Hermione Jean Granger

Families

Married

• Spouse: Ronald Bilius Weasley

Analysis

An old post reminds me that it has been so long since I first read the Harry Potter books that I cannot really trust my memories of my first impressions. Whatever I may once have thought, as I have come to think more deeply about the series, Hermione is no longer one of my favourite characters. I think that is why when I first started reading fan fiction I was so strongly drawn to the cannon Harry/Ginny pairing. Of the female characters in the books, few get consistently positive portrayals, and of those, only Harry only really relates to Hermione, Ginny, and Luna. Ginny and Luna are long enough topics to deserve their own pages.

Relating to other people's analysis

I do not think I really started to understand why I was reacting against Hermione though until I started to read that class of fan fiction where characters are reading their own books. I think it was reading other people's reactions to Hermione framed through this media that allowed my thoughts to finally codify.

Then, when I started writing these Notes, I find that someone has come before me and done a sufficient job ranting about the way Mrs. Rowling failed to call Hermione to account¹ that I would struggle to do better. If that is not enough, in some ways, this fake interview for a position in the Department of Mysteries does even better.²

Based on an interview she quotes, Ms. Onim asserts that Hermione is essentially a very flat character with the emotional maturity of a very young (she gives her credit for fourteen in one place, before pointing out a temper tantrum more appropriate for a four year old) girl.³ I am not sure I would go quite that far; I think that Hermione does grow some over the course of the series.

Another work, Of Hearts and Heroes has a different but equally insightful take on Hermione.⁴ It is short enough to quote:

Hermione reeled, taken aback. Did she do that? Did she really make everyone feel stupid? She didn’t mean to, she just … well, school was the only thing she was ever good at. When she was little, her parents were always so embarrassed by the strange things that were always happening around her and the only thing that ever made them proud were her good results.

The kids at her Muggle primary school didn’t like her. No one liked her. No, that wasn’t true. The teachers liked her. As long as Hermione knew all the answers and followed all the rules the teachers loved her. And when the teachers loved her, her parents didn’t look at her as if she were a … disappointment.⁵

I find this particularly insightful, but it is important to remember that the author, here, is writing from Hermione's perspective, not a perspective of objective fact. I doubt her parents are/were actually disappointed in her. Hermione read that in their reactions, but she is essentially an incredibly insecure young girl who does not actually understand people, their motives or their reactions nearly as well as she thinks they do. She deeply craves acceptance and approval. Children are often very cruel, and so I do not doubt that Hermione did experience a great deal of difficulty in school. This probably did lead to a cycle where her academic excellence lead to teasing which Hermione reacted badly to, which caused accidental magic, which caused further problems.

Her parents may not have been disappointed in her, but they were at a total loss at how to help her, and no doubt were disappointed, or rather, upset with each failure. If her parents tried to coach her in getting along better with her classmates, Hermione probably did detect disappointment with each failure. This may or may not actually have been in any way actually directed or intended as disappointment in her though. We lack data, and even if I were not building off of fan fiction speculation, Hermione herself is an unreliable witness. Hermione is very bright in some vectors of intelligence, but as Ms. Onim discusses, not when it comes to interpersonal aspects.

Still, however her parents actually intended in their reactions, it is entirely believable that Hermione believes that her correct answers and the corresponding grades are the only source of approval in her life. This would explain the obsessive behaviours around them without introducing equally speculative abusive or neglectful parents. This also provides a believable segue into those works where Hermione has become what she is in part because she has historically bullied overworked school teachers into simply giving her the grades for her oversized papers rather than working with her to actually learn to write.

Hermione and Harry

I do think that Mrs. Rowling became, to an extent, a victim of her own success with the latter half of the series, from approximately Goblet of Fire on. And thus I do agree that she (Mrs. Rowling) was probably lazy and used Hermione to provide information that would have better come from Ron, or to solve situations that Harry could better have handled. It is odd that the prophesy speaks of one who would be Riddle's equal, but that Harry is, in many ways, carried along right up to the last scene in the Great Hall.

On the other hand, he need not have been. Where did Harry and Hermione disagree?

