Chapter Thirty

[merrymelody]

Grawp -

This’ll be fun! Who doesn’t like Grawp?

(Am still behind a good five chapters. I’ll post them sooner or later, unless Mirabella/y’all would rather we keep moving in a more linear fashion?)

Comments

[violaswamp]

One of the things that’s kind of annoying - Fred and George have now completely abandoned their younger siblings to Umbridge (do they know about her detentions?) who now has a grudge against their family in specific.

Yeah, isn't that rather, well, unchivalrous?

And it fits in nicely with the wish-fulfillment ‘OMG HARRY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PERSON IN THE WORLD, any attempts at escaping this horrific prison are foiled by trolls, dragons, knife-wielding assailants! Harry Potter is the top priority of the WW and even his broom must be monitored!’ theme.

I really, really hate that about the books. I think it's possible to do the Chosen One thing without getting annoying about it, but HP hasn't succeeded at this, IMO.

This strikes me as coming from the same impulse as her 'Why don't we try for some inter-house unity, by which I mean, I'll ask you guys for permission, and if you say no, I'll never mention it again. I know the right thing to do, but I’m not going to stick my neck out doing it, since I must obey my menfolk over my own instincts.’

Honestly? I don't think she really cares about doing right. I think she wants to think of herself as the kind of person who's doing right, and so she makes these perfunctory gestures in the direction of morality, knowing full well that the guys will slap her down--and relying on them to do so, because she doesn't actually want to do what she knows is right but at the same time doesn't want to face the fact that she's not Little Miss Moral.

There was no good to be gained in keeping silent if it meant anyone suspected that Fred and George were criminals.

Hahahaha! No, that would never do. Stupid Harry, what do you think blackmail is, for starters? (Or am I being a maiden aunt about this?)

No, you're not. I absolutely love and adore morally ambiguous heroes--when the author and the text acknowledge that they're morally ambiguous. But I HATE it when a Good Guy does something morally questionable and no one notices or reacts or gets hurt or calls him on it. That's a huge issue I have with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, though I enjoyed the show. I liked Angel a lot more, because when Angel fucks up, people treat him like he's fucked up, and the narrative treats him like he's fucked up. We're not expected to buy that Angel's locking up 20 Wolfram and Hart lawyers in a basement with two seriously evil vampires is good or justifiable in any way.

That's one of the things that's so lame about this books - everytime someone appears close to making a breakthrough, it's like the author steps in and stops them, in order to 'help' them.

ITA. Again, where are the people who roll their eyes at Quidditch? There must be some! I would be one of them!

Hee. This is so something that would happen in a Sweet Valley Twins book.

LOL, so true! And I actually read that book you talked about. I love trash like that, it just makes my day.

[mariagoner]

Honestly? I don't think she really cares about doing right. I think she wants to think of herself as the kind of person who's doing right, and so she makes these perfunctory gestures in the direction of morality, knowing full well that the guys will slap her down--and relying on them to do so, because she doesn't actually want to do what she knows is right but at the same time doesn't want to face the fact that she's not Little Miss Moral.

Eeeeeexactly!

I recently started debating the Montague issue with one of my friends at LJ, and she took a stance on it that I completely didn't understand. She basically argued that Hermione was just being very normal in disregarding the well-being for someone who was her enemy and outside her normal social circle. It's an argument I still can't wrap my head around considering:

a) If Hermione was so indifferent to Montague's plight in the first place, why would she even go about *asking Harry and Ron's permission* to help him in the first place? IF she really felt that she didn't need to give a damn about him, why go through the empty shadow motion of pretending to care about him, only to pretend that she was really shut down by her friends?

b) Hermione is supposed to be "Little Miss Moral," as you put in, and the soical conciensce of the Trio. considering she's a conscience that is easily shut up by two negative comments from her friends, she really isn't an effective one!

c) Hermione is a damn hypocrite with her social crusading, considering that she feels that house elf rights are perfectly fine to fight for, but wounded human beings her own age aren't worth the effort to help. Nice priorities, mini-Umbitch.

[violaswamp]

She basically argued that Hermione was just being very normal in disregarding the well-being for someone who was her enemy and outside her normal social circle.

Huh?

I'm not sure how a normal person could avoid being seriously freaked out if their friends caused anyone, especially someone who wasn't being physically aggressive, serious brain damage. I just can't imagine how that wouldn't cause an "Oh, damn" reaction in a normal human being.

