It’s the end of an era. The entertainment which has stretched across books, movies, and countless marketing tie-ins, which has captivated children and adults for well over a decade and which has, for better or worse, managed to become the defining myth for an entire generation, is winding to its close. I speak, of course, of the Hermione Granger series, by Joanne Rowling.
So, before she goes away for good, let us sing the praises of Hermione. A generation could not have asked for a better role model. Looking back over the series — from Hermione Granger and the Philosopher’s Stone through to Hermione Granger and the Deathly Hallows — the startling thing about it is how original it is. It’s what inspires your respect for Rowling: She could only have written the Hermione Granger by refusing to take the easy way out.
For starters, she gave us a female lead. As difficult as it is to imagine, Rowling was pressured to revise her initial drafts to make the lead wizard male. “More universal,” they said. “Nobody’s going to follow a female character for 4,000 pages,” they said. “Girls don’t buy books,” they said, “and boys won’t buy books about them.” But Rowling proved them wrong. She was even asked to hide her own gender, and to publish her books under a pen name, so that children wouldn’t run screaming at the thought of reading something by a lady. But Joanne Rowling never bowed to the forces of crass commercialism. She will forever be “Joanne Rowling,” and the Hermione Granger series will always be Hermione’s show.
And what a show it is. In Hermione, Joanne Rowling undermines all of the cliches that we have come to expect in our mythic heroes. It’s easy to imagine Hermione’s origin story as some warmed-over Star Wars claptrap, with tragically missing parents and unsatisfying parental substitutes and a realization that she belongs to a hidden order, with wondrous (and unsettlingly genetic) gifts. But, no: Hermione’s normal parents are her normal parents. She just so happens to be gifted. Being special, Rowling tells us, isn’t about where you come from; it’s about what you can do, if you put your mind to it. And what Hermione can do, when she puts her mind to it, is magic.
Ditto for the whole “Chosen One” thing. Look: I’ve enjoyed stories that relied on a “Chosen One” mythology to convince us that the hero is worth our time. I liked Buffy the Vampire Slayer as much as anyone. But it’s hard to deny that “Chosen Ones” are lazy writing. Why is this person the hero? Because everyone says he’s the hero. Why does everyone say he’s the hero? Because everyone says so, shut up, there’s magic.
Hermione is not Chosen. That’s the best thing about her. Hermione is a hero because she decides to be a hero; she’s brave, she’s principled, she works hard, and she never apologizes for the fact that her goal is to be very, extremely good at this whole “wizard” deal. Just as Hermione’s origins are nothing special, we’re left with the impression that her much-vaunted intelligence might not be anything special, on its own. But Hermione is never comfortable with relying on her “gifts” to get by. There’s no prophecy assuring her importance; the only way for Hermione to have the life she wants is to work for it. So Hermione Granger, generation-defining role model, works her adorable British ass off for seven straight books in a row. Although she deals with the slings and arrows of any coming-of-age tale — being told that she’s “bossy,” stuck-up, boring, “annoying,” etc — she’s too strong to let that stop her. In Hermione Granger and the Prisoner of Azkaban, she actually masters the forces of space and time just so that she can have more hours in the day to learn.
And it pays off. Hermione saves the day, over and over; in every book, there is a moment where her classmates need to be saved, and they need a plan that is going to save them, and they inevitably turn to Hermione, “the brightest witch of her age.” Hermione always comes through; she has the plans, she saves them all. That’s why her name is on the cover of every book.
As the series developed, its politics did, too. Dumbledore, memorably, falls in love with a younger man in the third installment. Other female characters were introduced, and developed beyond stereotype; we learned to value McGonagall as much as Dumbledore, to stop slagging Lavender Brown off as clingy and gross because she actually wanted her boyfriend to like her, to see the Patil sisters and Luna as something other than flaky, intuitive, girly idiots. Unbelievably, even Ginny Weasley got an actual personality. Hermione was not an exceptionalist, the one girl in the world worth liking; she didn’t need to be surrounded by female stereotypes in order to stand out as a compelling female character. And Hermione, in her defining moment, became an activist for the enfranchisement of house-elves.
The best thing about this development is Rowling’s lack of condescension; it’s easy to take potshots at youthful activism, and a lesser author would have played Hermione’s campaign for nasty comedy. Imagine that abomination; Hermione being the only character to notice that her sparkly, magical world relied on the creation of a goddamn slave race, and all of the supposedly sympathetic characters being like, “no, they like slavery! Stop being such a downer!” Instead, Hermione works with the house-elves to free them early on, and many house-elves become well-developed, central characters.
And there we have it: The defining hero of our age is a girl who saves the day with her egalitarianism, love of learning, hard work, and refusal to give way to peer pressure. It’s hard to think of the Hermione Granger series as anything other than flawless. And yet — as fans constantly point out — there is a very big flaw in the series. You know who I’m talking about; it’s He Who Must Not Be Named, but we spell it H-A-R-R-Y.
The character of Harry Potter is an obnoxious error in the Hermione Granger universe, made more obnoxious by his constant presence. It’s tempting to just write Harry off as a love interest who didn’t quite work out; the popular-yet-brooding jock is hardly an unfamiliar type. And, given that Hermione is constantly having to rescue Harry, he does come across as a sort of male damsel-in-distress.
But, if we look closely, we can see that Harry is a parody of every cliche Rowling avoided with Hermione. Harry is not particularly bright or studious; he’s provided with an endless supply of gifts and favors; he’s the heir to no less than two huge fortunes; he’s privileged above his fellow students, due to his fame for something he didn’t actually do himself; he even seems to take credit for “Dumbledore’s Army,” which Hermione started. Of course this character is obnoxious. It’s only by treating ourselves to the irritation caused by Harry that we can fully appreciate Hermione herself.
Those who doubt Rowling’s satiric intent need look no farther than the scathingly funny epilogue to the final book. In the end, we see Harry married to some girl he met as a teenager, dropping his kids off at school, and reminiscing about his glory days. In the end, Potter is just another jock who peaked in high school. And Hermione? Well. Rowling would never insult Hermione by dropping her into some suburban nightmare of marrying a boy she met before graduation. What we learn about Hermione is what she does for her job. Although we are, thankfully, treated to the hint that she’s been hooking up with Neville Longbottom.
“For truly,” goes the last line, “Neville somehow got really handsome. All was well.” Indeed.
Front page photo: Emma Watson filming for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
Editor’s Note: Sady’s responded to the comment thread with a follow-up thread here.
Here’s a thought: instead of damning the *incredibly good* for not perfectly expressing *your* thoughts, how about *you* write it.
Go ahead, try it. I’m interested to see what all the critactivists have to show when they’re asked to actually top Glee, HP, and all the other things they damn as “not good ENOUGH!”
Lovely. Thank you. And I would have read all seven volumes of that series by now.
much as i love the HP series, this is spot on. thanks, sady.
this is by far the best thing I’ve read by Sady. Truly brilliant work of feminist literary criticism.
We DO learn what Hermione does for a job – head an entire department – in a later interview. And Hermione was never ever presented as a love interest to the hero, except if anything, this IS a mark of progress. Ron and Harry were ALSO only presented as husbands and fathers in the book.
As much as I love HP–this is totally spot on. Wow, I wish, so much, that those books existed.
Also, as for the activism, she was slightly lampooned, but in the end IT WAS HERMIONE’S ACTIVISM that got Kreacher on their side. Hermione has the last laugh over Ron and Harry and the others who had originally laughed off Hermione’s efforts to treat the elves with kindness and free them because she is the one who figures out Kreacher’s psyche. Regulus Black treated elves with respect and thus, even though he was a deatheater, he had Kreacher’s trust, rather than Sirius. I actually think that Hermione’s efforts are generally written with a positive light… But anyway…some youth activism *is* a little silly…the posters, cute slogans, etc. There’s nothing wrong with gently poking fun when the overall message is overwhelmingly positive.
This is spot-on with one exceptoin. Your criticism directed at Rowling’s tone vis-a-vis Hermione and the house elves is off-putting.
While many of the characters do respond to Hermione as though she’s crazy — and indeed, many house elves display internalized inferiority based on generations of abuse — acting as though the responses of the characters are equivalent to the author’s tone is slightly inaccurate.
Rowling’s intent in the books is always abudantly clear, both through putting the crusade in the hands of an imminently respected and admired character, Hermione, and through consistent cues by other respectable characters, such as Dumbledore, that her crusade is both just and appropriate. She succeeds marvelously, as previous commenters have suggested, in mobilizing Kreacher at the last. In short, Rowling’s vision of Hermione’s quest, while not reforming and revolutionizing immediately (what reform movement has done its best work within three years of its founding) is imminently charitable towards her aims and objectives.
Furthermore, her writing and characterization shows that even good wizards have internalized prejudice initially leading them to derision of Hermione’s aims — Ron, for instance — and yet, if they are of good will, can be brought around to both realize their prejudice and combat it.
That said, I have no problem with much else here. I’m impressed with the style used to make your points, too; it’s a great use of a specialized device to make a specific point.
September, by your own rules of conduct, shouldn’t you be writing a better article rather than criticizing this one?
Is there any evidence to support that Ms. Rowling was indeed pressured in the ways that this article satirically implies?
I mean, if not, how is this not a direct and unfounded attack on her strength of character? Maybe I’m misreading this but it seems to imply that The original MS was intended to be about a female lead. I’ve never heard this. Can someone please cite the source?
It’s difficult to figure out what precisely this article is trying to say, so I’m sorry if I come off as not understanding it.
There is a lot to praise Hermione about, and a lot to criticize Harry of. This article communicates to me that the series would have been better if Hermione were the primary character, and Harry were downgraded to “major character.” I’m not disagreeing with that, if Harry’s story would have worked as a major character it wouldn’t be any skin off of my nose. I’ve got plenty of male characters to read.
However, It seems your main argument for this is because Hermione’s character has important values to teach while Harry falls into standard gender stereotypes, thus making Hermione’s story arc more valuable in general.
Well, I’m not claiming that Harry’s story arc is more valuable than Hermione’s, but I still think Harry has something valuable to teach, just not to women.
The major complaint of Harry in this article is that he’s privileged, though he doesn’t deserve it–he’s just normal. I don’t disagree with that. I emphatically agree with it.
Harry’s story arc, to me, is that he’s given a heightened version of male privilege, and has to work against it to keep himself grounded, keep from becoming an asshole, and do the right thing despite incredible external pressure.
This is a very valuable lesson for young boys to learn, and I feel like this article denies or belittles that lesson because of personal preference for one character over another rather than as a response to sexist writing.
This was such a smart piece, critical yet affectionate at the same time. While I would have loved to see a few more substantial female characters in HP and wish that the series wouldn’t have ended with such a definitively suburban wrap-up, at least Rowling let the teenage protagonists wait a decade or so before having children!
::: standing ovation :::
Someone over at pandagon pointed out that Harry’s not exactly a jock – UK school cliches don’t line up so neatly with the US ones. He’s pretty much the stereotypical boarding school hero – good at athletics, smart but not TOO smart, generally well-liked if he’s not being cruely slandered, and nice to everyone in return (if they deserve it).
You are absolutely brilliant, Sady Doyle.
Absolutely brilliant! Whenever I saw the movies in the theater I would imagine that the Harry and Hermione’s roles were reversed – it made for a much more enjoyable magical experience – so I’m thrilled more about the remixed series that I thought was only going on in my head!
I’m also reminded of what bell hook’s wrote about Harry Potter in her book The Will to Change: Men Masculinity and Love —- “It was adult, white, wealthy males in this country who first read and fell in love with the Harry Potter books. Though written by a British female, initially described by the rich white American men who ‘discovered’ her as a working class single mom, J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books are clever modern reworkings of the English schoolboy novel. Harry as our modern-day hero is the supersmart, gifted, blessed, white boy genius (a mini patriarch) who “rules” over the equally smart kids, including an occasional girl and an occasional male of color… Sexism and racist thinking in the Harry Potter books are rarely critiqued. Had the author been a ruling-class white male, feminist thinkers might have been more active in challenging the imperialism, racism and sexism of Rowling’s books.”
Absolutely brilliant! Whenever I saw the movies in the theater I would imagine that the Harry and Hermione’s roles were reversed – it made for a much more enjoyable magical experience – so I’m even more thrilled about this article talking about the female-driven series which I thought was only going on in my own head!
I’m also reminded of what bell hook’s wrote about Harry Potter in her amazing book The Will to Change: Men Masculinity and Love —- “It was adult, white, wealthy males in this country who first read and fell in love with the Harry Potter books. Though written by a British female, initially described by the rich white American men who ‘discovered’ her as a working class single mom, J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books are clever modern reworkings of the English schoolboy novel. Harry as our modern-day hero is the supersmart, gifted, blessed, white boy genius (a mini patriarch) who “rules” over the equally smart kids, including an occasional girl and an occasional male of color… Sexism and racist thinking in the Harry Potter books are rarely critiqued. Had the author been a ruling-class white male, feminist thinkers might have been more active in challenging the imperialism, racism and sexism of Rowling’s books.”
Rachel and QBert put it well already; I just want to add a third “Thank you for this excellent post!”
Hugely enjoyable, spot on – for me, the mother of a son – and thought provoking, thank you. I am reminded of Sherri Tepper’s now out-of-print True Game Series. Six of the nine books center on adolescent heroines of the Hermione Granger cast.
A much better discussion of the feminist issues in these books
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2011/07/quote-of-day.html
While clever, this article gives several wrong impressions. As others above have already mentioned, Hermione’s anti-slavery was intended to be taken in earnest. Harry and Ron laughing it off are shown to be in the wrong. This article would have us believe that Hermione’s passion was intended as comedy, and it was not.
Also, the jab at the “Chosen One” business shows that the article writer either hadn’t read the later books or simply didn’t understand that the reason for this was not just some silly prophecy, but rather a very matter-of-fact rational reason. To lampoon it as anything but is misleading.
And yes, it’s very sad that had J.K. Rowling written it as “Hermione Granger and the” most young and teen boys would not have read it. Is she to be critisised for a well-known publishing fact? There’s no evidence she’d ever intended Harry to “Harriette” or whatever, so saying that she should have changed her main character to female simply to try her best to buck tradition is a bit silly.
I think the author of this overlooked the theme of the series in context to the main character. I think we can all agree with Sirius Black that we all have light and dark inside of us, and it’s what we choose to act on that makes us who we are. Harry’s character illustrated this, over and over again as he is faced with choices and questions. This is the entire theme of the book. Hermione in all her awesomeness was always relatively solid in whom she was and what she believes in, while admirable, there was no internal struggle with her.
You really did fail to comprehend the UK culture in the text. So mind not thinking Joanne Rowling’s an American? Or is cultural imperialism too hard for you to break?