• They disagreed over the Firebolt, call that one a draw - it did come from Black, but it was safe. Hermione here acts from the best of motives, she wants to keep her friend safe. I have no problems with why she acted, but how. Was it necessary to go behind Harry's back the way she did? She makes one essentially yelled out assertion that the broom could have come from him, and when Harry does not immediately agree, she goes and reports to Professor McGonagall. I can see that most teens would be uncomfortable calling in authority this way, and thus that very few if any would have informed Harry in advance that they intended to do so. The part that concerns me is two fold. One, she did not really try to convince him at all. When you read the series through the first time this does not really stand out, but if you look at it holistically, it is part of a pattern where she expects people to follow her advice as superior to their own ideas. Secondly, she does not empathise with him at all. I get that she dislikes both sports in general and flight in particular. She should however be able to recognise that Harry disagrees, and is not wrong to do so.
• They disagreed over the rescue in 5th year. Hermione was right, but she handled it badly. Here I am mostly inclined to give Hermione a total pass, she was 16 and in over her head dealing with an adult situation.
• They disagreed over Malfoy as a death eater. Harry was right. I have read at least one fan fiction where Hermione eventually admits that she was, in sixth year, scared.⁶ It is also possible that she is reacting to the way that Ron and Harry blamed Malfoy second year, when he was, that time, innocent.⁷ Either way, it is clear that she is not really considering anything Harry says about Malfoy over the course of this year (In her defence, neither does anyone else). In retrospect we know that this is because of Dumbledore's overconfidence.⁸ Either she is in denial (understandable, but unacceptable from someone lauded as being strong), or she was massively, stupidly, overly confident in authority to the point of abdicating responsibly for her own life and safety. If the former, she is a very human character, but not someone Harry can really depend on. If the latter, she is not actually intelligent.
• They disagreed over going to Godric's Hollow. Again a draw - it was a trap, but there was a horcrux there that could have been destroyed if they had planned better.
• They disagreed over a Horcrux in Hogwarts. Harry was right. If Hermione had her way, the war would never have ended. It is worth pointing out here that, per Harry's vision of Dumbledore at King's Cross, his plan in having her accompany Harry was for her to slow him down.⁹
• They disagreed over the Hollows. Both were right at different times. She was right to pursue them initially when he didn't want to, but she was very quick to give up on them after learning what they are, whereas he became very interested in them until much later. We are unsure over the importance of being Master of Death, so we cannot be sure how to call this one.
• They disagree over House Elves. We lack the information to call this one.
• They disagree over the potions book. Despite the use of Sectumsempra, I think Harry was right on this one. Certainly Hermione's reasoning was wrong even if her conclusion was partially correct.

Overall, the list has Hermione unambiguously right one time, Harry unambiguously right 3 times, and the point contested between them another three times (one time we cannot judge where it falls). In other words, if Harry had been allowed to stand up to Hermione, he could have been allowed to show case his own reasoning skills and to have taken charge more. He would then have been more of the leader, more of Riddle's equal.

On a related note, I very strongly believe that those who push the Harry/Hermione pairing have spent way too much time watching the movies (which certainly do push this pairing). While I have read, and accept, that there is a strong element of wish fulfilment in desiring the pairing for female fans, the text simply does not, at all support this pairing.

Crookshanks

Hermione's relationship with her pet cat, Crookshanks, is also worth a further look. If you pay attention in Prisoner of Azkaban, Hermione is in fact incredibly insensitive. I am not faulting her for buying Crookshanks. She is not obligated to avoid owning a cat just because Ron owns a rat. Hedwig should have been just as prone to attacking Scabbers as Crookshanks; the reality of the pets chosen for Hogwarts is that some of them are predators of others of them. Owls eat small cats if they can, cats eat small owls if they can. Both will kill toads if they are given a chance. Rats aren't even on the approved list, probably precisely because the two most common pets will so commonly hunt them.

The problem is not her choice of pet, the problem is her attitude. Hermione is heedless and uncaring. Sure it is natural that Crookshanks would hunt Scabbers. So why would Hermione carry him into the boy's dorm with her? We never hear of any other cats wandering around the common room, any of which would be equally likely to attack Scabbers. Presumably these other cats are kept contained in dorm rooms when their owners are not actively playing with them. Why is Hermione never held responsible for Crookshanks' habit of wandering around campus? Sure Mrs. Noris does, but are there really only two cats in Hogwarts when it is one of the three approved pets? I think it far more likely that all the other cats are kept contained. Strange cats would fight if they were not kept relatively segregated. Alternately, perhaps magical cat pets are normally abnormally well behaved. If that is the case, Crookshanks is quite the exception, and Hermione should have been called to do something about it, or send him home. Worse, while she does burst into tears now and then, she never does express sorrow for the pain her cat has caused Ron. If my cat ate my best friend's pet, I might not blame the cat, but I would apologise for allowing it to happen.

Remember what I said about the firebolt being part of a pattern? Consider this a second data point. Hermione never admits fault, and is never called on her faults.

