her anger but I wouldn't have condoned her actions if she had succeded in getting a wand and hexing Ron.

And that is another example where JKR lets Hermione off the hook. JKR gives her this really bad temper but manages to keep her from doing something to teach her to control it by making sure she doesn't have a wand available and doing something really...well...dumb. If Hermione had a wand and had actually hexed Ron then that could have been a chance for Hermione to learn some real humility, but JKR saves Hermione from herself (and possibly Ron from being turned into a frog. LOL ). But as it is written the reader is free to blame Ron for hurting Hermione and Hermione is let off the hook for throwing a temper tantrum that could possibly have led to worse things.

I'm not trying to pick on Hermione but as I said before on this thread, Hermione ends being less fully developed than the other characters in the series. That is a shame b\c in DH she is the main actor in most of the situations that moves the story along (even more so than Harry IMHO). I'm not sure what "Mary Sue" means, but I gather I would agree with that.

[wickedwickedboy]

Originally Posted by darklordspal

My take on the idea that Hermione is like Umbridge in some ways is based on the seeming ability of Hermione and Umbridge to accept the concept that "the ends justifies the means". The main difference is that Hermione's "ends" is looking to free the world of Voldemort and help her friends and Umbridges "ends" is to see those in authority have unquestioned control, whomever it may be (Fudge or Voldemort).

So I see that Hermione uses some methods that are like Umbridge but her reasons for doing so are more noble. I think Hermione is able to justify her occasional cruelty to herself. That is a potentially dangerous attitude, morally speaking.

However...

I also agree that if Hermione had remained lonely and isolated as she often was in SS then it is possible with her personality she could have walked down a darker path.

But using that reasoning, who in the entire series doesn't have the potential to walk down a darker path - except Luna? I don't see Hermione distinguished here mainly by her acts.

I don't mean she would have been a Death-eater (she had muggle parents that she dearly loved), bur she could have developed even more vindictive traits without the influence of Harry and Ron. The fact that was she ready and willing to hex the man she loved after he returned shows a very nasty temper. I can understand her anger but I wouldn't have condoned her actions if she had succeded in getting a wand and hexing Ron.

Everyone could be vindictive and carry out acts that went overboard or were unethical now and again. I don't think that distinguishes Hermione. Harry was vindictive and went overboard in an unethical manner in crucioing Carrow in DH. Ron was vindictive when he gang jumped Draco and his friends in anger - and Harry and the twins for joining in, etc., etc.

And that is another example where JKR lets Hermione off the hook. JKR gives her this really bad temper but manages to keep her from doing something to teach her to control it by making sure she doesn't have a wand available and doing something really...well...dumb. If Hermione had a wand and had actually hexed Ron then that could have been a chance for Hermione to learn some real humility, but JKR saves Hermione from herself (and possibly Ron from being turned into a frog. LOL ). But as it is written the reader is free to blame Ron for hurting Hermione and Hermione is let off the hook for throwing a temper tantrum that could possibly have led to worse things.

But it is the reader's fault for buying into it and letting Hermione off the hook, imo. As a reader, one doesn't have to do that, even if you feel JKR wanted you to. And if you feel Hermione needed to learn humility - then imagine she did once she calmed down and regretted her behavior. After all, she and Ron made up - we were not shown that either. She could have been a bundle of aplogies for all we know.

[Yoana]

Originally Posted by darklordspal

My take on the idea that Hermione is like Umbridge in some ways is based on the seeming ability of Hermione and Umbridge to accept the concept that "the ends justifies the means".

If that were true of Hermione, she wouldn't have bothered with the highly dangerous escapade in Xenophilius's house in DH designed with the sole purpose of preserving Xeno's life/sparing him some other severe punishment. She could have just disapparated the three of them without caring what happened to Mr. Lovegood, because their ends was to destroy Voldemort, a crucial part of which is not getting caught. She risked getting caught with that, just so Xenophilius wouldn't be punished by the DE for lying to them.

For the record, neither Harry, nor Ron were concerned with Xeno's well-being at the time. In light of this, and other instances such as Hermione being the only one who helped Hagrid build his defence in Buckbeak's case, to attribute her "goodness" to Ron's and Harry's influence seems more than a little puzzling to me.