Is there actually a ‘Hermione Granger…’ series? I’m failing to find this anywhere. It’s certainly not referenced under Joanne Rowling’s works, however you have said here that it is written by her.
I found the generalisations and lack of references in this article irritating.
The incessant feminist need to promote female characters over male characters with the assumption that we can learn more from female characters is very sad and downright sexist. Why can we not just appreciate the characters for who they are and what they are communicating, rather than judging them purely on their sex?
User name emilywk makes the point I wanted to make. Also, fantastic article. Well done.
Ask many fantasy authors and they’ ll tell you. Rowling probably didn’t even consider for a moment any issues of role models, gender, steroetypes, prejudices, etc etc. She probably just had rollicking fun writing a great story that people would love reading. Which millions of us did.
@Anthony Sullivan: The part about Rowling having to go by her initials rather than her first name to attract male readers is unfortunately true. (Though even if she’d chosen to fight that battle, who’s to say she wouldn’t have gone by the more androgynous “Jo” anyway?) The rest is pure riffing/criticism on the author’s part. Like it or not, Harry was always intended to be the protagonist. And much as I love Neville, I’m not sure why he gets a pass (and a superfluous makeover!) in this scenario while the kid who repeatedly states he doesn’t want any of the privilege heaped on him gets pilloried.
By the by, as long as we’re talking about Dumbledore’s Army, did our heroine scar one of her classmates for life by not disclosing the full penalty for spilling the secret in this universe?
I love the Harry Potter books — very much, in fact — and I still think this analysis is right on.
It’s sad that our culture hates women so much that even female authors write male main characters.
You know, If the main character had been cast as “your” heroine, and young mr Potter as the bumbling assistant, I suspect that she would have been seen the same way a smart, capable, supportive, kind, and creative male lead would be. Phoney. To be successful, Harry must first be an idiot and, in his idiocy, be rescued (repeatedly) by a female assistant who, though born of lesser privilege, is morally and intellectually, superior. She leads by example and shows our bumbling hero how to be a man. Seemingly, she succeeds. That’s pretty much how it happens in the real world. Real men are created by superior women. Why is that so hard for anyone to understand?
Brilliant. Your critiques of popular culture are always so insightful. This post makes me feel warm on the inside. Hermione was always my favorite character and the one I most connected with. So much for boys not being able to relate to female leads. 🙁
Special thanks for pointing out Harry’s “jock”-ness. As a nerd throughout my childhood, it always bothered me that no one cared how dull and non-talented he was off the Quidditch pitch. As McGonagall pointed out, his successes seemed to stem from sheer “dumb luck.”
Anyway, just thank you.
Awesome post!
This just seems trite and reductive. I agree wholeheartendly, as many have said above, that the real value of a female character isn’t whether her name is on the front of the book or not, but what her function is within the narrative. In the case of Harry Potter, Hermoine is consistently and clearly Harry’s superior. Further and as such, she enables to narrative to transcend a gender line between book-smarts (troped as female) and skill/luck (troped as male). The deconstruction of these tropes is what Hermoine’s character deserves to be lauded for. I think this article is a terrible piece of criticism, embodying the worst type of reactionary, reductive, Gilbert+Gubar style criticism that fails to look at the function of a female character like Hermoine in her deserved recognition (what she does in /relation/ to men, not in /spite/ of) and can not but relegate her to the lower, bitter half of a double discourse. Do Hermoine more justice; recognize her for the CRITICAL component that she is in the series, don’t reduce her to simply a foil and then bewail the reductive role you’ve just put her in.
I dunno, this article is real mixed bag for me, and the comments even more so. It’s always a little weird when gendered discussions among first-world netizens who had time to read a multi-thousand-page fantasy series start veering into “unearned privilege makes you a bad person, doesn’t it?” territory, as parts of this essay and several of the comments seem to. Harry, Hermione, Ron, and *everyone reading here* have access to wealth and privilege well beyond what many in the world can count on, despite the real, non-trivial differences among them. How’s life in our glass house casting stones at each other going today? 😉
Someone commented that it was odd that “nobody” had noticed Harry’s ordinariness off the Quidditch pitch. Good lord, it’s only the most frequent criticism leveled at the books by anybody with half a brain … maybe you don’t know the right people? (Not to mention: did you read none of the things Rowling put in Snape’s mouth about Harry? The criticism is right out in the open, and as we eventually learn, Snape is a character well worth heeding.)
As has already been said, I think Rowling was onto something quite deliberate here: Harry’s a case of having “greatness” thrust upon one. Yes he’s privileged–and he still has to learn to make choices about what to DO with that privilege, choices which redound to the benefit of all, not merely himself. Yes, he draws on the talents of smarter people, Hermione chief among them … what was he supposed to do, ignore them? (I also think it’s interesting that nobody is talking about the series’ rather sharp critique of the culture of ‘fame’ and its implication that being privileged and popular can be soul-deadening *and distract from the real work of changing things for the better* … is everyone convinced that Hermione would have had an easy time if only everyone made HER the hero and thrust all those expectations on HER?)
People frequently note what a “weak” or “ordinary” hero Harry is, but that’s a big part of the point: the era of the “great” person who goes it alone and does it all themselves ought to be over, is what I think Rowling’s saying. This essay gestures to that egalitarianism in speculating about Hermione surrounding herself with a group of interesting and accomplished women … but it also suggests, for example, that only a Hermione Grainger series would have taught us to see Luna Lovegood as something other than an “intuitive, girly idiot.” I dunno: I’m a queer male in my late 40s and I was smart enough to see Luna as a whole person even in the Harry Potter books. If it truly takes Hermione-as-hero series to make a woman like Luna seem valuable, what exactly are feminists saying about their own ability to respect human beings in general? I know a fair number of “intuitive, girly” MEN–should I not value them for not being book-smart? *Intellectual* privilege is okay?
As I say: mixed bag. A series with Hermione as the hero would certainly be AWESOME–but not because tendentious readings of the existing series are more true than the existing series itself. 😉
As a woman and a feminist, I consider the critiques of this article to be completely bogus. As anyone who has worked in bookstores or libraries knows, getting boys and men to read is very hard. Rowling did that. To criticize her for having a male protagonist misses the point of the feminist movement. She had the freedom to write about a character of any sex, so she did, and in a fantasy genre generally dominated by male writers. She did not feel constrained to write only about girls or issues stereotypically attributed only to women.
Yes, there is a bias among readers, especially male ones, about reading books by women. Using initials is one way to get around this (and British writers – both male and female – have a good solid history fo doing this). After the books became a phenomenon, it no longer mattered. A women is the most successful and influential writer of her generation. And she did it by breaking the rules, whether you want to admit it or not.
Thank you for the bit about the house elves: the Gone With the Wind, House Elves Want to be Slaves, was more than I could bear and I stopped reading at book 5. I am astonished at the excuses people make for this.
Haha! Amazing.
Man, I’m with most of you guys, though. I figure, I’m a good person, and I’m not sexist or classist or racist, and since what I like is reflective of myself, if I like Harry Potter, it must not be sexist, classist, or racist, either.
Obviously I’d notice if I was looking at a story through the window of my own privilege; since I DON’T see anything wrong with it, it must be because there ISN’T anything wrong with it, and it’s just a regular, rollicking old time.
QED.
Shame on you, Sady Doyle, for suggesting that there’s anything at all in the world that matters about anything except whether or not I’m happy.
Your condemnation of the Harry Potter books is an interesting way to confront these issues. It’s obviously won you a great deal of attention here, but it seems unfair to throw this pretty respectable book under the bus for not addressing your favorite causes at any cost. I’m hoping that your Harry Potter angle is basically just an attention-grabbing hook, and that you aren’t actually filled with rage about it. Otherwise, you might as well get started denouncing Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Fahrenheit 451 — neither of those beloved books starred a strong career-driven woman, either.
I agree with some of her points, but I have a few serious issues. I feel like she’s laying general criticisms of society, cultural mythologies, and gender relations on a series that subverts quite a few of the expected tropes. For example: (excuse my geeking out):
1. If we look at the first book, which was when the entire premise was set up, it’s a pretty clear that it’s a fantasy-come-true scenario—here’s a poor, rather horrifically-abused child who finds out that he’s actually a fantastic wizard, really famous, and really rich. I thought she actually did a pretty admirable job of showing the complexities of somebody thrust into stardom and a hero role without ever really wanting to be part of it. His friends are constantly jealous of him, he bitches about it pretty frequently, he gets harassed for it, put into mortal danger without his consent, and in the end of the series finds out that his mentor and closest friend has been grooming him to be a human sacrifice for seven years. It’s only near the very end of the series where he really accepts the mantle of what he has to do—and he then realizes he has to sacrifice his life because he’s chosen that path (he gets better). Yes, of course this is the archetypical “chosen one” story, but there’s a bit more to it than that.
2. Sady’s point about the apparent lack of valuing meritocracy in wizardland completely ignores the fact that the primary motivating force for the “dark side” throughout the whole series is the primacy of blood over effort. If there’s anything that’s made clear throughout the series, its that those who rise into a station through their efforts are just as great as those born into it. Also, Hermione was born a wizard just as much as Harry. She didn’t train herself to be one. The only difference is that it was, ahem, a point mutation rather than inherited—her parents were normal, Harry’s were wizards.
Also, Harry’s parents are supposed to be quite normal. Harry’s father is even supposed to be a bit of a jerk. The only reason Harry is in the place he’s in is because Voldemort misinterpreted a prophecy. It was supposed to be Neville as the saviour, who’s of noble blood. Harry’s parents were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
3. A bit out-of-universe here one…as a friend of mine who was in the publishing industry when these books came out pointed out, the reason the books were such a huge success is that they actually got 8–15 year old boys reading. That demographic was completely ignored by the publishing industry because they figured they were a lost cause. Acting like Rowling did some great disservice to the world by making her book have an 11-year-old male character, which boys of that age (including myself, I may say) immediately latched onto? Come on.
First all, I think the way you have chose to write this article is a little condescending. But okay.
Regarding the point you are trying to make. Of course I agree that there need to be more strong non-stereotypical female characters in lead roles.
But just because Hermione isn’t in the lead role doesn’t make the series completely worthless. She is still a wellrounded, strong character and good role model.
I do not see a problem with the fact that see is being teased. To me it just seems very realistic; friends do tease each other and her being the only girl and her being extremely smart makes her a target more often, but I do think Harry and Ron were teased as well. If anything this makes her a stronger character because of the way she handles it and always perseveres.
All in all I love the series and the character of Hermione. I think you’re coming on a little too strong here.
In regards to your remarks about the series (and character of Harry) not being original, I would just like t0 say: cliches are cliches for a reason, becauser they work.
Dear Braak–
Nice try, hon, but no score. Had you read my earlier comments in particular, you might have noticed that some of us were not refusing to see our own entitlement as a possible set of blinders, we were opining that perhaps Sady’s entitlements were a different set of blinders but still entitled, and it is thus a bit risky to call others out on that issue.
Your parodic recapitulation of other commenters goes “I’m not racist, classist, or sexist, so I’m okay,” but in fact, one thing I do notice is a silence on your part, and partially on Sady’s, about sexual orientation. (Let alone class and economic privilege.) Sady’s rewriting of the series casts Hermione as the central hero, but maintains her heterosexuality. Shall we call “heterosexual privilege” on these points, and cast Sady’s thoughts into outer darkness along with Jo Rowlings’?
What’s that? Sady gave Dumbledore a boyfriend? Tokenism! As bad as making Hermione a white heterosexual male’s right-hand-man, ain’t it?
Obviously the only real answer is this:
Luna Lovegood teaches Hermione all about lesbian awesomeness. (She only LOOKS like an “idiot” girl to women like Sady and Jo Rowlings who are too deeply invested in their own place in the phallic economy … all those wands, my God.) Luna and Hermione teach the Patil sisters how to kick Harry and Ron’s asses for ignoring them at the Yule Ball, setting up an epilogue where Luna is Minister of Magic, Hermione is a stay-at-home lesbian mom taking care of their three kids (with sperm donated by Harry, Ron, and Neville), Harry and Ron are suburban loser dads while Padma and Parvati Patil are their wives who do all the real glam stuff, and Neville is the first out gay Headmaster of Hogwarts, and everyone sits around crapping on Dumbledore for having been such a closet queen. 😉 (Oh, and I’m Neville’s boyfriend.)
THAT’s the only REAL way to obliterate entitlement. Oh, and then Kreacher leads a house-elf revolution and kills them ALL, and the rest of the human race. Stupid humans.
Now that’s a series I would read: first the Gay Hegemony, then the Annihilation! 😉
There’s still hope. The novel we know as _Manon Lescaut_ (the name of the “secondary female character”) was actually named “Memoirs and Adventures of a Man of Quality, Volume 7: The Story of the chevalier des Grieux and Manon Lescaut,” though hardly anybody knows that nowadays. The mincing, almost totally uninteresting male lead (who is further nested within a 7-volume frame novel with another male lead as narrator) is now overshadowed by the historical shift in interest in the female character. The abbé de Prévost had no idea what would become of his creation as social history evolved.
I just want to say that I think this is fantastic, and thanks for writing it. The party about the house elves was always awful, and you nailed quickly (and hilariously) why I felt that way.
Ugh, really, Pete? “You can’t criticise anyone else, because you’re also imperfect? You can’t suggest the series suffered from neglecting its female lead, because you didn’t ALSO point out that it didn’t have any gay leads at all?” Sure, okay, all criticism is invalid, because no one who criticises is perfect.
Good, salient point. We’re all wealthy and have time on our hands, so we have no right to point out certain kinds of privilege when we see it. All criticisms relating to gender, class, race, or sexuality in literature can only be written by bisexual transgendered mixed race quadrapelegics living below the poverty line.
Hey, you know what, though? There *should* have been more acknowledgement of homosexuality in the books, especially if Rowling had it in her head that Dumbledore was gay. So…what…if I agree with that, do I then get to say that Harry Potter was a bumbling, selfish, incompetent idiot who won by luck and privilege, and it’s absurd that he’s the main character while the character who studied and came up with a plan and was just a generally good and sensible person ended up playing second-fiddle to him?
Can we just imagine that any time I, or anyone else, has a criticism of Harry Potter, it includes an asterisk that says, “By the way: also should have been more gay people.”?
Sady, you’ve just written fanfic!
Or perhaps, you’ve written an AU version of a fanfiction of a critic’s review of a popular series of books…
or something.
I read, I laughed, I cried.
Then I read the comments and laughed and cried even harder.
Amazing. I truly wish this was the series I grew up with. Maybe Rowling will pull a Stephanie Meyer and repurpose half of her original scripts from a slightly altered perspective and rerelease them as if they are new books.
Wow, anti-feminists are kind of humourless, huh.
This is possibly the best thing you have done since Mooregate, Sady Doyle, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU.