Veela (and Fleur in particular)

It really comes down to the same thing when you look at Hermione's reaction to Fleur Delacour. The girls at Hogwarts universally hate Fleur because the boys are universally attracted to her. Honestly, this is one thing that I have trouble with about Ginny, but it is even worse for Hermione to be falling into this trap. Fleur is part Veela, and males unconsciously and against their will react to Veela. Sure, with sufficient will power they can resist, but Mrs. Rowling makes it seem that any male that lacks that level of will power is to be despised. I am sorry, if a Veela's power is to mean anything, the ability to resist it cannot be common. If the ability to resist it is uncommon, then you should not despise or deride a guy just because he lacks that ability. We might admire someone's photographic memory, but we are not going to ridicule someone who lacks it. In point of fact, this fits with what Mrs. Rowling writes - Fleur is attracted to Bill because he is that rare male who does not react. This has been so rare in her life as to stand out.

Hermione researches everything impulsively. She might not have known much about Veela at the world cup, but after seeing the guys react to them there, she would have read about them in the Hogwarts library. She would have known that Ron's reaction was involuntary. What Fleur is doing is roughly equivalent to the imperious curse. Read the description from the World Cup and then read the description from the false Moody's lesson. They are not precisely the same, but the similarities are very very real. Harry describes both as a pleasant feeling that makes it hard to think, hard to consider disagreeing, makes him want to go long. It would not surprise me if Veela were considered "dark" creatures,¹⁰ and there would be good reason for it. Fleur is not evil, she dislikes the effect she has on the males around her, and a "dark" creature would either not care or would active revel in her power over the helpless males. You could, however, understand a government that either did not make this fine distinction, or who judged the entire race of Veela based on the action of a subset who did abuse the ability.

Hermione might not have liked that Ron did react, but she would have known all of this back story. She should have either despised Fleur as an evil dark creature and have given Ron a pass, or she would recognise that Fleur dislikes the effect, and champion her as a misunderstood and oppressed magical species just as she does the house elves. If the later, she would have given Fleur a pass. Blaming both for the effect is basically displaying the worst of shallow female jealousy. It is the kind of behaviour that she would normally ascribe to Pansy.

This one alone has mitigation, to an extent. Being male, I cannot really speak for the mindset involved, but most young girls are extremely insecure about their appearance. No matter how true or false the common perception of Veela may be (and, as stated, Hermione should know precisely how true it is), Hermione, Ginny, and every other woman would be aware of that cultural baggage. That is, they would be aware of Fleur's magically enhanced beauty, which they can never live up to. This would enhance their own insecurity (and Hermione is, in fact, incredibly insecure). If I did not have several pages of other issues with Hermione's behaviour, I would be inclined to utterly ignore this topic. As it stands, I include it to illustrate that each point is part of a pattern of insecure and immature behaviour that persists through the entire series.

Advice to Ginny

Hermione is a very shallow female in many ways, something we see when we look at the the advice she gives to Ginny for dealing with a debilitating crush. The boy you like is not paying attention to you? Date some other guys. The cynical part of me hears this as "Make him jealous." While that approach happens to work in this case, Harry does get jealous of Dean, it is not a smart strategy.¹¹

The jealousy angle aside though, having Ginny using dating to build confidence was both high risk and unfair to the guys Ginny dated. High risk in that the breakups and rejection that Ginny might have faced in those relationships might have destroyed the confidence that Hermione was hoping to build up. Unfair in that Ginny was entering relationships intending them to be temporary, intending to breakup with the guys eventually when Harry someday noticed her. This might be perfectly good from pop culture's standpoint, but it is horrible morality. Lastly, high risk (though again pop culture does not recognise this) in that Ginny was not going to learn how to have a successful relationship when all of her experience came from experiences she entered into with a mental escape plan.

Hermione's Parents

Hermione's relationship with her own parents is one of the more curious things in the series. She seems to spend less and less time with her parents, and by the summer between sixth and seventh year, is falls into classical magical thinking. Her decision to remove her parents memories of having a child without consulting them, however well intentioned, is condescending and paternalistic - an attitude wholly inappropriate for a daughter/parent relationship. Like the incident with the firebolt, her conclusions and thus actions might in the end be the right ones,¹² but her reasoning is all wrong.

Frankly, as a parent, this is the section that utterly horrifies me. By fourth year, as a fifteen year old girl, Hermione has essentially divorced herself from her parents. If one of my children were to do that, I would be devastated. I understand that one of the nearly universal fatal flaws of having children as protagonists in literature is the impossibility of portraying adults reasonably, but consider this as one of Hermione's parents. Assume, for the same of having a series, that Harry's participation in the war is in fact necessary. Given that, one can, somewhat reluctantly accept, that the support Hermione gives him at school is also critical. As a parent, I would rage against the dysfunction that has allowed Harry's situation to occur, but I can accept that it would eventually escalate world wide if not stopped. When you cannot flee, you have to stand and fight.