[amanduhrae]

1. Hermione's afraid of failure,so as defense mechanism, she studies obsessively and tries very hard to do everything literally by-the-book. How have her insecurities and defense mechanisms affected her development as a character throughout the series, and what are some other ones? In what ways have they hindered or helped her ? What causes her to feel this way, and has she become more secure with herself throughout the series?

Hermione, I think, is just a very good student who wants to do well (there's nothing wrong in that). It has also helped her in many ways, like figuring out how to help Harry escape from the death eaters in DH. That example, I think, shows how she doesn't do everything by the book. She has her own mind and it's enhanced through reading. Sometimes Ron and Harry would be mean about it, calling her a know it all (same with Snape), but as time went on she got praise for her knowledge (example: Professor Lupin when she figured out he was a werewolf). All these compliments probably boosted her confidence.

2. Hermione repeatedly defends and helps those who can't defend or help themselves. Early in the series, on the first ride on the Hogwarts Express, she starts helping Neville out with his toad and continues to help him out in Potions despite being told not to. In PoA she also works very hard to make a defense for Buckbeak, and in GoF she starts S.P.E.W. to end the opression of house elves. How similar is this to Harry's "saving people thing," and what does it say about her character?

I think Hermione is a little less extreme than Harry, but it may not seem the same to her. She uses books and brains to help other people, but Harry was willing to risk his own life for others. Perhaps she feels it is the same thing, risking a good grade, but I don't think it is the same.

3.Hermione is very intuitive when it comes to others' emotions. She seems to understand a lot about how both Cho and Harry are feeling during their "relationship" and notices Harry's feelings for Ginny before anyone else. She also berates Ron a lot for his "emotional range of a teaspoon" which implies that she notices how people feel more than he does. However, she hardly ever talks about her own feelings, and most of them are expressed only through actions, like the flock of birds in HBP. Is this related in anyway to her insecurity? How does her relationship with Ron and Harry affect this part of personality? How do her relationships with other girls ( Ginny, Luna, Parvati, Lavendar, Pansy, etc.) affect it? Or how do they reflect that part of her?

Hermione is always hanging out with boys with an apparent "emotional range of a teaspoon." She doesn't want to talk to them about her feelings; they're just going to put her down. That's why she went to Hagrid to talk about her emotions in PoA (of course, she was also in a fight with the boys at that time.)

4. Hermione, being Muggleborn, must travel back and forth between the "Muggle world" in which her parents live and the wizarding world in which the majority of events in her life take place. She doesn't go home as often as some of the other students, choosing to spend time either at Hogwarts or with the Weasleys. When she becomes a prefect she comments that she wants to tell her parents because it will be something they will understand. What does this say about her connection to the wizarding world and her relationship with her parents? What do you think of her decision to modify her parent's memories?

While she did homework over the holidays and such, they probably told her to just go to bed and stop studying, like most parents do. Hermione had an excuse to resent them, probably assuming they were only telling her to stop studying because she was studying magic rather than normal, muggle subjects. So when she became prefect, she thought that her parents would understand, even when they did probably understand her throughout the entire series. However, when we're told about how she modifies their memory, it just reminds us how distant they are in the entire series; it really makes you want to know more about them.

5. What does Hermione contribute to the Trio, both on a normal social basis and in the challenges they face together throughout the series? How do her strengths get them through things, and how do her weaknesses hold them back?

Ron and Harry wouldn't have survived at all in their adventure in DH if it wasn't for Hermione. She was the one bringing all the supplies around, she was the one who packed everything; she was acting just like all girls act, always being prepared, and of course doing well with the magic. But that was what caused Ron to leave in the first place, when she couldn't follow him because of the barrier she made. And after that, she was acting very emotional and curt towards Harry. And she was even more emotional when Ron came back. Her emotion, though, probably didn't hold them back too much.

6. What do you think Hermione went on to do post DH? What consequences did its events have for her?

I think Hermione may have become even more distant from her parents after DH. It couldn't have gone well when she told them that she modified their memories. It may have even gotten them angry with the entire idea that their daughter was a witch. It was a big sacrifice on her part.