Let’s light up the elephant in the room.
What about the Disney Princesses?
How many times do we hear that they are bad for girls? They just wait around for someone to save them. Oh really? How about Snow White? She escapes an attempted murder, by her own step-mother. Finds a _potential_ place of safety, and exhausts herself trying to clean it up so as to impress the people who live there to let her stay. And when accepted helps make their lives better by cooking and cleaning and improving their hygiene, so they’ll live longer. And she’s what 14-15 years old.
How many modern citydwellers could think of doing all that? Or would you have everyone act more like Gothel?
Braak, I think where we really disagree is that Hermione was “second fiddle” just because she wasn’t the character the series was named after. I’m *parodying* the tactic of critiquing entitlement and privilege much like you and Sady seem to be critiquing the culture of white heterosexual male patriarchy: of course it’s a real-world issue, of course it makes itself felt in literature … but one could extend the critiques into all kinds of inflexible readings and overstatements far more restrictive of how people out in the real world respond to literature than the novels we’re talking about. I thought Sady got close to that kind of overstatement and some of the commenters here definitely did. You parodied an unwillingness to buy Sady’s entire argument lock, stock, and barrel as people being unwilling to have their heroes taken off their pedestals; I parodied that by showing how stupid we could all get if we went even further in that direction and knocked everyone.
(Had you responded with something like “gee, I think some of you are getting your knickers a little too much in a twist at the thought that the series does have real problems, could it maybe be that you’re having trouble looking at your own entitlement” I might have given you a huge thumbs up.)
Here’s my real question: are we really saying that an author’s lapses have so much power to mold our thinking that we can’t read through any of that? Are we saying, indeed, that what we’re *identifying as* the author’s lapses could not, in fact, have sometimes been strategic maneuvers?
We have someone in this thread decrying the Uncle Tomism of the house elves, and the hideous racism directed at them, who gave up on the series over it, *before* the portions of the narrative in which the hideous racism was *exposed to the characters (other than Hermione, who was right all along) as a failing on their part which they were forced to get the fuck over if they wanted to save themselves and everyone else*. As a reader who gets sensitive to the injustices of the world, I can identify with throwing a book aside in frustration about it, as that commenter may have done … but I know damn well that sometimes it’s my own sensitivity to the issue getting the best of me, not *necessarily* some awful thing the author is doing. I always took the portrayal of the house elves as a bit of good writing as regards how both the oppressed AND the oppressor sometimes find their minds internally colonized by the baggage of racism/sexism/patriarchy/homophobia/cisgenderism/classism or what have you, and a model for how people examine that kind of baggage and work through it.
Entitlement and privilege are real issues, but what I’m actually arguing for is a reading strategy that allows for the possibility that some of us knew Hermione was the biggest hero of the series all along, whether Rowling put her name in the title or not, and whether or not we also liked Harry Potter.
Maybe you are too, in which case I apologize for responding to your snark with yet more snark. 😉
“Nancy Drew” book series 1930-2011
by Carolyn Keene
80,000,000 books sold
I kind of take offense to the suggested idea that Luna and McGonagall would only be praised were Hermione the hero, or that they (or Molly, Bellatrix, etc.) were only in the books to make Hermione seem more compelling.
the idea that Harry Potter got young guys reading seems to be disproving itself. Thebooks got young guys reading harry potter. Booksellers have told me that it’s impossible to get the to move onto other serieses or other authors or other genres. I’ve recently talked to a number of young men at HP events, and they have been abysmally uninterested in exploring the world of books any further. One guy very politely let me write a list of sci fi and fantasy titles for him– then went on to purchase a pillow with the Slytherin crest silkscreened on it.
Yay, I love stupid devil’s advocate feminist bs that makes people hate feminism, including femmes, like me.
Her characterization of Harry is ridiculous.
Did she miss the part where everyone he’s ever loved has been killed and he’s had to live a marginal existence with his miserable aunt & uncle until age 12 when he’s rescued or how time and again he goes out of his way to do the right thing and save people’s lives?
As for people thinking Hermione is crazy, has anyone ever tried telling their friends or relatives in 2011 America that they’re considering being a Vegan? Poor me. Everyone thinks I’m crazy. It’s generally what happens when you go against popular opinion and it’s not because you’re a girl. Or am I just being idealistic?
I’m not sure the author actually read the books … so let me clarify what they are about: good vs. evil not girls vs. boys. GROW UP.
Well, Sady, get busy. It’s very easy for bloggers to pick apart the work of authors from the comfort of the couch. Instead of telling us how Rowling should have written the books–try it yourself.
September-
Just watch out for the ones who tell you they CAN (and supposedly will) re-write all seven Harry Potter books.
I wholeheartedly agree though. This article is interesting, but that’s about all.
Stella Omega-
Anyone who doesn’t wish to read won’t, regardless of gender. When I was in high school (95-97) there were more girls who refused to read than boys. 40% of the male student body read regularly (at least one book a month), compared to a mere 10% of the female student body.
And in this day and age with books loaded to the ears with nonsense, repetition, or outright stupidity, good books are hard to find. I don’t blame a single person who’d rather not look, than struggle through what’s there.
Rowling wanted the book to appeal to both genders from the start, and did her research to figure out what little boys would want to read as well as little girls. Her pen name was intended to be gender neutral, and there’s nothing to suggest that she was pressured into it.
I can’t find any evidence suggesting Rowling wanted to target the books for girls. This is an assumption this article makes, and it criticizes Rowling’s creative choice as well as wrongfully paints her as a coward.
This article is being lauded as excellent feminist literary criticism, but I’m having difficulty figuring out at what point it promotes equality between genders.
This isn’t an insightful criticism of sexism in literature. This is a fan fic that says Harry Potter should have been written for girls and not both genders, because the author liked one character much more than the other.
WOW! much as i LOVE the series, this is dead on.
love it!
<3
All the commenters have missed one crucial point: reading about someone making it in the world because of the hard work they put in isn’t fun. Harry Potter is.
Hermione is awesome and definitely a heroine on her own. Don’t get me wrong, I love her and she is definitely my favourite character, but I must admit feeling that Harry is way underappreciated here.
“Harry is not particularly bright or studious [yes, his personality is more to react and to fight, with both positive and negative aspects of this]; he’s provided with an endless supply of gifts and favors [I definitely didn’t feel that way in the first book (when he was hated for losing all those house points while trying to help his friend Hagrid); or in the second book (where the whole school condemned him for being able to talk to snakes); or actually the third book (ripped from the chance of having a family with him once more); or fourth/fifth/sixth/seventh (mixed reactions on him in the Triwizard; witnessing things but repeatedly no one to believe him (he goes on trial, even his friends didn’t believe him about Triwizard then Malfoy… Oh, and the whole Wizarding world shoves him off so many times that I actually got annoyed with them all), Voldemort is endlessly hunting him down and he has to live with the guilt of his family/friends dying to save him while STILL having to continue on to make sure their deaths don’t go to waste]; being he’s the heir to no less than two huge fortunes (at the cost of his parents’ and godfather’s DEATHS… which one do you think is more important to him and hurts more deeply?); he’s privileged above his fellow students, due to his fame for something he didn’t actually do himself [I vanquished this thought somewhere around book 4 or 5, although he wasn’t exactly treated like a prince most of book 1 & 2 either; and again, he’s ‘privileged’/treated like an object by the media at what cost?]; he even seems to take credit for “Dumbledore’s Army,” which Hermione started [Hermione definitely played a big role in nurturing/helping/influencing him grow as a person… Hermione may have organised things but he stood up and spoke to the crowds and taught them as himself as well]. Of course this character is obnoxious. [If nothing else, the epilogue shows that Harry really wanted none of what happened to him… He only wanted to have an ordinary life and to have a family, as do all of three of them.]”
One thing you have to keep in mind is that we are getting Harry’s POV in the books. And there’s no doubt that Harry admires and respects Hermione a great deal, and he knows his own weaknesses compared to hers. That isn’t to say Hermione etc don’t see strengths in Harry that he himself doesn’t.
Comments about Sady Doyle’s piece aside, I think that it’s interesting that there is so much commentary about Harry’s privilege and so little about his obvious abusive life at home! It may be true that Harry is much better off financially than Ron or Hermione (once he enters the wizard world), but for the first 11 years of his life, he lived in a cupboard, for christ sake!
Not to take away from Hermione’s value as a person, but it’s rather disingenuous to ignore the fact that she at least had a stable childhood with loving parents.
Additionally, it’s questionable that Harry’s fame was a terribly valuable asset. Sure, there were some perks, like the favoritism he received from Slughorn, but there were plenty of negatives. One of the lessons from the book was (duh) that fame isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. Taking things further, I think Rowling illustrates that in the end, the value of Harry’s “privilege” is fairly questionable! Case in point is Hermione herself, who has a more humble, (but “normal”) background, but is not only able to excel, but is also *invaluable* to Harry and Ron.
Some of you lot seem a rather humourless bunch.
The level of detail proves the author of this article quite obviously loves the Potter series and has read it through-and-through. She’s not so much criticising the books as she is the cultural reality in which they find itself embedded. Says she, imagine an alternate universe where Hermione’s the lead. It sounds lovely, and impossible, in equal measure. Which is why this beautifully imagined piece is thrilling yet slightly sad.
Stella Omega-
Firstly, why on earth would you expect HP fans at a HP event to be looking, reading, or thinking about any books OTHER than Harry Potter? I love reading and discovering new books, but that would be the LAST thing on my mind at a HP event.
I do think the claims that JK Rowling got kids/boys reading, are big claims (aka media-hype). She simply got kids/boys reading -Harry Potter-. Which is an achievement (increase in interest in pillow cases included), but it’s way too much to say (or actually, EXPECT) that boys are turning into voracious readers of other books because of it.
I remember reading and really like Tamora Pierce’s take on the boys-reading-books issue though. If you’ve read any of her works, there are definitely ‘girly’ things in it, but she explains that when she is talking to boys vs girls about her works she simply talks about different things. I cant remember if below was the exact post I got it from but basically, her take was that people will read whatever parts of the book that interested them. The girls who read her books might ‘read’ romance or emotional journey or whatever, while the boys reading the same book will ‘read’ the battles, monsters, so on. So I think it’s also about selling it to them in a way that they will be interested, then they will read what they want out of the book themselves.
“The reason I know about who’s writing for guys is because parents and librarians ask me what I recommend for teenaged boys who are reluctant readers. Everyone knows by now that I read far outside my field and I have ideas. What do I recommend for guys who have lost interest in reading? Magazines. Comics. (The ones they don’t read already.) Short stories. Audio books. High impact books–lots of action, short length. Nonfiction. And knowing what interests to address. When I talk to disinterested guys about my books, I don’t talk about the girl hero finding her strength of character or finding romance, if she does. I talk about the fight with the centaur, or the spy work necessary for a revolution. I talk about learning to joust and referring to it as “flying lessons.” I talk about walking into a rich merchant’s office and finding his head hung in the wrappings of his turban from the chandelier. I talk about stealing battles from the battle of Little Round Top in the American Civil War, or basing a character on the first recorded serial killer of children. If guys know they’ll find good stuff in the book, they’ll take off a cover they think is too “feminine.”
(from http://tammypierce.livejournal.com/40594.html)
Some fans probably did read more and discover other books they like/love, but that isn’t because of HP, but because those other books are also well-written, etc.
And if Hermione Grainger had, in this mythical book, had to rescued as many times by clever, resourceful Harry Potter, how many women would then be shrieking about that?
Jen– I do think the claims that JK Rowling got kids/boys reading, are big claims (aka media-hype). She simply got kids/boys reading -Harry Potter-. Which is an achievement (increase in interest in pillow cases included), but it’s way too much to say (or actually, EXPECT) that boys are turning into voracious readers of other books because of it.
Thank you, this is what I meant to say. I was speaking to kids at an HP event because that’s where I happened to be! You don’t meet HP readers anywhere else…
Susan– And if Hermione Grainger had, in this mythical book, had to rescued as many times by clever, resourceful Harry Potter, how many women would then be shrieking about that?
She wouldn’t have to be. The point is is that she is clever and resourceful in her own right. So, no need to shriek.
Some of you people take this shit too seriously. This was hilarious. I love how Harry was described as “he who must not be named” and being said to be obnoxious and all over the place. LOL. The main cast of Harry Potter are all cool people, but some of ya’ll are freakin out way too much.
I mean, shit, I probably wouldn’t read the books either if the star was Hermione who is pretty ordinary in comparison to Harry who is epic and “chosen” but come on, laugh a little and get over yourselves, they’re all good people.
For context, I dunno what Sady usually writes but this didn’t seem like a “dead serious, no laughs” sorta piece to me.
Ian H.: You haven’t read Patrick Rothfuss’ excellent ‘Kingkiller’ series, have you? 😉
As a feminist, I object to being called anti-feminist (and humorless) just because I found this blog post to be silly. In fact, it’s this kind of narrow-focus feminist lens that gives feminism a bad name. Not every book by a woman has to have an overtly feminist agenda.
Rowling was writing a series for children, which adults also happened to have latched onto. She wanted to appeal to both girls and boys (what writer wouldn’t want to appeal to the largest possible audience, especially one who had been on government assistance). Her primary purpose was to enteratain. She also wrote in some great female characters – Hermione, McGonagall, Lily Potter, Luna Lovegood, etc. They weren’t the title character, but so what? They were important to the story and to the overall world that Rowling created.
Focusing on Harry’s privilege misses the entire point of his character, especially how it puts him in relation with Ron. Harry’s world outside of the wizarding world is much worse than Ron’s (who has a relatively poor, though very loving family). He is poor, beholden to relatives who hate and fear him, and completely alone (we never see Harry with friends in this world). It is a world that many of his readers will in some part identify with. Hermione, on the other hand, comes from a very solid middle-class background, which is fine (and makes her sacrifice in book 7 very poignant).
As for the house elves, as was pointed out earlier (sorry, I forgot by whom), to focus on the early aspects of that storyline is to miss that entire story arc.
this writing is not by any stretch of the imagination “a brilliant piece of feminist literary criticism”. And I’m saying that as a feminist with a literature degree and a former fanfic writer. It’s fanfic, AU, plain and simple.
A number of issues I think you completely misunderstand.
Harry Potter did get boys reading Harry Potter. So? Are you a parent? Do you know how hard it is getting kids/teens who are put off reading (for any number of reasons) to read, of any gender? And do you know how important it IS to get them to read? And Jo didn’t just give them a book, she gave them a world to share with their friends and family. She gave us days out with our friends that our parents knew they could trust in, because it’s Harry Potter we’re watching and reading, not bizarre vampiric lust-sex driven movies.