[merrymelody]

Yeah, even Ron felt bad about Lockhart (Harry didn't understand that, of course. It involves human emotions like 'regret' and 'guilt') and he was going to abandon Ron's sister to death and incapacitate Ron and Harry.
(Which is why the reaction is so bizarre, here. I guess it's intended to show how psychotic the House rivalry's gotten, and it's certainly not OOC for Ron/any of the Trio to be a jerk, but if you can find Lockhart sympathetic, and not the poor guy who tried to take points from your brothers?...)

[violaswamp]

Yeah--maybe this can be fanwanked by arguing that Ron would have felt guilty over Montague if he'd actually seen him the way he saw Lockhart, rather than hearing about Montague third-hand. Or something.

[merrymelody]

(They were) just being very normal in disregarding the well-being for someone who was their enemy and outside their normal social circle.

Oh, sure. It's like if you saw someone bleeding to death while out for a jog. Wouldn't everyone assess who they were, how they'd previously treated you (subtracting five minutes before calling the ambulance for every instance of rudeness), whether they'd be sufficiently grateful for assistance, the probable circumstances that leading to their injury and whether or not they were deserving of it, and who it would affect/assist/hinder if you left them?
I know I would!

Hermione is a damn hypocrite with her social crusading, considering that she feels that house elf rights are perfectly fine to fight for, but wounded human beings her own age aren't worth the effort to help.

Yeah, that's a pretty big problem. Because obviously part of the Trio's friendship is this...well, fear of each other. Nobody seems to trust anyone else not to dump them if they play up. So it's fairly IC for Hermione to hem and haw even over some serious ethical problems, rather than disagree with her only friends. But we've seen her overcome this - both when she feels said friends are endangered, and when it's a moral issue close to her heart: they don't care about, and are actively annoyed by her SPEW campaign; yet she continues with it. So it becomes less and less excusable that she doesn't step up.
And like I said, I find it just as bad that Harry and Ron weren't even aware of the moral ambiguity of their non-actions (is it worse to know better and not do anything, or not to know better at all? Hmm...) but Ron, at least, doesn't seem to be pimping himself as a bleeding heart, unlike the other two who seem to see it as an optional hobby rather than an actual characteristic.

[pacoman]

We're not expected to buy that Angel's locking up 20 Wolfram and Hart lawyers in a basement with two seriously evil vampires is good or justifiable in any way.

We are, however, expected to buy that Angel firing the MoG is lower on the moral scale. At least, going from the way they treat him in Epiphany.

But yeah, it's nice that the show acknowledges that Angel can be a total asstard with or without the soul.

[violaswamp]

I don't think his firing them was portrayed as lower on the moral scale so much as more hurtful on the emotional scale. And his firing them was, I think, supposed to indicate that not only could Angel do wrong but he planned to do wrong and to insulate himself from all who could influence him otherwise. /OT

[merrymelody]

Yeah. With Buffy, we'd probably have gotten a three-episode arc of 'I pushed you away because I care too much! You guys don't know what it's like to be the Slayer, and I didn't want to endanger you! I feel better than you, and at the same time, inferior!' (*ships Harry/Buffy - theirlovehassomuchrestingonit'swearyshoulders!11)

[merrymelody]

And I actually read that book you talked about.

Bwhahaha! That's so cool, I thought I was the only one ;) It has lived on in my memory for years for that incredibly lame 'We made Puff cool!' but now HP has topped it in the stakes of suckitude... *sighs sadly*

There must be some! I would be one of them!

Me too!

Yeah, isn't that rather, well, unchivalrous?

I know the Twins are Gryffs, but have they ever demonstrated chivalry? Or for that matter, bravery?

I think she wants to think of herself as the kind of person who's doing right, and so she makes these perfunctory gestures in the direction of morality, knowing full well that the guys will slap her down--and relying on them to do so, because she doesn't actually want to do what she knows is right but at the same time doesn't want to face the fact that she's not Little Miss Moral.

Yes, she has prejudices of her own, which is why the 'Hermione as Moral Authority' doesn't work and is in fact, actively irritating/hypocritical - she seems to take the high-ground until something annoys her and then all bets are off. (Of course, that's fairly common from the 'good' side in this series...)

I absolutely love and adore morally ambiguous heroes--when the author and the text acknowledge that they're morally ambiguous.

Yes, exactly!

I HATE it when a Good Guy does something morally questionable and no one notices or reacts or gets hurt or calls him on it. That's a huge issue I have with Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Oh, me too. That was my first fandom, and there was a pretty similiar situation there: 'Why do you watch Buffy if you don't like the lead character? She's young, and she's had a rough time of it! Every decision she ever made was justified, and if it wasn't, it was either someone else's fault or because she was sooooo damaged and hurt by everyone else!'