[darklordspal]

Originally Posted by Yoana

If that were true of Hermione, she wouldn't have bothered with the highly dangerous escapade in Xenophilius's house in DH designed with the sole purpose of preserving Xeno's life/sparing him some other severe punishment. She could have just disapparated the three of them without caring what happened to Mr. Lovegood, because their ends was to destroy Voldemort, a crucial part of which is not getting caught. She risked getting caught with that, just so Xenophilius wouldn't be punished by the DE for lying to them.

For the record, neither Harry, nor Ron were concerned with Xeno's well-being at the time. In light of this, and other instances such as Hermione being the only one who helped Hagrid build his defence in Buckbeak's case, to attribute her "goodness" to Ron's and Harry's influence seems more than a little puzzling to me.

I was talking generally about Hermione's character early in the series. Besides, Xenophilius wasn't trying to hurt the trio or anybody Hermione cared about directly. He was just trying to get his daughter back. Now if Xeno had pulled a wand on anyone in the trio then I'm sure Hermione would have let him have to the hilt. I don't remember Harry or Ron thinking Xeno was evil or deserved to be punished for what he did. He was just a pawn. How Hermione pulled off the escape was impressive, but that had become the norm by that time in DH. Now if JKR had let Harry or Ron done something to to help then I would have been really impressed! But they are just along for the ride on the "Hermione express" by then and through alot of DH.

Hermione only saves her occasional cruelty for those she feels have intentionally hurt someone she cares about (Skeeter or Umbridge) or her dignity (Ron).

You seem to think that b\c I feel Hermione could be occasionally cruel or unfair makes her a bad person. That's not true. But she could be more cruel than Harry or Ron and also more violent and unforgiving toward those who may not deserve it, IMHO. For example it only took Hermione crying over Buckbeak to get Ron to relent and offer to help. It took Ron nearly dying from poison for Hermione to forgive him about Lavendar.

Now, as for Ron and Harry making Hermione "good", that is not what I meant. When I said she could have taken a "darker path" I meant that she could have more lonely and cut off from others without Harry and Ron's friendship and could have developed an idea that the whole world is against her and she could have treated many others the way she treated Skeeter (imprisoned) or the girl who snitched on the DA (disfigured).

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

But using that reasoning, who in the entire series doesn't have the potential to walk down a darker path - except Luna? I don't see Hermione distinguished here mainly by her acts.

But Hermione is presented early in the books as a "know-it-all" with no friends and little affection from her fellow stdents. Harry has his "saving people" thing and sense of justice while Ron is outgoing and likely to have a few friendships on his own. Everyone has a dark side, even Harry. But Hermione has a little more trouble keeping her's in check compared to Harry or Ron.

Everyone could be vindictive and carry out acts that went overboard or were unethical now and again. I don't think that distinguishes Hermione. Harry was vindictive and went overboard in an unethical manner in crucioing Carrow in DH. Ron was vindictive when he gang jumped Draco and his friends in anger - and Harry and the twins for joining in, etc., etc.

I agree that all the heros have their dark sides, but its Hermione who imprisons someone, disfigures another person permently, and turns Umbridge over to the centaurs. That is a little more extreme than what we see Harry or Ron do, IMHO.

But it is the reader's fault for buying into it and letting Hermione off the hook, imo. As a reader, one doesn't have to do that, even if you feel JKR wanted you to. And if you feel Hermione needed to learn humility - then imagine she did once she calmed down and regretted her behavior. After all, she and Ron made up - we were not shown that either. She could have been a bundle of aplogies for all we know.

I can only go by what JKR put on the page. If JKR wanted us to see Hermione go through the life-changing truama she put Harry, Ron, Dumbledore, Lupin, Snape, Neville, and Luna through she would have spelled it out for the reader. She even has Percy swallow his pride and join the DH at the last minute, for Pete's sake!

All the other characters I named are forced by circumstance or their own choices to swallow their pride and admit they were wrong or face some painful ordeal (losing parents, losing family, or just making bad mistakes). Everyone one that is, except Hermione.

[Yoana]

Originally Posted by darklordspal

How Hermione pulled off the escape was impressive, but that had become the norm by that time in DH. Now if JKR had let Harry or Ron done something to to help then I would have been really impressed! But they are just along for the ride on the "Hermione express" by then and through alot of DH.