As an american you read harry in a completely different way than it was intended and the traditional UK sterotypes he was based on. Harry, in no way, is a jock or anything near it. we don’t have jocks here. Harry’s FATHER, on the other hand…was a jock. Therin lies the massive difference between harry and his father, which is pointed out a number of times, and is something harry definitely struggles with.
As for the characters marrying their- what you across the pond might call- “high school sweethearts”, to be honest, that was foreshadowed right from the beginning. And the what seems to be american christian tradition of marrying off your women after graduation and turning them into baby machines is happily not as prevelant here in the UK. I had not been exposed to that culture at all until very recently and due to the internet. Everyone knew Ron&Hermionie would get together. Same with Harry and Ginny, since the beginning. It’s not really a “suburban statement”, it was chosen by jo from the beginning. I don’t see this as a feminist problem. Ron was chosen for Hermionie as much as Hermionie was chosen for Ron.
As to one commenter’s opinion above: “Sexism and racist thinking in the Harry Potter books are rarely critiqued” Have you gone completly mad or did you conveniently skip the use of the word ‘muggle’ and voldermort’s ‘magical blood’ crusade? The whole book is about racism.
Ugh you’re boring me. I guess sincerity is just so kid’s lit.
I’m suprised at so many people getting worked up about this article. I love the HP series as much as the next person, but when I was reading I was always thinking “jeez, Hermione should just take over and it would all be ok. Actually, this book should really be about Hermione”.
Oh my god, this post is amazing. 🙂
I am truly in awe, Sady.
Even though rewriting stories from another character’s perspective is a standard creative writing exercise, and you’re hardly the first person to say that the character most deserving of respect in the series is Hermione (or Neville, or the Weasley twins, or even Snape), I had no problems with this… until you started dumping on Harry. His parents get killed, his godfather gets killed, his mentor gets killed, he’s raised by relentlessly abusive relatives, and from the age of eleven he has ridiculously high expectations piled on him by almost everybody that he runs into… but he’s got some money and he’s good at sports, so he’s an “obnoxious error.” Really? I mean, really? I feel more embarrassed for you than I do for the most ham-fisted Mary Sue fanfic writer.
Very sharp tongue in that cheek. I LOVE the series- reread each and every book whenever a new one was about to be released. However, your subtle critique is quite entertaining and dead to rights. Thanks for a great piece of writing and ignore all the insulted worshippers who need to get a life.
The author of this misses the point of the book. That is, to entertain. Harry is the reluctant hero, a classic archetype. To criticize his story is to criticize literary history.
If the book was written with Hermione as the main protagonist then some very crucial parts of the story would not fit. I am not saying it would be a worse series but it would be so different it’s hard to imagine what it would be like.
Excellent.
Je ne l’avais pas vu sous ce point de vue. Mais particulièrement approprié. Bravo.
Et merci…
It’s so fanscinating how so many commenters who are non-female/non-fantasy writers are telling us female fantasy writers how we don’t experience sexism in the publishing industry and literature representation! I never knew I was hysterically imagining it all this time! And I never knew you so much about lived experiences!
I love you. Like, seriously. MARRY ME.
You’ve said everything, via brilliant meta/satire, that I have tried to say many, many times about this book series that I love so much, and have said it SO BRILLIANTLY that I shall give up and in future simply link people to this piece.
Just… OMG YES. <3
I find it fascinating that in some comments, it’s been implied that the posited Hermione Granger series would necessarily be either an overtly feminist work or at least solely “written for girls.” Oddly, what I get from the actual article would appear to still be a series for children of either gender that just happens to focus around a female lead. I had no idea that every time I pick up a book about a female protagonist, I am committing a feminist act. Go, me! (This is true regardless of the book’s actual content, right? Awesome.)
Look, I read and enjoyed HP. At least, I did after enough people told me that the series gets better after HP and the Cinderella Stone. But it is because the HP series is so culturally big and well known that it’s useful for — ripe for — social critique, which this article is, far more than it’s a critique of Rowling’s writing. We know Harry, and we know Hermione, and Sady Doyle can therefore point out the unexplored potential in Hermione’s story with humor and a light hand and without having to contrast her every paragraph with what was actually written.
But seriously, why are the Harry Potter books considered gender neutral while a Hermione Granger series would be “for girls”? Surely boys can identify with female leads as readily as girls do with male leads.
I realized I shouldn’t pay attention to anything you said the minute you used “girly” as a slur. I’m sorry you find anything relating to traditionally feminine behavior to be lesser, I really am because that kind of self-hatred poisonous.
Really, you say nothing new or interesting that half a dozen other fandom “feminists” who project onto Hermione and show no ability to empathize with characters who don’t share their values and interests so they rip them down instead to prop up their vision of Hermione Sue.
Also? Brits don’t graduate, stop projecting your American-centric vision of high school onto a British series, and Hermione met Neville before she even met Ron so I don’t even know how that would be better when it comes to childhood sweethearts.
Jfc, if you didn’t read the books, don’t comment on them.
I love how everyone is taking Sady’s piece SUPER SERIOUSLY, as some massive affront to the entire series, and to JKR herself. It’s cultural commentary, not so much about the Harry Potter series itself (though many of her criticisms are apt) but of the world in which we live.
TRUFAX: women get the shaft in contemporary culture. We are pushy and annoying and bossy, not assertive. We’re girlfriends and mothers, not heroes and the everyman. It’s hard for women to be friends, because women are “catty.” The worst thing that could possibly happen to us is a boy not liking us back (I am looking at you, Tonks). The most important thing about us is our appearance, and how we appear to men (Male Gaze). I could go on.
Also true: women have internalized these stereotypes and views to an alarming degree, and that JKR chose to write her series about a male character, filled with primarily well-rounded MALE characters with agency (of which Hermione is pretty much the sole exception), is just a reflection of that. It doesn’t make her a bad person, or undermine the brilliance and scope of the Harry Potter series. Contrary to what some have said, I think the piece makes it clear that Sady has read the entire series, probably more than once, and has a pretty deep understanding of its broader implications.
I am a massive Harry Potter fan. “I work on Harry Potter fan conferences” massive. But I’m also a feminist, and have always been vaguely bothered by pretty much everything Sady laid out. And as a writer myself, I find myself doing exactly what JKR did — craft stories with more interesting male characters than female; consider whether my name will “sell” to a broad audience (and especially whether I can write a marketable novel with a female lead without being relegated to chick lit). And that is telling.
Alexa, thanks for pointing this out.
Most folk here should probably look up what mild satire means and move on, instead of being the gigantic douchebaggery busybodies who have nothing better to do than sit on uncomfortable, jagged pieces of wood and bang on the table eating microwave dinners with their head so far up their backsides they can taste hair.
I for one salute Sady for making me chuckle and see Hairy Pooper in a different light.
Thank you.
—
Yes I found the genetics bit in the last book unsettling and disappointing – the best thing was that Harry was normal and the idea that he’s in a long line of super wizards or somesuch negates everything that went before…
I’m a huge Harry Potter fan, not only for my own enjoyment, but also for the wonderful times it has given me with my three daughters. I’m also a huge fan of JK Rowling.
I *love* this post. Oh, maybe it could have been shortened just a little bit because satire can be come a little grating when it’s written in that kind of voice, even when you know it’s satire. I’ve often wondered what compelled this single mother of a *daughter* to write a book about an orphaned boy.
I think a lot of the negative comments miss the point because the piece is written in a way that sounds critical of the book and author, when really it’s critical of us – society as a whole. I mean, no one really blames this dirt-broke twenty-something single mom for not writing a story with a female lead.
Really, the question is why don’t we ever seem to embrace the stories with strong female leads in the same way we embrace those with strong male leads. (At least, that’s my big question. There were a few other good jabs in there.)
As to the comments about Wizard Society reaction to Hermione’s campaign to free house elves, I think it was brilliantly done. The *point* was to show how human societies can condone lack of rights, and even horrors, to others, by “common acceptance,” “that’s how it’s always been,” and even “but that’s how ‘they’ (the victims) want it!” All Rowling had to do was look to real life (present and past) to find source material for this—in part, I might add, from how societies treated women before and during the Women’s Suffrage Movement.
Rowling’s not condoning, she’s hitting her readers over the head to make them sit up and take notice of a nasty trait in human behavior… and the way this trait gets *changed*, is for people *to* notice it and fight against it.
Take the passages about reactions to Hermione’s campaign, change out reaction phrases to things like:
“but women are weaker, they don’t *want* such duties and responsibilities,”
“a woman’s proper role is as wife and mother,”
“women are emotional/hysterical/fragile and unsuited to situations requiring logic/aggression,”
“women have never had power, they would be totally lost and not know what to do with it,” and last of all,
“but it’s the Natural order for women to be subservient to men!”
…and you can see quite clearly the finger Rowling points at human behavior, past and present. Hermione is like the first few in human society to point out socially-accepted injustice: such pioneers are always met with derision and scorn which is near universal. She perseveres, and by the end book you see that her long work is *starting* to change some minds (Ron’s thought of the house elves safety near the end), which is how these movements grow.
Fortunately, this series *was* written, by Suzzanne Collins: The Hunger Games.
Irony is: An article lamenting stereotyping of one variety that shoehorns the same world into a different stereotype. How is the re-envisioning of Hermione here anything more than a feminist stereotype; a liberated, intelligent, self-sufficient woman controlled by her liberal dogma and rabid over-achievement, coupled with a violent and tragic rejection of traditional gender roles?
Obviously this is satire aimed more at Harry and the problem inherent in the role-model he presents (in particular I found the comment about Harry just being another Jock that peaked in High School particularly on point); but c’mon? Are we really going to enslave women to another unobtainable stereotype? How is it more healthy to tell girls that if they would only work harder and run faster they might be of value like Hermione? Isn’t that just the other side of the Harry coin where the moral is, what you’re born with is what really matters? Where is there a happy medium?
Kudos to remarking in a very interesting and readable way, upon what I too, have been commenting since book one.
Harry himself is nothing special. He is not a good wizard. He accomplishes nothing himself aside from his athletic ability.
The books are well written and the stories are very interesting, but I have remained “disenchanted” since the first book when at no time, did he every rise to the occasion with his own abilities. Damsel in distress, indeed. Being saved by others and taking credit for the successes of those and other efforts made by other characters is a continuous theme throughout the series.
And unfortunately, there is no doubt that if the books were published as is except that we switched all the genders, a female Harry would be criticised immediately for being an undeserving hero.
Truly this is just another case of overt sexism and it disappointed me. I do not have an issue with Harry being a male character or that the lead character be a hero that is male.
I have an issue with the hero being undeserving of his accolades while the real heroes are robbed of any real credit.
Agreed that Hermione is the most kick ass out of the three, but I’m not sure I agree with your sentiment on Harry. If he had been less everyman than he was, would the world have embraced him so readily? It was a fairy tale, after all.
If we’re just talking about Hermione, however, I totally, totally agree:
http://readandrevel.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/life-post-hermione-other-awesome-heroines/
“TRUFAX: women get the shaft in contemporary culture. We are pushy and annoying and bossy, not assertive. We’re girlfriends and mothers, not heroes and the everyman. It’s hard for women to be friends, because women are “catty.” The worst thing that could possibly happen to us is a boy not liking us back (I am looking at you, Tonks). The most important thing about us is our appearance, and how we appear to men (Male Gaze). I could go on.”
You need to read some Tamora Pierce. I can’t imagine you making these points if you had met Alanna, Daine, or Keladry. In fact, anyone claiming that women get the shaft in “contemporary” fiction – this is an indication that you do not read enough. Read Diane Duane’s Young Wizard series. Read Robin McKinley’s The Blue Sword. Tanith Lee. Susan Fletcher. Neal Stephenson, Neil Gaiman, David Eddings, Marion Zimmer Bradley – all of these people write and have written strong women, and in many cases, strong female protagonists. What you describe is a caricature of a caricature of sexism. It’s Twilight, which is thankfully a rarity in speculative fiction.
I quite agree with you! But I also think a more relevant point is how much Hermione’s character is played down in the movie… many of her subplots are taken out (house elves, for one).
The beauty of Sady’s commentary is satire or no, it simply shows the series is about people, not a single person. Had Hermione been a single hero, the series would not have appealed as it has. Had her role and Harry’s been reversed, I can’t guess. But, they all needed each other. Harry understood that, even while being the hero. So, if you recall, did Dumbeldore in the very first book. Voldemort did not.
Personally i think that snape should be considered one of the heroes of Harry Potter if not the lead hero. From Snape’s point of view he is a tragic character that did everything in his power to protect the son of the man he hated but the woman he loved and betrayed. Harry on the other hand did shit all except get pushed in the right direction from dumbledore and find a few shiny objects. Dont get me wrong, I love Harry Potter. But i believe Snape’s story is one to be admired far more than Harry’s.
Reading this post was like being in a dream, but then it’s only a dream and it will never be reality, unless someone wants to re-write the harry potter books from Hermione point of view, which I sincerily doubt, because I don’t think anyone could write it as well as Rowling did.
I might add that I find that Hermione in the Harry Potter Books is just the perfect character as the friend of Harry. I think she is best left where she is.
But I appreciated reading this post and I congratulate the author for it. It was well written and very interesting. To re-think all the harry potter series was an original idea !
Wow, this is really very quite harsh. I think the books were written wonderfully. Each character, despite their gender, was immeasurably valuable throughout the entire series. All were heroes in their own way and deserved recognition– which they received. I don’t understand why you’re complaining.
…I guess some people will go to any length to find a reason to criticize someone. What a shame.
I thought the article held some interesting ideas… however, i found it irritating to read. What is the use in picking apart a CHILDREN’S novel. It was originally written for children after all, not adults to scrutinise and criticise. Rowling, and all writers, are under so much pressure to be ‘politically correct’, to not be racist or sexist but people still find fault. There are interesting, brave and clever characters in the novel – both female and male characters. Equally, there are characters we laugh at – again both male and female. Lavender Brown is a classic example, but so are Crabbe and Goyle who we do not distinguish as real characters. All stories have to have the classic stereotypes in order to be understandable to people, particularly children.
The main characters in novels are also often slightly lacking in personality but there has to be someone who the story centres around.
I do think that it would be interesting to have the story of Harry Potter written from a different point of view, but i challenge someone to actually write this rather than criticise one of the best-known writers.
I apologise for the rant.
I love your commentary because it’s so true. We live in a world in which a male lead “appeals to everyone” and a female lead “is targeted towards girls.” There’s nothing wrong with stories about boys, but there is something wrong when stories about boys are so overwhelmingly common compared to stories about girls, or when boys won’t read stories that feature girls.
This is really mean-spirited.
Eh, but funny.
Brilliant. Everything I felt put into words.
That’s why His Dark Materials are much better books. Lyra is a strong, independent female protagonist. Hard to find in kid’s books.
I disagree that Hermione runs the show in the books. If she did there’d be much less quidditch.