Hermione does not give her parents this chance. Starting at age twelve she starts censoring all the important details of what happens at school. That is totally unacceptable. No reasonable parent would accept that behaviour. As a consequence of this, she feels less and less connected to them. A reasonable parent would notice this, and recognise something is wrong. We are left to assume that Hermione's parents are so wrapped up in their careers that she can be absent from home all but a (maybe) a few weeks between her fourth and fifth year, and they notice so little that they neither demand she come home for Christmas break, nor that she stay with them the summer after fifth year.

Speaking of which, if Hermione is not explaining things to them, how does she end up with the Order all summer? It cannot be "for safety" - her parents have not been told she is in danger. Again we are seeing a portrayal of Hermione's parents as essentially neglectful to the point of criminal negligence. Our daughter is off with we do not really know who for the entire summer with no way to contact her. Oh, and we have not seen her since early August last year, where we did not talk enough to know anything of significance about her incredibly stressful school year.

Then, to cap this pattern, she unilaterally modifies their memories to erase her own existence, and sends them off to Australia. Do you really think this seventeen year old girl with no practical experience in the non-magical world took adequate care of wrapping up all the loose ends such a move would have in her parents lives? This is a really big question if she planned on the move being essentially permanent, but it is an impossible one if she planned on them being able to return should the war ever end successfully. What did she do with their house, their business, the clientele that business' success is based on? Is there any extended family or even close friends with whom she is causing her parents to cut off all contact essentially overnight and without explanation?

And it would have to be without explanation. How could it be otherwise? Her parents do not even know their own names. Having a new identity, they cannot be responsible for mothballing the dental practice, contacting friends or family, or any of the dozens of details that would need to happen if they are to go overseas in a way they can hope to return from.

I am unsure how necessary it was to modify give them a new identity this way. I agree they did probably need to either go into hiding or leave the country (at least temporarily). If I "woke up" from this however, was de-enchanted to find myself in Australia having had no say in going, I would be massively upset. The person who caused this would have to admit to having been wrong to do so to repair that relationship. If they do not, how can I trust them?

Hermione and Ron

The idea that opposites attract is a common one in pop culture. I am quite positive that there is at least some truth to it. It seems equally reasonable that an immature young teen, or better yet, the young pre-teen first experiencing hormones and unsure how to deal with them, might react to the desires they generate by picking a fight to get attention. It is an extension of the way a child sometimes misbehaves, deciding that negative attention is better than no attention.

If, however, you do not grow out of this, your relationship is doomed. That they are, by the end of the series, now 18 years old and yet Hermione and Ron are still pushing each other's buttons and bickering as a first reaction (except when Ron feels the need to suck up to her after abandoning them, but that's not healthy either) says nothing good about either one.

Equally concerning is the way that Hermione sends the canaries to attack Ron when she is upset that he has started to date Lavender.¹³ The attack, while not premeditated, is a vicious violet use of magic with intent to harm. The birds did draw blood, cause scarring, and could have damaged him more severely (if for example they had reached his eyes while pecking his head). Without re-reading more recently than I have, I cannot recall if this is before or after Hermione's 17th birthday. If after, and had Ron chosen to press charges (and assuming that Hogwarts were the sort of school that were possible - which it is not), she would have been tried as an adult. In the mundane world, she it would have been one of the charges listed in either the Offences against the Person Act of 1861 or something that later replaced or amended it. People would probably be quicker to condemn this relationship violence if it were male on female instead of female on male. As a thought exercise, imagine that Ron had attacked Hermione rather than yelling at her when he was first enraged with jealousy over her relationship with Krum.

It also isn't the first time that Hermione has attacked someone - the use of the Confundus spell on McLaggen to help Ron win the keep trial must be categorised as an attack as well.¹⁴ Once again people are generally willing to forgive her because it is 1) female on male violence 2) against a disliked character 3) results in a favourable outcome 4) done to help someone she has feelings for(Ron). None of these actually justify her actions.

Conclusion

Overall it is really easy to fall into a Hermione bashing trap. I do not want to do that. I think Hermione is an eminently redeemable character. She means well, is regularly very generous, and highly loyal. She just needs to learn. To learn that authority can fail you, both books and teachers. To learn that she might be very intelligent, but she is can still make mistakes, and that sometimes those she regularly corrects will point those mistakes out.¹⁵ To recognise others strengths and accept competition. But the only way she can do that is if she is forced to face consequences. Not necessarily world or relationship ending consequences, but she does have to be called to account. When she is heartless, she has to face that she's hurt someone. When she's wrong, it has to be pointed out.

Sometimes that means that you lose a friend, perhaps (hopefully) only temporarily, but sometimes permanently. I would hope that Hermione and Harry would recover from the break in their relationship that should have happened in third year. If it did not happen then, I do not think they would have time (in the books we see) for them to recover from the events of sixth year, though it is anyone's guess which specific event would be one too many.