It's not the impressiveness of the stunt I was pointing out, but the fact that they could have escaped much more easily and without risk if they wanted to, but Hermione decided first to show themselves to the Death Eaters, so they wouldn't torture Xenophilius for lying to them, and then disapparate - thuis risking being caught. There was no other reason to do that but save Xenophilius some misery. I do call this an act of kindness few would bother with in such times, and in such a situation.

Also, what's wrong with Hermione being so impressive, and why would you be really impressed only if it were Ron or Harry who had pulled the stunt?

You seem to think that b\c I feel Hermione could be occasionally cruel or unfair makes her a bad person. That's not true. But she could be more cruel than Harry or Ron and also more violent and unforgiving toward those who may not deserve it, IMHO. For example it only took Hermione crying over Buckbeak to get Ron to relent and offer to help. It took Ron nearly dying from poison for Hermione to forgive him about Lavendar.

That's a very good point and I agree with it. But while it's true that Hermione can be more severe than both Ron and Harry, it's also true that she is usually more compassionate and sensitive than them, too.

Now, as for Ron and Harry making Hermione "good", that is not what I meant. When I said she could have taken a "darker path" I meant that she could have more lonely and cut off from others without Harry and Ron's friendship and could have developed an idea that the whole world is against her and she could have treated many others the way she treated Skeeter (imprisoned) or the girl who snitched on the DA (disfigured).

I can't argue with that, as we can't know what could have happened with Hermione if she hadn't made any friends, but I would like to mention two things - Hermione exhibits a strongly compassionate side more than once in the series, and it is one which cannot be attributed just to others' influence in my opinion. Secondly, the curse on the parchment wasn't aimed at anyone in particular - it was there to make sure they know who was the traitor, and it had to be instantly visible, that's why I suppose she used acne. Though I do agree there was no need to make it permanent, and I certainly don't commend Hermione for that.

I agree that all the heros have their dark sides, but its Hermione who imprisons someone, disfigures another person permently, and turns Umbridge over to the centaurs. That is a little more extreme than what we see Harry or Ron do, IMHO.

I don't think she realised what turning someone to the centaurs really entailed. Apparently she didn't know much about them, as we see from her exchange with Bane (I think?) when she brings Umbridge there. That was probably the only thing she could think about under the pressure of having to save Sirius's life.

And I want to say once again that while her darker side is more extreme than Harry's or Ron's, her sensitivity and charity also surpass Harry's and Ron's.

It's also notable that Ron and Harry stop talking to Hermione over a broomstick.

I can only go by what JKR put on the page. If JKR wanted us to see Hermione go through the life-changing truama she put Harry, Ron, Dumbledore, Lupin, Snape, Neville, and Luna through she would have spelled it out for the reader. She even has Percy swallow his pride and join the DH at the last minute, for Pete's sake!

I think Hermione makes up for her darker deeds continually through the series by the balance between them and her exhibits of genuine care I mentioned above. When we meet her she's trying to help Neville find his toad; I mentioned Hagrid and Buckbeak in PoA several times; she keeps being friends with both Ron and Harry when they aren't on speaking terms in GoF and devotes almost all her time to help Harry prepare for the Triwizard Tournament; she apparently continually helps Neville with his schoolwork as Neville's grandmother claims; she takes care to protect Xenophilius Lovegood at the risk of being caught and most likely killed when she could have just safely disapparated instead. I can definitely see a balance between her "bad" and "good" deeds throughout the series.

All the other characters I named are forced by circumstance or their own choices to swallow their pride and admit they were wrong or face some painful ordeal (losing parents, losing family, or just making bad mistakes). Everyone one that is, except Hermione.

Doesn't Hermione's year on the run with Undesirable No. 1, while she was wanted at the Ministry for possibly disposing of count for a painful ordeal? Her loss of Ron, the weeks she spent in complete devastation over him, over not knowing whether he was dead or alive, after being made to choose between her two best friends by him? Her losing her parents without knowing whether she'll ever see them again, and having to do it herself on top of that? All of that's not painful?