You mention a lot of the great female characters but what about the ones that are woefully underused? Tonks for example, or Fleur.
The biggest waste to me is Luna, who is by far the best character Rowling came up with.
Interesting also to see that the movies totally cut out Winky… I guess one elf was expensive enough to make.
ITT: People incapable of enjoying a good joke and people incapable of learning a good lesson.
I found this article interesting and funny and took it for what it was – I say that right off so I don’t get accused of taking it “too seriously” by having some arguments with it. 🙂
First off, I thought Rowling’s take on the whole “chosen one” business was rather brilliant. Yes, we’re in a world with magic, so there’s a possibility of a prophesy that can narrow down to a couple of boys born in the same month who are most likely to take down Voldemort. But Dumbledore underscores that, magic or no, prophesy or no, OF COURSE someone is going to take down Voldemort, and that someone is going to be someone who he has wronged – “like tyrants everywhere.” Harry’s nothing special. Neither is Neville. Both of them, however, rise to the occasion and are both responsible for Voldemort’s end. We can see that had Voldemort chosen Neville instead, the story would have ended the same way. They weren’t motivated by some amazing superhuman gifts, but by the fact that this monster had taken their childhoods and the people that they loved. She turned the convention on its head and there ended up being nothing mystical about it at all, the “chosen one” business was bollocks, it was just human nature and something Voldemort didn’t understand any more than he understood why Lily would jump in front of her infant son. To come away from this story actually believing Harry is “the chosen one” is to miss the point entirely.
Also, Hermione’s role was brilliant in so many ways. How many stories have you read where there is the hero, and his able and worthy comrade, and then the girl who is along for the ride to look pretty and provide companionship, hero worship, or sex, but otherwise isn’t strictly necessary to the mission? Rowling switched those roles. Hermione is the necessary one, the partner, the leader, the coach, the brains. RON is the damsel in distress who is just there for (Harry’s) companionship. Look how many times he isn’t in the story because he’s injured or throwing a temper tantrum. In Goblet of Fire he’s even buried at the bottom of the lake with a bunch of girls to be rescued by the big strong heroes (and nobody mentions it, even though in real life you know they would).
Hermione has no competition, no equal. From the very first minute we meet her, the idea that “blood status” (or gender for that matter) matters to magical ability is shown as patently absurd. While Ron feels self-conscious about his poverty throughout the series, he is never ashamed of his family’s status as “blood traitors” who disavow bigotry. He doesn’t like Hermione initially because she is his intellectual superior and rubs it in his face… but he doesn’t turn around and rub his blood status in HER face. He makes her cry with”Nobody likes you because you’re a jerk.”
I agree with the other comments that the house elf issues are handled brilliantly. She has HAGRID of all people saying without a trace of irony, “You get weirdos in every breed but they LIKE being slaves.” You are SUPPOSED to read that and think “OH MY GOD WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU.” If you put the book away after that, thinking that this means the AUTHOR condones the status quo, wow do you need to go back to school. Hermione is the only person who sees the situation for what it is, and other people -genuinely good people – are blind to it because it’s so engrained in society. She is attracted to Ron for whatever reason people are attracted to other people, but she does not give him her love until he learns empathy.
Finally, I have to shake my head every time somebody harps on the “how did they both marry their high school sweethearts?” bit.
1) Have you not noticed how SMALL and insulated the wizarding community is? I worked nights for 5 years. I married a coworker. LOTS of my coworkers were married to each other. Yes, they could have married muggles or people from other countries or the odd home-schooled kid, but odds are in favor, in this world, of marrying someone you went to school with. Duh.
2) This also seems to be a fairly old-fashioned community in some ways; it’s evolved alongside the muggle world but somewhat differently. Marrying young seems to be fairly normal, like it might have been in our grandparents’ generation. They come of age at 17, after all. Harry’s parents married young. They just finished a war – people come home from wars and get married. They just do. Some of this is inspired by WWII, after all.
3) The greatest reason of all: Hermione and Harry aren’t just marrying Ron and Ginny. They’re becoming Weasleys. Especially in Harry’s case, it is obvious from the beginning that this is what he wants more than anything in the world. We get just as much detail about the first time Mrs. Weasley hugs him as we do about the first time he kisses Ginny. Is it “suburban” for an orphan, abused kid to want to become part of an intact, loving, functional family? He doesn’t give a flying flip about his fortune. He marries into a family who has nothing materially because they have everything he wants. Could Hermione have done better than Ron? Of course she could have – but again, people come home from wars and get married. She’s been told for years despite being the most brilliant witch of her age that she’s subhuman because of her blood status, and here’s this pureblood family who has always treated her exactly like one of their own. Also, where is it written that the woman can’t be the smarter one of the couple? Why is it OK for a man to be an engineer and want to come home to Suzie Homemaker who rubs his feet and bakes him cookies and has no clue what the hell he’s talking about, but a smart woman can’t marry Blue Collar Jack or she’s settling? There’s nothing feminist about the idea that a woman must always go out and mate with a man who is “better” than her at whatever she’s good at… even when she’s the best there is.
What happened to you HP fans? Where’s your sense of humor–don’t you know satire when you see (or read) it?
Chuckle and move on, I say.
Yikes, some people are taking this wayyy too seriously. She actually makes some really good points and I like how it was done with humor. I mean, I thought it was hilarious, and I’m a Harry Potter fan. Just calm down if you’re freaking out about this, it’s not the end of the world that there is a different perspective out there…
I find the article fun and interesting, as satire should be. It’s not quite Jonathan Swift’s, A Modest Proposal, but the article does have its moments. What if the books had been about Hermione and not about Harry? Would they have been as successful?
It seems to me that such speculation is the province of healthy and open dialogue and not a reason to slag off the author for imagining something different. Take it for what’s it worth, just as you take the journals of Samwise Gamgee for what they were worth — entertainment and a look at what if.
This was perfect until the last line.
I am sick of all the beauty myth rubbish spouted by bigoted idiots when talking about Neville/Matthew Lewis.
There is no such thing as “ugly.”
http://theimportanceofbeingalix.blogspot.com/2011/07/neville-longbottom-year-2.html
What on earth is this?! Is this supposed to be a completely new and fabulous new series of books by JKR that we have not heard of? I mean, come on…
DUDE this article totally made me realize that Tamora Pierce has written 2 series of books that parallel that HP/Hermione thing discussed here. The Alanna series is about a chosen one (no parents, has the hand of the goddess upon her, etc.); the Kel series is about a relatively normal girl who busts her ass to succeed. And guess what? No one liked Kel, everyone though Alanna was cooler – at least among the people I’ve talked to. But I love Kel, and Hermione too. Anyone else care to nerd out with me? Yay Tamora Pierce!
who edits this claptrap? they should resign.
Brilliant. If only…
Oh, did the author hide her sex? I thought she had her photograph on the back cover, or some blurb saying “she” was researching “her” next story. But maybe she didn’t. What difference did it make? To the public in general, I don’t know. To prejudiced publishers, maybe enough to make a difference. To me, none. I loved the Clan of the Cave Bear series, and the fact that the author was a woman, the lead character female, even the fact that the male lead appeared only in the second story and always was somehow second to the decisive action of Ayla, were no reasons toput down the book, or to refuse to pick it up in the first place. When I was younger I devoured Enid Blyton’s «Club of Five» series (or however it was called in English, I read them in French translation). I never knew what sex “Enid” was (and the Hachette publishers certainly did not mention it anywhere) but the lead character was certainly a girl. Maybe a slightly “mannish” girl, but not outrageously so. She had (at least in French) an androgynous first name (Claude) and she certainly preferred outdoor sports and solving enigmas to playing with dolls — but my daughter, slightly younger than me, was of the same kind. I even liked my mother’s stories by the Comtesse de Ségur, but they were obviously written for an earlier generation, and I could see how much society had changed. But it is true that apart from these few, most of the stories I’ve come across (and what kind of stories do nerdish types like me read? F&SF, mostly), were written by men and about men. Oh, I forgot one more exception: the “Diadem” series, I don’t remember the author, but the lead character was a girl named Aleytys. I only read the final story but I loved it too. Still much, much, much too much one-sided, as if girls could only be the faire-valoir — which in my experience, in real life they are less now than in my parents’ time, and certainly a lot less than in my grandparents’.
So Hermione is the bookish type, always ready with an answer to everything. Some people would regard such a character as a boring know-it-all, I don’t. Oh, when in high school (a boys-only school) there was a boy who was always first in everything, but it wasn’t me. I just wasn’t as motivated as he or Hermione were to always achieve the 95-to-100% bracket. But we shared some interests (about tramway lines and their colours for instance) and I also now and then happened to be the only one with the right answer — yes, Hermione was obviously “the No.1 girl” in the story, and I could relate to her, maybe from the same subjective distance as Harry and Ron. Ginny came later, she was younger, in a different class, and she idolized Harry to a point that I found annoying. But maybe that’s part of life. OTOH, as has already been said, at least Hermione had loving parents, while Privet Drive was a caricature of a household, to the point where Harry was happy when he could leave his uncle, aunt and cousin to live with a foster-foster-family!
The stories are written from Harry’s point of view. But Hermione is an essential character of the plot. She comes forward a lot more than Jondalar in the Cave Bear stories, in my opinion.
If these stories had been written in the same tradition as the fairy tales of my infancy, which ended in English with «they lived happily ever after» or in my native French with «ils vécurent heureux et eurent beaucoup d’enfants» (they lived happy and had a lot of children), Harry and Hermione would have married at the end. When it didn’t happen that way, I felt something had gone amiss. But, well, I suppose the author has her reasons.
But one thing I really can’t understand, is that among the Harry Potter fans that I’ve met online, there were many girls who seemed to love that Malfoy character. Someday I’ll need to have that explained. Maybe it’s because I haven’t seen the films (I did read the books, and once opened, I could hardly lay one down unless sleep overcame me), but that boy seemed to me to be the epitome of everything that I wouldn’t want to be near (second, maybe, to Harry’s cousin). What could these girls see in him?
oops… s/daughter/sister/
Woah. I thought that HP was ageist because he never won by himself but only by direct or indirect help from adults, but I never noticed the whole condescension about Hermione’s house elves’ liberation cause, although somehow it’s a much bigger wrongness.
As commentary, this is quite clever. But the books as the author imagined them would be deadly dull, didactic and lacking in the mythic quality that made the HP books so appealing. If J.K. had followed this blueprint, she might have been a moderately successful children’s author who appealed to parents looking for politically correct books for their children, but she wouldn’t be the richest woman in England.
Look, I love feminism and Harry Potter as much the next liberal arts student, but this article’s whole angle is kind of stupid.
I’ve been mocked so many times because i thought Hermione was great ! I love your text !
I have the answers to all but #3 and #14there is no video or post about question #14 anywhere on this site.
Satire or not, this piece relies on the ridiculous notion that female-centred stories are necessarily more feminist than male-centered story. The author completely ignores the feminist value of having a male lead like Harry – Harry represents a version of masculinity that challenges traditional masculine archetypes.
For one thing, Harry relies and believes in the power of love. I think this is an incredibly obvious lesson of the book and its also important that this love is not exclusively romantic, but the love of friendship and family as well. How often do you get male leads whose biggest strength is that they can love? In fact, Harry is not afraid to feel or cry. He is emotionally open, which sets him appart from many male leads.
Secondly, Harry relies on people and accepts help. This is not a weakness as some commenters have suggested. He isn’t some lone wolf or solitary hero figure. Harry knows he needs people and he values their help immensely.
Harry also has great empathy and selflessness. He saves Wormtail’s life despite knowing how he betrayed James and Lily. He refuses to leave anyone behind, whether it’s Cedric Diggory’s body or Malfoy trapped in the burning Room of Requirements.
Having female leads is great and all, but having positive male leads in children’s stories, especially ones read widely by boys, is also important. I think Harry is a male hero constructed with very feminist ideals.
A friend of mine has always claimed the real hero of the Lord of the Rings is Gollum, the patient, steadfast one who ultimately saves the world at the cost of his own life (yet never gets the parade). Quite so.
your point, milady.
Yeah, this is late. Whatever.
I’m so glad I don’t have to say anything about the irritating parts of this satire (enough commentators have already highlighted what makes the article seem idiotic. I’m also glad I don’t have to re-iterate the awesomeness of the bits in the satire that stick up for Hermione. This way, it’s easier for me to get right to what fascinates me about this article.
I find it both fascinating, and very telling, that you seem to feel Hermione’s brilliance, effectiveness, and heroism can only be highlighted by adopting the perspective that Harry’s character is obnoxious, irritating, and utterly useless. And thereby pitting her as a foil against Harry, to show how much better she is in comparison. It’s like you believe Hermione’s greatness would not shine so bright if viewed from a perspective that values and embraces Harry – and his own heroic qualities – as much as it does Hermione.
Given that this is the perspective from which Rowling wrote the HP books, your frustration with this aspect of the series suddenly makes so much more sense. But it’s also awfully condescending, coming from a so-called feminist. Why assume that Hermione cannot or would not be fully appreciated as a character in her own right, just because we only see her through the eyes of a male character the author intends for us to like?
There are plenty of qualities Harry has and Hermione doesn’t which make it obvious why he’s the hero; and vice versa to explain why he desperately needs HER, as well. They learned from each other. Any and all important differences between them are strictly differences of personality, not gender. And together with Ron, they encompass about 90% of the heroic force in this series. It’s the fact that these heroic personality traits are split into two different characters that makes those characters both effective AND relatable, whereas if all the qualities could be found in just one of them, that person would be an utter Mary Sue.
So, the satire was funny, but the idea that Harry has to be seen as obnoxious to make Hermione look better is annoying and somewhat insulting.
Mya, your comment is quite amusing to read. Yours is a classic case of wishful thinking, of putting the cart before the horse (because your personal preference is for the cart :-)). We both see the author’s comparison of Hermione with Harry, with the ostensible ‘hero’ falling short; yet you somehow feel that it’s all a plot, a faulty perspective, slewed thinking, some sort of subterfuge, it can’t be so! Because you don’t want it to be so! You’re ‘insulted’ that it is so!
> And thereby pitting her as a foil against Harry, to show how much better she is in comparison.
But she *is* better in comparison. There were no magic spells issued here; the author didn’t shout CONFUNDUS! and conjure evidence out of thin air to show how Hermione is the better of the two. That’s simply the fact of the matter/books. Despite your wishing hard that it were otherwise, and preferring to believe that such results were somehow achieved by lights and mirrors.
Otherwise I’m sure you would have pointed out the actual ‘errors’ in the article, rather than just waving your arms and saying “the article is wrong because … uhm, the *perspective* is wrong, because … the article is wrong!”.
> the idea that Harry has to be seen as obnoxious to make Hermione look better is annoying and somewhat insulting.
