Hermione Granger

A quick question:
When you said Hermione was never wrong. Did you mean that as she always ends up right, that what she does is never in the wrong or something else entirely?
Because I would have to disagree with you if it was the first: In CoS Hermione is as certain as Harry and Ron that Malfoy was the Heir of Slytherin.
In the second sense, Harry Potterverse makes so she isn't in the wrong, you know the end justifies the means as long as you are on the good side.

I really liked your essay.

Actually, Hermione has been wrong at least once. In PS/SS, she thought that Snape was jinxing Harry's broom. He was actually trying to protect Harry from Quirrell/Voldemort's attack. (And I will anticipate any accusation of her attempting to murder/harm Snape here by quoting:

"Bright blue flames shot from her wand onto the hem of Snape's robes. It took perhaps thirty seconds for Snape to realize that he was on fire. A sudden yelp told her she had done her job. Scooping the fire off him into a little jar in her pocket, she scrambled back along the row - Snape would never know what had happened.")

There may or may not be other instances, but there is at least one time that she was wrong. ;)

As for "poisoning two fellow students," I'm uncertain if you are claiming that Hermione "poisoned" Crabbe and Goyle? If that's the incident that you're referring to, she gave them (and again I'm quoting,) "a simple Sleeping Draught" not a poison. Although, it is certainly possible that anything could be a poison in large enough quantities.

As for leading a teacher to a likely death, that's debatable. Obviously, Umbridge did not die. And Hermione's own words to the centaurs were "We only came in here because we hoped you'd drive her off for us--" Personally, I doubt that Hermione considered that Umbridge would be murdered - although, that is a possibility. As for whether or not what Hermione did was justified... Some people seem to think so and some do not. I tend to agree with those who feel that she was desperate and acted on the first thought that came to mind. Consider that Umbridge was about to cast the Cruciatus Curse on Harry. Hermione was aware at this point of two things: (1) that Neville's parents had been driven permanently insane by the extended use of the Cruciatus Curse and (2) that Umbridge had already sent the dementors after Harry. Umbridge says, "He never knew that I ordered dementors after Potter last summer, but he was delighted to be given the chance to expel him, all the same..." So, in my view, Hermione had no reason to think that Umbridge would stop with only the Cruciatus.

Whether or not Hermione will end up being Rowling's Mary Sue is still very much up in the air. We don't know if Hermione is, in fact, being set up for a very large fall or not.

I think what they're trying to say is that while you're making sense, you do seem to be putting a negative spin on Hermione's actions.

Yes, Snape is a teacher. Fine. But the fact is she thought it was Snape the person, the evil prat which they all hate who they, including Hermione, wanted to kill Harry. Not Snape the Professor.

Yes, technically it was poison. But it was also a mild sleeping solution. Playing with semantics was just some negative spin. Admit it: saying what she gave them was poison would illicit much more negative reactions from the public who like to equate poison with say, anthrax. If you had said, "mildy dosed two students with a sleeping potion", the reaction you would have gotten would have been mild in return. Thus you spinned it negatively.

Leading someone to perhaps a death is negative yes, but it regardless of that action it was in self-defense. Adding those two extra words would have made it look too soft, and thus you left them out. Spin.

Your essay is well thought out and it does make a lot of sense, but like the vast majority of fan essays, it's not neutral. It leans. Doesn't matter to me whether it leans pro or con, left or right, it still leans, and thus it loses a lot of pull with me. *shrug*

(I guess it's a bit silly replying to an old post and you probably already know this.)

I always assumed the name Dolores was thought along the same lines as 'Umbridge' and intended as a reference to the Latin word 'dolor -> pain, sorrow'. Indeed 'dolores' is the plural of 'dolor'.

Some personal information follows below. I hope it's not offensive.

- - -

As for no-one liking poor Dolores, as you mentioned in another article. Well... I did. As a classical (big M) Masochist I found her to be an interesting embodiment of female authority. The detention scene was erotic to me.

Bellatrix, on the other hand, didn't really do anything for me. If you're familiar with some D&D terminology it's Lawful/Evil that fascinates me, not Chaotic/Evil.

As for her ugliness... Well. I can deal with fat. In fact, fat and overly feminine is a combination I can appreciate. Toadlike, on the other hand, is hard to get around but I still don't think I saw the character as all that physically unappealing when reading the book (I've only read the work once through and there's been some time, I'll pay notice to what exact descriptions are used on my next time around).

Would I have liked Umbridge even more had she been young, thin and beautiful? I suppose I would have. What I would really prefer, though, is an author with enough imagination to describe a fat female character as physically appealing. Or at least not completely unattractive.