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by Yoana

It's not the impressiveness of the stunt I was pointing out, but the fact that they could have escaped much more easily and without risk if they wanted to, but Hermione decided first to show themselves to the Death Eaters, so they wouldn't torture Xenophilius for lying to them, and then disapparate - thuis risking being caught. There was no other reason to do that but save Xenophilius some misery. I do call this an act of kindness few would bother with in such times, and in such a situation.

Not exactly because that was also Luna's father and Luna is their friend. So where is Hermione's compassion directed? Is she worried about what would happen to Xenophilias or how Luna would be affected by that?

Honestly, I don't know if Hermione would have done the same if it hadn't been someone that was connected to a friend of hers in some way. If Xenophilias had been a complete stranger that was not connected to them or any of their close friends, I think it is more likely that she would have just apparated them out of there and not worried about what happened to that person.

Also, what's wrong with Hermione being so impressive, and why would you be really impressed only if it were Ron or Harry who had pulled the stunt?

Speaking for myself, it was less impressive because - at that point - it was getting repetitive and predictable. I honestly preferred the set up in the earlier books where they all three contributed in that regard depending on the situation and focusing on their strengths rather than just one of them standing out and always being the one to come through no matter what the circumstances. That got old fast for me.

That's a very good point and I agree with it. But while it's true that Hermione can be more severe than both Ron and Harry, it's also true that she is usually more compassionate and sensitive than them, too.

I wouldn't say that is always true though. Maybe with someone they know or has a connection to someone they know, but not all of the time. Really, out of the three of them, I would have to say that Harry was the most compassionate because he showed compassion for his enemies as well as his friends. We never see that level of compassion from Hermione. Would Hermione have risked her life to save Draco? I honestly don't believe that she would have.

I can't argue with that, as we can't know what could have happened with Hermione if she hadn't made any friends, but I would like to mention two things - Hermione exhibits a strongly compassionate side more than once in the series, and it is one which cannot be attributed just to others' influence in my opinion. Secondly, the curse on the parchment wasn't aimed at anyone in particular - it was there to make sure they know who was the traitor, and it had to be instantly visible, that's why I suppose she used acne. Though I do agree there was no need to make it permanent, and I certainly don't commend Hermione for that.

Since Hermione's compassion was fairly limited to those she was close to or had a connection to someone she was close to, I'm not so sure I would agree that would make much of a difference in the circumstances of her having no real friends. I think a lot of that can be attributed to her becoming friends with Harry and Ron and forming other attachments through them because of that.

For example - the situation with Luna. Hermione had no compassion for Luna and didn't really like her at all at first. She even tells Harry that he could "do better than her" and insults Luna's father in the process. It's not until after the events at the DoM that Hermione starts showing more compassion for Luna. I would attribute that to Hermione being friends with Harry and making allowances for someone who obviously grated on her nerves because they were also friends with Harry and had proven themselves in that regard. If you remove Harry from the equation, I don't see Hermione ever demonstrating compassion towards Luna because she wouldn't see Luna as someone worthy of her friendship, IMO.

I would say the limits to Hermione's compassion is demonstrated by her plan with the parchment for the DA - especially the fact that it was not aimed at anyone in particular. That was not Hermione losing her temper and reacting emotionally. It was a coldly calculated plan designed to punish anyone who told Umbridge about the DA regardless of who they were or what reason their might have been for it before the "crime" was even committed. She knew that would likely result in someone being permanently disfigured and she demonstrates no regret or remorse towards that. It seems likely that her reasoning was that whoever told would deserve it and would not be worthy of their friendship/compassion. From what we are shown, she never stops to consider the possibility that Harry, Ron, or one of the people they were already friends with might be forced or tricked into betraying the DA and suffer the consequences of her actions.

I don't think she realised what turning someone to the centaurs really entailed. Apparently she didn't know much about them, as we see from her exchange with Bane (I think?) when she brings Umbridge there. That was probably the only thing she could think about under the pressure of having to save Sirius's life.

On the contrary, Hermione had a very good idea of what the Centaurs would do. She was counting on them to deal with Umbridge and let her and Harry go because they were "foals". They'd encountered the Centaurs in the forest with Hagrid before and the only reason they didn't attack then was because Hagrid was in the company of "foals". So Hermione did know that it was very likely that Umbridge would be attacked or killed by the Centaurs.