Tch. Again you try and assign some mystifying motivation to the author; you’re trying to point at puppet strings that aren’t there. The author didn’t make Harry obnoxious; she simply made the comparison. It’s too bad you found the results ‘insulting’ and need to fabricate a conspiracy to explain the results.
Necro bump. As if anyone is going to read this.
This is spot on Hermione Granger.
And at the end of it all what do we know? That through all of her trials and tribulations she ends up with a boy who barely gave a crap about her. He was mean, lazy, abusive (come on girls if you really think that making it seem like your not pretty enough to be worth his time isn’t abusive then you need help), jealous and downright bigoted. Sure he didn’t care about blood types, he cared about something else. Houses. As if a personality trait at age 11 is enough to make someone completely evil. Sure most of the snakes were jerks but that doesn’t give you the right to write off a whole house. After all wasn’t Snape supposed to be the tragic sacrificial hero?
Hermione could have been anything she wanted to . She was the brightest student in her generation. She could been Minister or a Department Head or something else as equally impressive if she had someone that supported her and wouldn’t have been jealous of her successes. But no, Ron makes a passing comment about House elves and Hermione goes batshit insane. To the point of exasperation by Harry on her timing. And down we go into working a mid level job and pumping out ginger hairs for the goofy sidekick.
Ron and Hermione have a downright abusive relationship. He belittles her, mocks her, hints that she’s ugly and no one wants her, and then asks her to finish his homework for him. And she does it. To me this is the biggest downfall of Hermione’s character, her acceptance and choice of sticking by people who don’t appreciate her just because she can be lonely. Yes he helped save her from a troll. That makes them close friends not soul mates. And kids, arguing and sniping is not a prelude to sexual tension..it’s a sign of an unhealthy relationship and divorce court.
@brad
>>We both see the author’s comparison of Hermione with Harry, with the ostensible ‘hero’ falling short; yet you somehow feel that it’s all a plot, a faulty perspective, slewed thinking, some sort of subterfuge, it can’t be so! Because you don’t want it to be so! You’re ‘insulted’ that it is so!>>
Glad you had fun, but um…what the hell does this even mean? Seriously, I’m baffled by this comment. Of course we both see the author’s comparison between Harry and Hermione here, I think that’s kind of his or her point in writing the article. He or she feels that Harry falls short and is obnoxious. This is called an opinion. Nothing I or anyone else says will change the fact that it’s an opinion – neither will any hand waving, so I don’t get what you’re trying to say there – it’s an opinion that I happen to disagree with, but since it’s not MY article I didn’t harp on that. I just reflected on what I’d taken away from it.
To me it’s weird to compare Harry and Hermione as though they were written as foils who rivaled and undermined each other, and not, y’know, friends working toward the same end. If Harry and Hermione were competitors for universal or Dumbledore’s approval, sure, I’d see the relevance of wondering who deserves said approval more. But since Harry’s given the same fanboy-gushy spiels about Hermione as the one found above (and in your comment), on several occasions – along with 95 percent of the characters in the series, villains included – I’m not sure what the complaint is here. That the story isn’t told from Hermione’s point of view? You’ve never read a book told from a POV of a character observing the initiatives of another character? Hermione is very much a hero in her own right, and most of the characters in HP, including the title one, acknowledge her as such.
Or is it that the story is not wholly about Hermione, in that the events within are usually happening to, or because of Harry? Because that is the single, sole, only distinction between the two of them in terms of focus or hero-status, but it’s a distinction that has nothing to do with the talent or intelligence of either character. So you’d have to ask why JKR as an author felt the need to have the story’s events unfold around Harry, and not Hermione. Which was my original point – for some reason, Rowling thought there was a better story to be told around Harry instead of Hermione. To me, this article’s author seems to be arguing that since he’s such a useless character, the reason must be that he has a penis.
Because recognizing that the reason might be Harry’s individual character, or his specific reactions to scenarios — iow, appreciating him as a character that Rowling needed to drive the story along or to tell a story at all — would mean acknowledging that Harry brought something to the story that Hermione couldn’t provide. I was just wondering if the author believes Hermione doesn’t shine as brightly to anyone who does acknowledge that (and yes, this would include Rowling herself); and if so, why.
still @brad
Because the only conclusion I could reach is that the article’s author feels Hermione can’t or won’t be fully appreciated as a hero until it’s her that readers observe taking on Harry’s exploits and heroic urges and moments — in addition to maintaining her own admirable qualities.
The name for such female characters starts with M, ends in “Sue”. I think I’ve seen enough of your MarySue!Hermione fantasies ejaculated all over the Internet to guess that realism isn’t your biggest concern brad, but to actual women, yes, the implication that a female character isn’t fully appreciated until she’s attained some level of perfection is a bit insulting.
Hello all! especailly Adom! Cause I strongly dislike your view on the Ron Hermione relatioship! So I’m going to disect and kill your argument!
>>And at the end of it all what do we know? That through all of her trials and tribulations she ends up with a boy who barely gave a crap about her’.
I love how you say he barely gives a crap about her! Because I can spot on ruin this! In book two he tries to attack Draco with a BROKEN wand, just because he called her a name! In the third book he helps her with her trial defense for Buckbeak. In the fourth book he is the first to notice she has had her teeth shrunken. In the fifth book he buys her perfume for christmas. In the sixth book he mutters her name in his COMA! In the seventh book, did you completely miss it when he offered, partically begged to be TORTURED in her place?
>>
He was mean, lazy, abusive (come on girls if you really think that making it seem like your not pretty enough to be worth his time isn’t abusive then you need help), jealous and downright bigoted.
Ron is supposeed to feel like a real teenager riddled with inner termoil and faults. He was supposed to be mean at times because he can be quite cruel, thats a fault and JK Rowling even has Luna say he can be quite mean at times. Your second defense is, is that he’s lazy. yes Ron has sometimes when he can come of lazy, but really, in life, it’s something bigger at works. He doesn’t aply himself in school as well as Hermione because, nobody does. And Hermione is over controltive, thats why she can’t let him fail at school, I am the same way! I used to stay up late helping my sister at school becasue I literatly COULDN”T STAND TO SEE HER FAIL AT SCHOOL. they only time he seems lazy, in practice is when he is under influence of a Horcrux in the seventh book. Your third support was that he abused Hermione because he hinted at the fact that she wasn’t pretty. And that never happens. Ron never calls her a mean name concerning her looks, her teeth or her hair. He almost does the oppisite when he spends the entire Yule Ball STARING at her. That ball certainly was a LONG ball. And Hermione is not supposed to be beautiful. Ever. Your next support is that Ron is jealous. Don’t people tend to be jealous when they see someone they have a, at least, crush on spend all night dancing with another guy, then they here rumors that they kissed, something you have never even done, and then the girl say that she is going to a dance you were supposed to go to together, with a guy because he is a really good quittch player, something you have always tried to be. Hermione can also be jealous as well. Mc laggen, ring any bells? Your final peice of evidence is that Ron is bigoted. Well, that is because, as so many forget, he was born and raised into the costum that house elf slavery is OK. The same thing happened in real life when everyone asumed that enslaving people was okay. Becuase they didn’t know any better. ANd in the seventh book Ron prove he has grown up alot, when he says that they should tell the house elves to run, and not when he suggests they fight against their will.
>>Sure he didn’t care about blood types, he cared about something else. Houses. As if a personality trait at age 11 is enough to make someone completely evil.
Actually, your house determines your most defining traits, for the rest of your life. Take say Snape for example, he may have been brave, but even JK Rowling faces the music and in an interview, says that Snape is not exactly a hero. He is still a Slytherin, just not a death eater. And this is what happens in wars, people lose sight of the small details and generalize. When times are tough, your forced to pick a side to fight against. And no, Slytherins are not all the enemy, but, as I so recall, all death eaters are Slyhterin. Nobody wants to be betrayed in the middle of a duel to the death. So Ron stears clear of Slyhterins, and even pokes a jab at them. But so does Mcgonagall when she suggests that all Slytherins who side with Voldemort, and fight for him, will be dueled against like any death eater.
>>Sure most of the snakes were jerks but that doesn’t give you the right to write off a whole house. After all wasn’t Snape supposed to be the tragic sacrificial hero?
No read my above defense again SNAPE WAS NOT A HERO. He was just a bitter man with one redefining moment in a series of him spewing misery and hate. And again, wars make people slightly blind, and Ron is no exception. Nad you said so yourself, most Snakes were jerks!
>>Hermione could have been anything she wanted to . She was the brightest student in her generation. She could been Minister or a Department Head or something else as equally impressive if she had someone that supported her and wouldn’t have been jealous of her successes
Yes, prehaps in time, Hermione could have succseded in becoming Minister. But if I recall JK Rowling said that Hermione, finished her education (as Hermione would), and goes in to the Department of Magical Creatures, revolutionizing rights for house elves and other unliked creatures, then she gets high up in Department of Magical Law Enforment, eradiating all pro pureblood laws! If this isn’t HERMIONE SUCSEDING, than what is? hermione finally gives a better hand to the under dog! yay! But Ron holding Hermione down? Thats laughable! Ron always calls Hermione a know it all but when it comes right down to it, he tells her how brilliant she is, and how much he appreciates her! And Hermione letting a guy hold her down? How out of character would that have been!?
>>But no, Ron makes a passing comment about House elves and Hermione goes batshit insane. To the point of exasperation by Harry on her timing. And down we go into working a mid level job and pumping out ginger hairs for the goofy sidekick.
Wait so Hermione sending birds on Ron for kissing Lavender (which is not the first of many clues) doesn’t scream I LIKE YOU MORE THAN A FRIEND to you? Gee Adom, your just as blind as Ron! She kisses him for more than just his house elf views! And woah. See above for Hermiones extreme job sucess list! And, ahem, Hermione wasn’t exactly a domestic wonder, but she did seem like a mother like figure to me. Shes firm, smart, wise, instrutive, and controling! And since when did two children become a lot?
>>Ron and Hermione have a downright abusive relationship. He belittles her, mocks her, hints that she’s ugly and no one wants her, and then asks her to finish his homework for him. And she does it.
Ron only belittles her in one of there spats, and they eventually forgive eachother, because thats what friends (and more than that) do. Other thsn that you pretty much repeat yourself.
>>To me this is the biggest downfall of Hermione’s character, her acceptance and choice of sticking by people who don’t appreciate her just because she can be lonely
They do. Even though Harry says she can be a little overbaring at times, he still apreciates the whole brains of the trio. And Ron wouldn’t beg to be tortured in her place and cry like a lunitic while she suffered if he didn’t even apppreciate her. And Hermione likes them. there her friends. In the end they’ll sick it through for each other. And I believe I answered why she does there homework. And Hermione was fine with being lonely in the being of book one, she only cries once, and thats only after hearing an insanley rude comment, that Ron did say, because, he’s got faults.
>>Yes he helped save her from a troll. That makes them close friends not soul mates.
Yup. And I absolutly love that scene. Because even when they’ve come to save her, she’s saving them. And, more to the point, it’s after that friendship that something more blooms.
>>And kids, arguing and sniping is not a prelude to sexual tension..it’s a sign of an unhealthy relationship and divorce court.
Actualy, it isn’t the only thing that Ron and Hermione do. contrary to popular beliefs, they do talk about other things. And, just because they argue, it doesn’t mean that doesn’t say something. Fourth and sixth, and even fifth, most of there arguements are about the otherone liking/kissing/dating someone else. yeah, and in a relationship you don’t want someone who agrees with you on everything, you want someone who you can disagree with, but still love.
So all and all, Romione forever, and Adom, reread the books, you’ve missed some crutal things.
Most of the adults were reading Harry potter series because not only for the children’s sake, but really for a sensible character like Hermione Granger who was a muggle like the readers. From the first book till the end, she is the only one who always knock some sense in to the heads of the protaganist Harry and his side kick Ron. She is the most intelligent for her generation , independent, compassionate, caring, brave and irresistable for being a role model for any girl child in the planet.
But from 5th book onwards, rowling made a deliberate attempt to nuetralize Hermione’s strength as she was out doing and over powering the main lead Harry which she feared the outburst of anger and disagreement from harry’s fans.
All the other characters in the series naturally felt that Harry is romantically attracted to Hermione as they spend most of their time together than with any one else in the whole series, Rowling twisted the tale by bringing Ginny and Ron oogling for harry and hermione which is also seems to be a forced plot as we all know Harry deserves Hermione than Ginny and Hermione deserves Harry than Ron.
BULLSHIT! Fuck JK Rowling…. How can you praise her when she caved and said “Oh hooray for childrens literacy, oh you want to pay me millions of dollars to undermine to books and make movies so the kids don’t have to read? Okay!” She’s a total sell out, and screw her.
I love Harry Potter! http://www.formvote.com/discuss.php?postid=077443761530645
This is really harsh, and rather stupid. I have read all the books and been a fan of them for the longest time, and could never see it in the light you see it in.
Perhaps the greatest offense to me is the fact that you insulted Dumbledore and Luna (flaky, seriously?). Both were brilliant in many ways, and great characters to learn about.
In addition, everyone was a hero in they’re own way. Gender didn’t matter. Tonks, Luna (which, yes, she is a hero), Hermione, McGonagall, Molly Weasley, ect. were so notable in the series. All of which you fail to mention in this article (except for Luna, which you showed in a positively bad light for being ‘flaky’). And all of them got quite a bit of glory in the end.
You don’t have to hate a story just because it’s written with a male protagonist. Because what you’re saying right here is like saying all stories with male protagonists have sexist authors (which, keep in mind, Rowling is a girl).
In all honesty, I doubt this perspective even crossed Rowling’s mind. I just think that you’re coming up with an excuse to criticize the series.
Oh and you need to reread the books if this is all you’ve taken away from the series. You’ve seriously missed some crucial points.
NO!! Hermione may be awesome, but Harry is amazing, too, will always be The Chosen One, and The Boy Who Lived.
Some people view Harry as stupid and egotistical, but he is really amazing, and is surrounded by other amazing, good characters, such as Hermione, Ron, Luna, Neville, Dumbledore, and even a few evil ones, like Bellatrix and Voldemort.
There are also the ones who keep you guessing whose side they are on, like Snape and Draco.
Long live Harry Potter, and the whole wizard ing world.
Totally and 99% correct.
I don’t think Harry was THAT bad.
Huh?
But Hermione hooks up with Ron at the end doesnt she? Where did Neville come into it?!
And Harry is not arrogant by a mile – he’s just a perfectly average guy with mostly average ability but a golden heart and iron will. Which makes him a hero in his own right. I love all the trio.
Brilliant piece otherwise.
