Comments on: Chapter 9: A Place to Hide

By: Arabella Figg

Arabella Figg — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:13:33 +0000

I think the main focus is the Trio’s unselfish sacrifices to defeat Voldemort. Both Hermione and Ron give up their families, Hermione going to the length of making herself an orphan, and Ron leaving his with less protection and no news of their welfare. Harry, of course, is laying his life on the line as savior.

By: Red Rocker

Red Rocker — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:45:51 +0000

BA, don’t you hate geographical stereotyping?

Some good thoughts on Ms. H’s motivation. I am not convinced, however, that JKR entertained any of those thoughts. I am fairly convinced that she wanted a quick way of showing that the trio were making preparations and that they were taking their quest pretty seriously. If she had wanted to make the point that Hermione was being inconsistent or immature, she would have said something about it.

Joivre, I wouldn’t call JKR a lazy writer overall. When she pays attention, she plans things out very meticulously. It’s just sometimes that she doesn’t think things through. This isn’t the only instance.

By: Black Angus

Black Angus — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:08:39 +0000

I’m also offended that Australia can be seen as ’safe’ and ‘out of the way’! Hermione ships her parents off to the colonies. Reminds me of the Anglocentric protagonist of Dracula’s Guest…

Australia was involved in WWII because those crazy Europeans were going to hurt everyone. We bailed Britian out of the Western Desert and inflicted the first defeat on Japan.
So I assume it would be the same for VoldWar II.

Don’t get me started.

By: revgeorge

revgeorge — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:20:16 +0000

I don’t see Hermione’s use of memory modification on her parent’s as lazy writing at all. I think it just shows that human beings are not the most terribly consistent people in the universe. Hermione sees the compulsion that House Elves live under as a terrible thing; yet she compels her parents to forget her & move to Australia.

Does she do the right thing or the wrong thing? Therein lies the problem. And the answer is more likely to be “yes and no” rather than “yes or no.”

By: deacondon

deacondon — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:02:28 +0000

Good Heavens! Aren’t we being a little hard on Ms. Grainger here? What was she supposed to do? Allow her parents to be tortured and killed? If Harry was Undesirable Number One, than Hermione was certainly in the top ten. To quote that great moral philosopher Ronald Bilius Weasley (who has far more sense than Pete Singer), “All’s fair in love and war and this is a bit of both.” Hermione loved her parents, and thought that this was the best way to protect them. She is pretty bright. Maybe the Order should have sheltered Hermione’s parents like they did the Dursleys. In the end the Graingers were far safer in Australia if Voldemort had prevailed than the Dursleys.

I don’t believe it would have ripped Harry or Ron’s soul if one of them had AKed Greyback at Malfoy Manor. Especially if Ron had done it. Greyback was on the verge of ripping Hermione’s throat out and who knows what else. Greyback seems to survive a few to many stuns that throw him across the room into a wall. I know that JKR wants to keep her Trio pure, and I agree with that to an extent, but it also means that some of the unpleasant choices that must be made in a time of war are just a little too pat.

By: Arabella Figg

Arabella Figg — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:20:48 +0000

Hmmm, some good arguments here. I’m rethinking my unreflective, quick answer. I usually consider things more carefully before shooting my quill off.

By: Joivre

Joivre — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:13:33 +0000

Regarding the last two words of your post Red Rocker, that might be just a tad troppo forte. A writer who has meticulously plotted out a laberynth of seven books, complete with drawings, maps, and biographies of non-existant characters, certainly has a right not to have her writing labled lazy. My other idea is this – Hermione is 18 years old. She thinks she knows everything, like most teens, but she doesn’t. I was a complete idiot at 18 and when I read Deathly Hallows, I’m actually surprised at the trio’s composure. But alas, Hermione had not probably studied consequentialism in school yet and her decision was a youthful and earnest mistake. I guess there’s no Pete Singer in the Wizarding World and there isn’t an ethics course at Hogwarts.

By: Red Rocker

Red Rocker — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:49:31 +0000

Hart Johnson, I did consider your alternative, and like you, I can’t see how anyone – parent or not, but especially a parent – agreeing to have their memories erased, especially of the existence of their own child. Not even for the sake of ridding the world of evil. Some things are core.

Black Angus, it is patronising, but it’s worse than patronizing. It is the use of power over someone who has no way of protecting themselves. No matter how well intentioned, it is wrong.

I acquit the divine Ms. H, of course. It’s her creator who sometimes doesn’t think about the ramifications of her plot devices. Lazy writing.

By: Hart Johnson

Hart Johnson — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:24:19 +0000

Just to be devil’s advocate–how do we know Hermione didn’t GET consent from her parents before performing said modification? She may have explained the situation, at least broadly, and asked them to trust her before she did it.

As a parent, I can’t imagine agreeing to let my daughter go into that kind of danger, but then–the Grangers are dentists… (that’s a joke). Seriously though–if she had said “I will need to help Harry find some things, and if you are here to be used as a way to bring me back, we will fail and these evil people will take over… Can you trust me?”

Just a possibility… (Hermione IS a character though, that sometimes seems to get caught up in that old ‘greater good’ conundrum, so maybe not.

By: Joivre

Joivre — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 05:33:37 +0000

You bring up some really interesting points. I remember being slightly taken aback by the memory charm on Hermione’s parents when reading the book, but I just stored it in the back of my head. It seemed too messy a philosophical and moral problem to wrestle with at the time I was reading.

However, using magic on Muggles, with or without their consent, seems to occur more frequently than we think. (Which I’m sure will irk Black Angus). For instance, Albus uses magic on the headmistress at Riddle’s orphange. Arthur uses memory charms all the time on muggles to contain magical mishaps in muggle territory. It seems more often than not it is used to protect the magical community from Muggle infiltration and discovery. Does it make it right? You bet it does. I would have loved to use a few memory charms on the nazis to protect the Jews from persecution. However, would it be right to use a memory charm on a Jewish person, perhaps even telling them they are not Jewish – in order to protect them from being hunted down?

Ah…. no. There must be another way without taking away someone’s identity. It seems the end wants to justify the means.