A Huge Tangent
So, I was forced to watch the fail that is known as Breaking Dawn last weekend. And after watching Jacob "imprint" on Reneesme (sp?), something occurred to me.
Something that seems relatively popular in Hermione pairings is Veela!fics. Or something of that nature. Some wizard is a magical creature of some kind, usually a veela, that has some mystical soul bond with Hermione and she is his one and only mate. Usually, this is used as a plot device to force Hermione with a character she normally wouldn't consider in canon. I typically see Draco Malfoy or Blaise Zabini in this role, though I have seen other men, usually Slytherins. I myself have written a short blurb using this particular device. I enjoy this type of story, I know lots of other people enjoy this story, and I assume the reason why we're okay with this plot is because in this case, a grown man doesn't decide that a newborn child is his one and only, like what happens in Breaking Fail.
Anyway, the way the author typically forces Hermione with said wizard is "he will die if you don't mate with him, and you're not that cruel, are you?" Which leads me to how I even got to thinking about Hermione's morality.
I've seen it said (and I wish I could remember where so I could link it) that Hermione is in fact one of the most moralistic characters in HP. She fights for house elf rights, is pro-werewolf and muggleborn rights, animal rights (the Gringotts dragon) and, on a smaller scale, is constantly after Ron and Harry for lying, cheating, etc etc. From this stand point, the argument that she has a strong moral compass makes sense. She is a very "good" character and believes in things that "good" people normally believe in. For instance, in the real world, we generally don't think of racist people as being "good" people. (Gosh, I've just typed good so many times it looks strange.)
I think differently. I think Hermione has a skewed moral compass. Even in the first book, this is evident to me. She sets a teacher on fire; in the second, she steals potions ingredients; in the third, she attacks Malfoy, attacks a teacher, and breaks the law regarding time turners; in the fourth, she kidnaps Rita Skeeter and holds her for the summer holiday for writing libelous articles; in the fifth, she breaks into the ministry (granted, with several other students, and in order to stop Voldemort), and leaves Umbridge to the centaurs (who most likely raped her, which is something Hermione most likely knew would happen. Centaurs in Greek mythology were infamous for raping women, and even if that isn't true for HP canon, Hermione knew that something bad would happen to Umbridge if left with them unarmed); in the sixth, she sends canaries to peck Ron's eyes out; and in the seventh, Hermione breaks into Gringotts (although she broke a number of laws in the seventh because of the new anti Muggleborn government, and in this instance, it was more of something she HAD to do in order to stop Voldemort).
Some of these things, as I noted, were things she had to do in order to survive and/or stop Voldemort. On the other hand, some of these were not. Besides stopping Rita Skeeter from publishing lies, what purpose did kidnapping her and holding her in a jar serve? None. Did Hermione have to send canaries to peck out Ron's eyes in the sixth book, just for dating Lavender? No. Especially since it they weren't in an official relationship to begin with, it was just Ron being clueless.
All of this leads me to believe that Hermione, while believing in things most of us would support and also believe in/fight for, would do things in defense of them that we wouldn't do. A comparison: it is very terrible and horrible when Luna is kidnapped by Death Eaters in order to make her father stop writing pro-Harry things in the Quibblers, but when Hermione kidnaps Rita Skeeter, it's funny, because Skeeter is a character most of the readers dislike, and because it's for a "good" cause. It seems to me that Hermione has a very skewed moral compass...which is why I enjoy her so much with Slytherins.
All of this leads me back to beginning, regarding fanon!Veela and their version of imprinting/soul bonds/mates/etc. Based on the Hermione we've seen in canon, would the reason "he'll die if you don't" be a good enough reason to bind herself in a permanent partnership to someone she dislikes/loathes?
I feel that it would depend on the person. For instance, I don't think she would condemn Draco Malfoy to death. Rabastan Lestrange on the other hand, or any other grown Death Eater, yes (as much as I hate to admit that. They're my OTP).
What do you guys think?
Something that seems relatively popular in Hermione pairings is Veela!fics. Or something of that nature. Some wizard is a magical creature of some kind, usually a veela, that has some mystical soul bond with Hermione and she is his one and only mate. Usually, this is used as a plot device to force Hermione with a character she normally wouldn't consider in canon. I typically see Draco Malfoy or Blaise Zabini in this role, though I have seen other men, usually Slytherins. I myself have written a short blurb using this particular device. I enjoy this type of story, I know lots of other people enjoy this story, and I assume the reason why we're okay with this plot is because in this case, a grown man doesn't decide that a newborn child is his one and only, like what happens in Breaking Fail.
Anyway, the way the author typically forces Hermione with said wizard is "he will die if you don't mate with him, and you're not that cruel, are you?" Which leads me to how I even got to thinking about Hermione's morality.
I've seen it said (and I wish I could remember where so I could link it) that Hermione is in fact one of the most moralistic characters in HP. She fights for house elf rights, is pro-werewolf and muggleborn rights, animal rights (the Gringotts dragon) and, on a smaller scale, is constantly after Ron and Harry for lying, cheating, etc etc. From this stand point, the argument that she has a strong moral compass makes sense. She is a very "good" character and believes in things that "good" people normally believe in. For instance, in the real world, we generally don't think of racist people as being "good" people. (Gosh, I've just typed good so many times it looks strange.)
I think differently. I think Hermione has a skewed moral compass. Even in the first book, this is evident to me. She sets a teacher on fire; in the second, she steals potions ingredients; in the third, she attacks Malfoy, attacks a teacher, and breaks the law regarding time turners; in the fourth, she kidnaps Rita Skeeter and holds her for the summer holiday for writing libelous articles; in the fifth, she breaks into the ministry (granted, with several other students, and in order to stop Voldemort), and leaves Umbridge to the centaurs (who most likely raped her, which is something Hermione most likely knew would happen. Centaurs in Greek mythology were infamous for raping women, and even if that isn't true for HP canon, Hermione knew that something bad would happen to Umbridge if left with them unarmed); in the sixth, she sends canaries to peck Ron's eyes out; and in the seventh, Hermione breaks into Gringotts (although she broke a number of laws in the seventh because of the new anti Muggleborn government, and in this instance, it was more of something she HAD to do in order to stop Voldemort).
Some of these things, as I noted, were things she had to do in order to survive and/or stop Voldemort. On the other hand, some of these were not. Besides stopping Rita Skeeter from publishing lies, what purpose did kidnapping her and holding her in a jar serve? None. Did Hermione have to send canaries to peck out Ron's eyes in the sixth book, just for dating Lavender? No. Especially since it they weren't in an official relationship to begin with, it was just Ron being clueless.
All of this leads me to believe that Hermione, while believing in things most of us would support and also believe in/fight for, would do things in defense of them that we wouldn't do. A comparison: it is very terrible and horrible when Luna is kidnapped by Death Eaters in order to make her father stop writing pro-Harry things in the Quibblers, but when Hermione kidnaps Rita Skeeter, it's funny, because Skeeter is a character most of the readers dislike, and because it's for a "good" cause. It seems to me that Hermione has a very skewed moral compass...which is why I enjoy her so much with Slytherins.
All of this leads me back to beginning, regarding fanon!Veela and their version of imprinting/soul bonds/mates/etc. Based on the Hermione we've seen in canon, would the reason "he'll die if you don't" be a good enough reason to bind herself in a permanent partnership to someone she dislikes/loathes?
I feel that it would depend on the person. For instance, I don't think she would condemn Draco Malfoy to death. Rabastan Lestrange on the other hand, or any other grown Death Eater, yes (as much as I hate to admit that. They're my OTP).
What do you guys think?