It's also notable that Ron and Harry stop talking to Hermione over a broomstick.

Harry and Ron stopped talking to Hermione because she betrayed Harry over a broomstick. There's a difference. Hermione went behind Harry's back in that instance - and she had ample opportunity to discuss her concerns with Harry before she went behind his back to tell McGonagall about the broom. They sat in a common room for quite some time before going down to the Great Hall. Hermione could have at least tried to talk to Harry - she chose not to. She didn't demonstrate much compassion or sensitivity towards Harry there, IMO - or trust for that matter.

The same would apply to Ron over the whole situation with Crookshanks and Scabbers. Even Harry could tell that Crookshanks was after Scabbers but Hermione refused to even consider it or address Ron's concerns. She promised Ron that she would keep Crookshanks in her dorm, but then she let the cat roam freely instead. She got the cat out on the train knowing that Scabbers was out as well - and even without the suspicion that Crookshanks was after Scabbers in particular, it's just common sense not to let a cat out when a rat is around. She didn't show any compassion or sensitivity towards Ron in that situation, IMO.

So I would say that Hermione's compassion was shown to be limited to people she already cared about or had some type of connection to those she already cared about for the most part. And I would say that a lot of that can be attributed to her friendship with Harry and Ron because nearly all of the emotional attachments that Hermione forms in the wizarding world stem from that friendship. And even with the people she cared about, her compassion was somewhat limited - as we see with Harry and Ron in POA.

Doesn't Hermione's year on the run with Undesirable No. 1, while she was wanted at the Ministry for possibly disposing of count for a painful ordeal? Her loss of Ron, the weeks she spent in complete devastation over him, over not knowing whether he was dead or alive, after being made to choose between her two best friends by him? Her losing her parents without knowing whether she'll ever see them again, and having to do it herself on top of that? All of that's not painful?

Well, it was certainly difficult and traumatic in terms of the circumstances and what they were facing. But in what way was that a lesson for Hermione? Did she learn humility from it? Did she fail and have to face the consequences of that failure on page in a way that helped her grow as a character?

That's they type of thing that we're talking about here. Hermione was put in difficult situations where her feelings were hurt or she was physically hurt - or was in danger of being physically hurt or killed. And she was put in situations that were emotionally painful. But it was always presented in a manner where she could blame someone else and/or the circumstances rather than accept her own culpability in the situation. She was never put into a situation where she had to confront her personal demons on page and deal with them. She was never put into a situation where a decision that she made backfired in a way that she couldn't deny her own culpability or had to admit that she was completely wrong. There was always something that happened to prevent Hermione from learning any real lesson in humility. And that's what makes the difference between someone who comes across as arrogant or "swotty" and someone who is merely confident in themselves - humility.

[snugglepot]

Quote

That's they type of thing that we're talking about here. Hermione was put in difficult situations where her feelings were hurt or she was physically hurt - or was in danger of being physically hurt or killed. And she was put in situations that were emotionally painful. But it was always presented in a manner where she could blame someone else and/or the circumstances rather than accept her own culpability in the situation. She was never put into a situation where she had to confront her personal demons on page and deal with them. She was never put into a situation where a decision that she made backfired in a way that she couldn't deny her own culpability or had to admit that she was completely wrong. There was always something that happened to prevent Hermione from learning any real lesson in humility. And that's what makes the difference between someone who comes across as arrogant or "swotty" and someone who is merely confident in themselves - humility.

Well said! That's exactly, the problem I have withg Hermione's characterisation, especially in Deathly Hallows. She is never made to face the consequences of a bad choice, and learn and grow from it.

Quote

Speaking for myself, it was less impressive because - at that point - it was getting repetitive and predictable. I honestly preferred the set up in the earlier books where they all three contributed in that regard depending on the situation and focusing on their strengths rather than just one of them standing out and always being the one to come through no matter what the circumstances. That got old fast for me.

Same here! I was so sick of Hermione saving the day over and over again.

[dchristen03]

IMO, Hermione was never an "ordinary" girl. She is a heroine, and always will be.