Irishman:
Because they think (correctly) that protecting Potter is the Order’s first priority and therefore he’d be with the most powerful of the protectors, Moody. Hagrid isn’t even allowed to preform magic, legally; his wand was snapped when he was 13.
What occured to me, after reading the book, is that the smartest thing for the Order to do would have been for ALL seven Potters to have been fakes, and then to move the real Harry later after the Death Eaters thought they had failed.
Or have Harry Potter take Polyjuice potion too, so that he looks like Hermione for example. In fact, have everybody take Polyjuice potion (except Hagrid because Polyjuice potion doesn’t work on him IIRC). Have 7 Harrys with none of them being Harry, and seven other people disguised. That way Harry still gets to flee with the most experienced Dark Wizard fighter.
Exactly how did you react the last time you were tortured? I think Hermione reacted to extreme pain the way most people do. Her reaction added a little realism to the film. Hell, Hermione cries when Ron kisses another girl in HBP, she can’t shed a tear when racial epitaphs get carved into her arm?
And what a bitch Ron was for going into shock from a trifling little thing like severe blood loss. Pussy.
Epithets?
What do you consider words like “Nigger,” “Raghead,” or “Spic”? Because mudblood is the HP equivalent of words like those.
So, it was, as Grindelwald would say, FOR THE GREATER GOOD?*
Well, then, why weren’t the Dursleys forced to drink a gallon of brain bleach? Surely, as the only living relatives of Undesirable Number One himself, they’d be in the most danger? That, of course, is why Harry had the Order protect them. Why couldn’t they protect the Grangers?
And exactly what protection does the brain bleach actually give them? We already know that Memory Charms can be broken. Voldemort has done it himself in a previous book — and severely damaged the mind of the person he did it to in the process.
*Actually, he’d say DEM GROSSEREN GUT, because he’s German.
Actually, he would say ‘für das grosse Ganze,’ but that’s not important right now.
The Dursleys despised Harry and he them, and this was common knowledge. Harming them wouldn’t necessarily be terribly distressing to Harry, whereas Hermione’s parents were nice people whose daughter was the most prominent witch to come from a muggle family among the major players. Harry, also, was the son of a witch, and so his ancestry wouldn’t have been so inflammatory to the Voldemort crowd.
Hermione had every intention of removing the Memory Charm herself when everything was over and the danger was past, or, if she were killed, her parents would go on living safely in Australia with no pain from the memory of the daughter they couldn’t even recall. I think it was a very brave and selfless thing she did, and not a bit arrogant.
Oh, and the Memory Charm could certainly be broken, but why would the bad guys do it? To learn that Hermione was gone and her parents had no idea where she was? Hermione did it not so that she could hide information from the Death Eaters but so that there would be no impediment to her parents leaving England abruptly to go to Australia and get them out of harm’s way, as well as to save them future anguish if Hermione didn’t survive.
Ahem. Secretary used the word “epitaphs,” and I think he/she meant “epithets”. That’s all I was saying.
Yeah, I don’t have that much of a problem with what Hermione did, but over the series of books I have had a problem with the cavalier way that wizards use memory charms, Obliviate, and other memory modifying spells to wipe muggles’ memories whenever they see or are subjected to something they shouldn’t. I’m thinking specifically of the muggle family who were tossed around by the Death Eaters during the Quidditch World Cup in book 4, along with the guy who ran the campsite who was getting Obliviated every couple of hours. I just wonder if those people (especially the kids) are going to grow up with serious residual problems and nightmares and end up in therapy, but never know why. Wizards (even good wizards–I never see any of the “good guys” getting the least bit upset about modifying other human beings’ memories for their own convenience) seem to treat muggles as almost like intelligent pets–they’re nice to have around, but if they interfere with the wizarding world’s most trivial activities, it’s okay to alter them to make everything all right. That’s actually kind of contemptible. No, on second thought, that’s *really *contemptible.
(must add fluff to get by the spamfilter hamsters)
I was going for a Reichstag reference there.
I say again: Why not delete Sirius and Cedric from Harry’s mind? Surely, he’d be better off without the pain?
But why couldn’t she have simply explained the situation to them and let them know the danger they were in — like Harry did for the Dursleys? It’s like that episode of ST:TNG where the Bynars steal the Enterprise to use its computer to save their planet. Captain Picard says, “Why didn’t you just ask us?” The Bynars, being binary, reply, “You might have said no.”
And how dare some worthless Muggles say “no” to the greatest witch of her age! Oh, but they’re just Muggles, they really don’t know any better. Best to just make the decision for them and not let them worry their pretty little heads about it.
Where do you draw the line? Why not delete Dumbledore from Harry’s mind? Why not his parents?
Because Hermione’s parents love her dearly, and would never, ever, let her face danger like that while they’re safely in hiding, while the Dursleys loathe (or at best, slightly tolerate) Harry, and are more than happy to hide while he saves the world. If my 17 year old daughter came up to me and tried to convince me that she had to do something terribly dangerous, and I had to stay in hiding while she did it, there’s nothing whatsoever she could say to convince me. It simply would not happen.
And, so, you’d have not the slightest moral qualm with your daughter erasing your mind and packing you off to Australia like some 19th-century convict on the Gloria Scott? You’d have no problem losing the dental practice you’d spent your whole life building up, not to mention all your other assets as your Muggle friends had you declared missing and presumed dead? (But of course the Grangers don’t have any friends. Anyone who’s not specifically mentioned in the books doesn’t exist.)
And, afterwards, when your beloved daughter oh-so-graciously removed the Memory Charm — would you ever be able to trust her again?
That is my whole point. Why not delete every single painful memory from Harry’s mind? Since nearly everyone I’ve ever discussed this with agrees that Hermione’s actions were 100% morally right, I usually try a reductio ad absurdum and ask them to give me a reason why Hermione shouldn’t do the same thing to Harry. No one ever does.
Sorry, didn’t catch that. (Goes off in search of caffeine. MORE caffeine, that is.)
He did mean epithets. Sometimes he gets careless.
Of course not. I’m just pointing out that for Hermione, explaining things to her parents and expecting them to meekly go into hiding just isn’t an option, and she knows it.
I don’t know. Maybe. 17 year olds do stupid things. I’ll get back to you in 7 years when my oldest turns 17 and does something to break my heart.
It’s also super important because that’s where they get the advance copy of Rita Skeeter’s tell all bio of Dumbledore which has some major plot devices for the final film.
The title of each book in the series has begun Harry Potter and the ______, not Hermione Granger and the ______. Presumably there’s a lot more to her life than what’s let on in a series where she’s a supporting character (albeit a very important one) and if she were the main character it would probably go into a lot more detail on her parents, their friends, their money, and the obliviate spell, etc.. What you do know about Hermione from the HP books is that she is the most thorough and critically thinking and complete student at Hogwarts, so you can be pretty sure she didn’t just zap them into the Outback without a nickel or the ability to dress themselves.