I love you so much I love to see you play in harry potter you’re beautiful Congratulations Laura Lagarde
Thank you! To be completely honest, this sums up so much of what I’ve thought about the Harry Potter Series, not with regard to Hermione herself but certainly about the laziness of the world building. You’ve made some excellent points about Hermione that I really hadn’t considered but I certainly agree that there’s nothing remarkable about the Harry Potter character. Remarkable things happen to him and remarkable characters take an interest in him but really he’s a an arrogant, clueless hothead who had things way too easy the second he left Privet Drive.
Great piece!
This article is so true! I was always annoyed about how much opportunity Harry had, but he never did anything with it. He didn’t try in school and basically the only spells he knew where “expecto patronum” and “expelliarmus.” Next to Aron he looks like a success, but compared to Hermione he is annoying and entitled.
WTF? Is this some kind of version that wasn’t published in the UK? Hermione is married with children with Ron (known him since age 11).
brilliant piece. i loved the harry potter series, but was always saddened by the fact that a female writer felt that she had to have a male protagonist, and that, presumably, the books wouldn’t have worked as well, had the lead been hermione, or even a harriet potter.
sorry dear Hannah, you must be young and delusional.
Sadly this is also Bellatrix’s case as well. If you pay attention, Bellatrix is the reason Voldemort is capable of leading.
She comes up with most of the plans, she usually does all the grunt work with the torturing, and when it came to hiding the Horcrux and then solving riddles- she did all the work or allotted who was to do it. I mean seriously, if she wasn’t crazy, she could’ve easily overpowered that loser and became a world power. But she was too caught up in her “admiration” of the jerk to realize her own worth. 🙁
It seriously took me to grow up to realize how Hermione was the REAL hero in the story. Harry normally is whiny, wimpy, and always asking everyone else to do his work (unless it deals with quiddith or conversation). If you don’t believe me or the writer other commentators, go back and read the series. Perfect example- BOOK 4 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.
Harry basically had Hermione and Hagrid solve all of the puzzles for him. The one puzzle he almost figured out was the egg, but Dobby the House Elf gave him the answer to that one in the end as well.
Let’s not forget book 6. Hermione pawned all of the wizarding world in that one thanks to her figuring out about the Horcruxes.
I hate that she ended up the that pigheaded prejudice Ronald Weasley. Honestly, she would’ve been better off with Draco. Maybe even Luna Lovegood (she’s a ravenclaw people!).
Harry and Voldemort were both losers. They honestly were made by the Women in their circles. Lame.
Hermione is the girl every guy would like to marry.
I guess I must add that I was and still am entranced by the Harry Potter movies. The characters are so vivid and before even becoming teenagers, the principle actors in the screenplay were fantastic, their facial expressions so expressive of the particular moment/ The screen effects were unreal and the progression of the screenplay complimented the books, at least the ones that I have read, with some literary license. Finally, it has to give some hope to the younger set to become a hero, like Harry or Hermoine in their life pursuit. Dreams do come true, but as the movies portray, one has to work for their rewards, ultimately getting paid for devotion and hard work. Simply great movies, and to think that with the six different books/movies, it was all brought back to the beginning, the first book, a real professional writer with great vision. Also achieved was the fact that as these actors grew up on the screen, it was almost as if they were a part of your family, or you might wish they were, not the screen play characters but the real live kids. No longer kids, you wish them all well and success for the enjoyment they provided.
Ok,first up from a feminist point of view this one really rocks!
Point 2;Hermione is brilliant , she is smart,hardworking,talented,pretty,brave,etc and she has gr8 selfestteem. She really rockHarry may not be as great as her but he is a good guy. If his parents had been alive he mayb would have been an arrogant jerk like his dad OR he wlnt’nt coz his mum would not let her kid b a jerk+his dad had reformed right?
harry is not annoying, he is just a normal boy,bt he has always appriciated Hermione and always given her credit where its due.
he is most definately NOT a jock who peaked in high school, he is a normal average boy who landed in some bad situations. The thing which marks him out as a hero is the way he reacted to those situations, hw he faced the bad stuff .
And hermiobe was not sorted amazing she started out as bossy, nosy, and know-it all-y .
plus as a liberated young witch she is free to choose whom she wants to marry and since she chose Ron, well good for her!
p.s she never hooked up with Neville.
p.p.s harry led D.A
Brilliant, Nana. I would suggest that you remove your head from its dark place and re-read the books. Nothing you say rings true with me.
Hannah: I think your views are just fine. Some people can’t handle anything positive. 🙂
Jen writes:
> Some people can’t handle anything positive.
Sure we can. TRUE positives. Not FALSE positives.
You can distinguish between the two by delving into the facts, rather than being like Hannah, waving your arms and proclaiming EVERYONE IS AMAZING or that Harry is the hero because … he just is.
The Harry Potter series is truly a work of fiction for children. Because Rowling wrote it that way – Harry was the ‘hero’ because the books were in his name, never mind who actually did the hard work.
Mature readers with the perception to actually take note of who did what know who the real hero(ine) was. We don’t accept something ‘positive’ if it’s a fabrication out of thin air that will dissolve upon inspection.
Am I the only one who *liked* the fact that Harry in the books is fairly passive, more lucky than competent, and can’t achieve anything on his own? Those things are what make him a sympathetic character, and a contrast to the more typical skilled fantasy protagonist who can easily save the world by himself.
Yes, Hermione is certainly more talented, and could have sorted everything out herself; but that’s arguably what makes her harder to sympathise with, and would make a series with her as the main character less interesting. Flawed characters make better heroes.
Alasdair –
> Am I the only one who *liked* the fact that Harry in the books is fairly passive, more lucky than competent, and can’t achieve anything on his own?
I think so. 🙂
> Those things are what make him a sympathetic character –
… but not a hero.
And not realistic either. Impossible to take seriously.
> Flawed characters make better heroes.
But Harry isn’t just ‘flawed’. He’s incompetent. He wouldn’t have survived without luck (and Hermione). He sets out without any plan and hopes his author will write him a happy ending.
That’s another reason to dislike non-hero Harry; because it’s much *easier* to write a chap who stumbles around and is saved by dei ex machina and the sacrifices of others. You and I could probably write a passable book if we didn’t have to worry about actually making sense of the things that pop up to save the protagonist. But I would consider such to be bad writing and unworthy of the accolades and bullion that Rowling earned with her amateurish last novel.
I agree fully. I loved the series, now I know why. amazing you never notice this til it is pointed out to you.
While Harry may have his flaws like the rest of us, he has nobility of character. He may have had his share of egotistic behavior like any normal male teenagers would, but it is not the detrimental type of egotism.
I think the best evidence of this was when he broke the Elder Wand into two, and threw it away so that no one would be tempted to use it for evil–ever again. Harry also had his sensitive side. When Doby died, Harry gingerly carried Doby and gently laid him on the grave he dug himself. Such tenderness and loyalty to friends, along with his other praiseworthy characteristics, make Harry truly a sympathetic and admirable character like Hermione.
I do not see the wisdom of pitting the two characters against each other.
Yes, Hermione was the most interesting character. But this is an ancient archetypal set-up. Harry, the chosen one, is King Arthur. Hermione is Merlin. Everyone thinks Merlin is more interesting that Arthur.
Ugh. Why do so many self-proclaimed HP fans have such a bloody chip on their shoulder? This kind of “here’s how the series SHOULD’VE been written” is such a turnoff. Why would you spend that much time reading something you later trash?
BTW, JKR never had to “change” the protagonist’s gender. She always envisioned the Chosen One as a boy. And Hermione had flaws! That’s what makes her real–this Hermione sounds perfect and therefore boring.
Please. Hermione is a self-centered narcissist who rarely – ever, honestly, but I’m trying to be generous – does anything for anyone other than herself, ultimately. I’m laughing at comments about how unwaveringly she sticks by Harry and Ron, like she actually has the alternative of not doing so if she doesn’t want to be stuck as the same friendless loner she was in books 1 and briefly, 3. There aren’t many other people in the series who seem to actually stand her for long periods of time. And when it seems like other students almost could, she’ll go and cast a Body-Bind on them (Neville) or permanently scar them with a pimple hex that she warned NO ONE about. She doesn’t exactly play well with others.
And even with Harry and Ron, it’s pathetic trying to pretend like she never got constant, incessant validation for being the smartest, bestest, most invaluable person around by hanging around with them. Not just because of ther own attitudes toward her, but because of what Harry (and Ron) were always getting into. They were the ones always entangled in scrapes and incidents that would put them front and center in the attentions of the school, of people like McGonagall, Dumbledore, the Minister, the infamous escaped convict from Azkaban … Hermione would’ve been yet another one of the background redshirts in the series never even HEARING about these incidents until they were long over and part of the generic rumor mill, if she didn’t stick with Harry and Ron, because she’s never done anything attention-worthy or action-starting, ever, without Harry or Ron, or Harry’s particular circumstances, dragging her into it. She wouldn’t have even thought of the DA if Harry’s fifth-year dilemma hadn’t been an issue, and even then she had to bandy about Harry’s name and apparent promises of hearing him talk about the Third Task, to even get people to show up.
And yes, that’s the exact nepotism people are whining about, and that’s why it’s the height of utter stupidity acting like Hermione doesn’t BENEFIT OUT HER ASS from it, like her friendship with Harry and Ron is all about selfless loving concern that she gets nothing out of. Slughorn wouldn’t even have noticed her if Harry hadn’t mentioned that his best friend was Muggleborn and the best in the class. All those “important” people, Dumbledore, Sirius, McGonagall, etc, give her the validation and acknowledgment of being “the brightest witch of her age” largely because of what they’ve just seen her pull off as the brains of Harry’s operation, even though we have no way of knowing just how many “witches” are just as bright or even brighter because they don’t cling to the Boy Who Lived and make sure they’re seen. And it’s because of idiots like nana and Brad and the article-writer that this pathetic shit is seen as flawless heroism. Riiiigghhtt.
What’s worse is that Hermione is so conceited she starts BELIEVING all the hype she gets as the smartest witch around because of who she hangs out with, as evidenced by her gross belief that she has the right to make decisions for other people without consulting them, because she’s just that smart. Her parents, the SNEAK hex on that Ravenclaw, the house-elves, oh yes, let’s get into that.
Even her so-called house-elf liberation kick was so incredibly self-motivated and arrogant it disgusts me to this day. She wanted the house-elves free – but she didn’t give a damn what they might want. She WATCHED Winky go to pieces after Crouch freed her, watched Winky literally fall into alcoholic depression because of it….and then goes around trying to trick other house-elves into freedom despite knowing how it affected Winky. She had endless opportunity to actually talk to the house-elves that were damn terrified of her ideas, find out what they might want out of a liberation movement. She didn’t.
But yes, this egocentric self-interested hanger-on who constantly milks her friend’s fame to get herself the things she wants … She’s so selfless and heroic. Please let us have followed her around for a seven-book series just because she’s a girl. Please. I would learn so much from her.
Karen, your comment is so full of fail I can’t enumerate all the flaws. Here’s a few:
> Hermione is a self-centered narcissist who rarely … does anything for anyone other than herself.
Please prove this. Book 1, saving Harry and stopping the bad guy from getting the Stone. Book 2, solving the puzzle of the monster that is attacking *other* innocents. Book 3, protecting Harry, saving the life of Sirius, spending weeks/months trying to save Buckbeak. Book 4, helping Harry stay alive, spending all her spare time trying to rescue the elves from slavery. Book 5, risking everything to keep Harry alive. Book 6, ditto. Book 7, going on the run against the government of the day to fight the good fight against the bad guys (rather than taking off to Australia with her parents).
“She never does anything for anyone other than herself”. *snort*
Well, I’m glad you started with that, making it clear that your comment was intended as a joke piece, flagging that you’re not to be taken seriously.
> I’m laughing at comments about how unwaveringly she sticks by Harry and Ron, like she actually has the alternative of not doing so if she doesn’t want to be stuck as the same friendless loner …
So you agree, then, that she does, in fact, ‘stick unwaveringly by Harry and Ron’, regardless of whatever silly motivation you try to shoehorn into your slanted view of the series. Good. There might be hope for you yet, Karen.
> it’s pathetic trying to pretend like she never got constant, incessant validation –
Please show us where, in the books, she got this ‘constant, incessant validation’. 50 points for saving the Stone, yes. What did she get for solving the riddle of the Basilisk? Launching SPEW? Saving Sirius? Or Buckbeak? And so forth.
One of my own gripes is how Harry and Ron almost never do thank her for her strenuous efforts and brilliance on their behalf, not until book 7, when Rowling realised she had to make them/Ron grow up a little (and when Hermione was even more clearly the brains of the operation, without whom hapless and feckless Harry would be helpless).
> She wouldn’t have even thought of the DA if Harry’s fifth-year dilemma hadn’t been an issue –
Another falsehood. Here’s what Hermione said about her reasons for kicking off the D.A. –
“Itʹs about preparing ourselves, like Harry said in Umbridgeʹs first lesson, for whatʹs waiting for us out there. Itʹs about making sure we really can defend ourselves.”
Hermione Granger wants everyone to be able to protect themselves. OOOH, SHE’S A NARCISSIST says Karen! *laughs*
> All those “important” people, Dumbledore, Sirius, McGonagall, etc, give her the validation and acknowledgment of being “the brightest witch of her age” largely because of what they’ve just seen her pull off as the brains of Harry’s operation –
Oh, Karen. You’re so silly. Please explain how being Harry Potter’s friend assisted Hermione Granger in being awarded nine Outstanding and one Exceeds Expectations OWL. Take your time; I’m not going to hold my breath waiting.
> Even her so-called house-elf liberation kick was so incredibly self-motivated –
Ha ha ha! Please tell us how slaving away to free house elves benefited Hermione Granger.
> But yes, this egocentric self-interested hanger-on who constantly milks her friend’s fame to get herself the things she wants –
So, what did Hermione actually receive because she was Harry Potter’s friend? Initial recognition by Slughorn? That’s the only sane point you made in your drivel. Anything else? No?
I’d like to finally quote from the Wikipedia summary of Hermione Granger, the girl who silly Karen believes is a SELF-CENTRED NARCISSIST –
“Hermione has an extremely compassionate side to her personality and is quick to help others, especially those who are defenceless, such as Neville Longbottom, first-years, House-Elves, fellow Muggle-borns, half-giants like Hagrid, and werewolves like Lupin. It was revealed by Rowling after the publication of the final book that Hermione’s career in the Ministry was to fight for the rights of the oppressed (such as House-elves or Muggle-borns). Hermione is also very protective of her friends and values them so much that Rowling has suggested that, if Hermione had looked in the Mirror of Erised, she would have seen Harry, Ron, and herself “alive and unscathed, and Voldemort finished.”
Say, Karen, you should toddle off and correct that Wikipedia entry, don’t you think? I did a search – just to help you, you understand – for the word ‘narcissist’, couldn’t find it on that Wiki page at all! Ha ha ha.
> Please. I would learn so much from her.
Based on your nonsensical ranting … yes, I think you would. (That’s TWO things you got right!)
Hey Brad, I’ll do you one better. How about you prove to me how helping to save her – let’s face it, only – friends’ lives isn’t ultimately looking out for herself. By the way, even Draco freaking Malfoy managed that much in the last book. Not leaving friends to die is somewhere up there with not being a killer, so congratulations. *slow clap* She’s not a completely awful excuse for a human being. I’ll acknowledge that much. Still wouldn’t read seven books about her.
And god, I’m positively dying at your examples. Especially the Book 2 one. Because it’s not like Hermione herself is Muggleborn, right? She obviously had no personal stake in a monster that was going around nearly killing Muggleborns! This is exactly the kind of idiot mentality I was talking about. Have fun worshipping her every selfish motivation.
Book 3, she was TOLD by Dumbledore to help save Sirius’s life, she sure as hell didn’t come up with the idea to use the Time Turner on her own, nor was she that concerned about Sirius until Dumbledore put her on the spot – which is exactly what I’m talking about, she never cares for anything that isn’t one of her only friends. And when did she protect Harry from anything in this book? Turn off the Azkaban DVD, sweetie, it might actually be Ron you’re talking about there.
Book 4, again with not leaving friends to die, and her time might’ve been better spent talking to the house-elves she was supposedly trying to help, maybe asking what they wanted out of a liberation movement. Instead of spending the year watching Winky fall into alcoholic depression over being freed, and then turning around to potentially inflict that same damn fate on COUNTLESS other house-elves against their will, by tricking them into picking up clothes, despite knowing how it affected Winky.
The house-elves were all petrified of her. That should tell you everything. Like any other egotistic social justice warrior, she had a legit cause, and like any other SJW she was a self-centered dick in going about it, not giving a damn about the actual folk she was “helping” and causing WAY more problems than solutions for them. With SJWs it’s about making themselves feel good and selfless and altruistic by loudly backing a cause they feel no one else cares about, without ever actually helping. That’s how she was benefitting Hermione Granger.
Book 5, yes, tell me more about how she used Harry’s name and promises of hearing him talk about the Third Task to get people to show up at her club meeting. Without his knowing, might I add, since he only found out the night before, and even that I suspect is only because she needed to deliver at least partly on those promises. But that’s not at all literally using her friend’s fame to get herself what she wants.
Or how she made people sign a binding document that she told no one was binding – not to actively PREVENTa betrayal, but just to literally scar for life anyone who betrayed? Let’s be real, if it was really about Hermione “wanting everyone to be able to protect themselves”, prevention would have been the goal with that hex, because then the DA could’ve continued. Not vengeance. The vengeance was entirely selfish.
Or…trust me, I could go on.
So when does she get constant accolades? This article itself quotes the line about her being the brightest witch of her age. You know who actually said that line? Remus. AFTER she’s confronted him about discovering his lycanthropy, even though god knows how many other students had figured out the same thing and just never had the chance to confront him about how they’d worked it out. A chance Hermione wouldn’t have had if she hadn’t found herself in that situation thanks to Harry and Ron. And Sirius said it too, AFTER she’s helped rescued him with the Time Turner Dumbledore had her use, something else she could only do after finding herself in that situation. (And Einstein, she got recognition for it right there.) And these kinds of situations are where Hermione most often gets praised.
Ten OWLs? Percy Weasley got TWELVE OWLs. So did Bill Weasley. Both of whom, by the way, managed to do it without the aid of Time Turners, or at least without clocking out on them by the end of their third year. Are they the brightest wizards of their age? If so, people shut up about it a lot faster than they do about Hermione’s “brilliance”. In fact, the non-reaction to Percy and Bill’s OWL scores suggests it’s not an uncommon occurrence, and we don’t even know that Hermione got the most OWLs in her year. But then those other people, like Percy and Bill, don’t glue themselves to the Boy-Who-Lived and thus “aren’t seen” as much.
The point is, we have no damn clue if she’s the brightest witch of her age. She’s not the second coming of Rowena Ravenclaw. She’s not even close. The recognition she gets, the reason people tend to think she is? is because Harry and Ron nearly break their backs mentioning how smart she is whenever she so much as completes a homework essay, and because all the other characters tend to praise her intelligence whenever they’ve watched her pull off something impressive in service of one of Harry’s adventures, or Harry and Ron have told them about that something impressive. Even you frame the majority of her accomplishments in stuff she’s done keeping Harry alive, whereas if Harry and Ron hadn’t befriended her she’d never have done any of that stuff. (She certainly never moves on her own.) And none of the other characters would’ve had reason to boost her ego with praise over that stuff. Nope, no benefit at all.
I don’t know what to tell you if you honestly think she never realized that. As I said, she was actively using it by Books 5 and 6.
And LOL at using Wikipedia to make a point. 😀 You do know fans primarily write that, correct? How are the hysterical rants of another Hermione groupie supposed to prove a thing?
I’m not saying she doesn’t get accolades on her own merit, for good classwork and shit. What puts her on the map, though, is Harry, and Harry’s adventures (which she never starts herself). Without them she’d be Percy, another top student who was smart and ultimately forgotten. Who she hangs out with, and what she gets up to when she’s hanging out with him, is what gets her commented on so much by the characters in the book.
THAT’s the nepotism. And it’s stupid to think she didn’t see that from book 1 and hasn’t been using it since.
Why the hell else was she so desperate to pal around with Harry and Ron even when they were being asses to her early in book 1? They didn’t like her any more than the other students did, and they were actively ruder to her than at least some of those other students (see Neville). But it wasn’t Parvati or Lavender she kept tagging along with trying to befriend, even though as the two girls in her dorm that would make more sense. It wasn’t Neville, who at least seemed to like her somewhat. It wasn’t Dean and Seamus. It was Harry and Ron. Gee, I wonder why?
She’s a hanger-on, and an incredibly narcissistic one at that.
I enjoyed reading this article!
The idea is quite good and true, she’s the one who never gives up, and deserves the most her power and strenght.
I love Harry because he stays humble and only looses his nerves a hundred times in the books.
I think the main role should have been for Tom from the Leaky Cauldron. LOL
Karen, your comments are so viciously exaggerated and hysterical it’s impossible to treat them seriously. In almost every line you skip, miss or just plain ignore the point. Or make up others to attack our heroine Hermione Granger.
> How about you prove to me how helping to save her – let’s face it, only – friends’ lives isn’t ultimately looking out for herself.
I can’t see why I need to prove something that’s blindingly obvious. Risking your life to save another is heroic. Regardless of whether the other is a friend or not.
> Not leaving friends to die is somewhere up there with not being a killer –
Ridiculous. If ‘not leaving friends to die’ involves personal risk then it’s on the entirely opposite end of the spectrum from ‘not being a killer’.
Can you please read what you type before clicking on ‘Post Comment’?
> nor was she that concerned about Sirius until Dumbledore put her on the spot
Dumbledore told her she could save ‘innocent lives’. How is that ‘putting her on the spot’? Please show me where Dumbledore *forced* her to risk her life to save those lives please.
> The house-elves were all petrified of her. That should tell you everything.
It didn’t tell *Hermione* anything, because she DIDN’T KNOW that the elves were avoiding the tower, etc. How *selfish* of the girl not to barge into the kitchens and torture the elves for the truth! *snort*
> Book 5, yes, tell me more about how she used Harry’s name and promises of hearing him talk about the Third Task to get people to show up at her club meeting.
I’ll let the canon speak for me:
“‘Look,’ said Hermione, intervening swiftly, ‘that’s really not what this meeting was supposed to be about ‐ʹ
ʹItʹs OK, Hermione,ʹ said Harry. It had just dawned on him why there were so many people there. He thought Hermione should have seen this coming. Some of these people – maybe even most of them ‐ had turned up in the hopes of hearing Harryʹs story firsthand.”
So the situation was exactly the opposite of what you’re so desperately trying to conjure out of thin air.
> AFTER she’s confronted him about discovering his lycanthropy, even though god knows how many other students had figured out the same thing and just never had the chance to confront him about how they’d worked it out.
Ha ha ha! Now you’re fabricating non-existent canon to try and prop up your raving. God – and Karen – know how many other students had figured out the same thing because not a single one is mentioned in the canon but that’s okay let’s just imagine every single student except Harry and Ron worked it out why golly gosh that just PROVES that Hermione was nothing special then doesn’t it no don’t look at the book just believe Karen lots and lots of students knew okaybyethankx.
*snort*
Regarding the Wikipedia, try to ignore that “Hermione groupies” wrote the article – *snort* – and just look at what was written, try and refute it, okay?
> But it wasn’t Parvati or Lavender she kept tagging along with trying to befriend, even though as the two girls in her dorm that would make more sense. It wasn’t Neville, who at least seemed to like her somewhat. It wasn’t Dean and Seamus. It was Harry and Ron.
Completely false.
“Hermione was now refusing to speak to Harry and Ron” – chapter 10 – please explain how this translates to “tagging along trying to befriend”. Please. It should be fun to watch. She ‘marches away’ from them. She’s angry when paired with Ron in Charms class. She “hasn’t spoken to them since the day Harry’s broomstick had arrived”.
Tch tch tch. This doesn’t sound like the Hermione Granger who somehow knows that she’s only a character in a children’s book and that Harry is the protagonist whom she must befriend if she is to anything but a background character!
In fact it sounds like someone who is *totally the opposite* of your description.
LOL.
> She’s a hanger-on, and an incredibly narcissistic one at that.
And more LOLs. Where does Hermione demonstrate “erotic gratification from admiration of her own physical or mental attributes” (from the dictionary.com definition)? Where? She keeps quite about Lupin’s secret (yes, yes, there there Karen, EVERYONE IN THE SCHOOL knows about it except Harry – Ha ha ha ha). She doesn’t tell ANYONE that the Hat considered her for Ravenclaw until directly quizzed on why she isn’t in that House. She never lords it over others about being scholastically superior.
‘Incredible narcissist’. Jeeze. You’re off the deep end, Karen.
Really Brad? Have you even met the character whose ass you keep making out with? When has ‘wanting constant admiration for her mental abilities’ NOT been Hermione’s thing? It’s just about the one thing we see her consistently CRAVE (and what most of her grossest actions come from). She badly needs everyone to know she has the answers, and is therefore the smartest one around. It’s her main defining trait.
From incessantly raising her hand needing teachers to call on her for every question, to the point where she’s actually, visibly disappointed when someone ELSE gets called on and answers correctly. From everyone calling her a know-it-all for precisely that reason. From her drawing up OWL study schedules for non-friends who were just irritated by it, and loudly talking over OWL exam questions after the exams to show off her knowledge of the material, to the point where everyone wanted to kill her. From needing her spell work to be praised as the best by all her teachers, and to be seen as an invaluable source of knowledge. From her rage with Trelawney and Divination when they couldn’t give her that. From hating that HalfBlood Prince book, not just because Harry’s using it to cheat but because it’s answers are provably smarter than hers and both Harry and Ron look to it as a source of knowledge that isn’t her. On that note, from her friendship with Harry and Ron – that’s the most obvious example of all. They’re exclusively dependent on her homework help and her brains and can’t go two chapters without mentioning she’s soooo smart for writing some long-ass essay over the word limit, or reading a lot, or doing some other mundane activity that non-studious people think makes you a “genius”. Hermione is nowhere close to being a genius, but Harry and Ron constantly reaffirm that she’s the smartest of their little group, it’s a goddamn wet dream for a narcissist.
Ha. ““erotic gratification from admiration of her own physical or mental attributes” I’m positive the only reason that first word doesn’t fit is because it’s a kid’s book that ISN’T from Hermione’s POV.
Also, Hermione didn’t need to know about being a character in a children’s book to know that Harry’s famous (having “read all about him” beforehand – her words, not mine) and that hanging around him would draw people’s attention.
And for future reference, “putting someone on the spot” means putting them in a position where they can’t say no without looking like a jerk. Dumbeldore telling Hermione she could “save innocent lives” is putting her on the spot – she COULD have left to go do homework instead at that point, but not if she ever wanted to pretend she’s a remotely decent person again.
Karen,
You know, I really enjoy the HP fandom. I’ve learnt a lot from talking to people over the years about HP, why it was so successful, analysing all of Rowling’s mistakes (and reasons why she was still so hugely successful). I’ve also had exposure to creativity and imagination, techniques of writing and art, within the fandom, of which I would otherwise been totally oblivious. The fact that I’m still talking HP today, about ten years after I started, shows how engrossed I am in this world and how much I get out of talking to all sorts of folks.
I’ve encountered a lot of people over the years who will fabricate any reason, go to any lengths, to avoid admitting they’re wrong or accepting my point of view. Running the full gamut of responses from stupidity (“it’s my opinion and by definition my opinion can’t be wrong so there okbye”) through delusion to outright unpleasantness and ad hominem attacks. But even then I’ve learnt a lot about ‘psychology’ in witnessing these reactions. That’s yet another area where I’ve learnt a lot from my time with HP.
It’s fairly rare that I have to concede that the person on the other end just isn’t worth my time. I was thinking we’d reached that point in our last exchange. Your feral inflexibility, your mega-extreme bias – beyond cartoon caricature levels – had me thinking this might be one of those occasions where I should just thank Goodness that I’m on a whole different plane of existence from my correspondent and exit our conversation, leaving you to play in the gutter.
And then I start reading your latest comment and I find that your second sentence makes my decision clear and without doubt:
> Have you even met the character whose ass you keep making out with?
There’s nothing of any value to address here.
“to avoid admitting they’re wrong or accepting my point of view.”
…
“Running the full gamut of responses from stupidity (“it’s my opinion and by definition my opinion can’t be wrong so there okbye””
LMAO. I’m sorry, I’m just finding the lack of self-awareness here to be adorable. 😀
Also, ‘ad hominem attack’ was something you were waving goodbye to in the far off distance, from your very first response to me. And every one of your comments has displayed your own hyper-extreme bias in Hermione’s favour (seriously, that Wikipidia quote you cited, plus…you cited Wikipedia. I laughed because it’s about as genius a move as citing Lindsay Lohan’s Tumblr tag as proof that she’s an upstanding teen role model. Wiki pages are written by hundreds of fans and edited a thousand times a week, mainly because when someone feels someone else has phrased something too harshly and portrayed their idol in a bad light, they change it. The facts remain, the bias coating them is thick. There’s a reason no academic institution will take Wiki as a reliable source.). So I don’t even know what there is to say here.
You think Hermione’s great. It’s an opinion. Going by your logic I don’t even HAVE to accept it because I think you’re wrong. She’s a terrible role model. Like you said, Rowling made plenty of mistakes with HP – portraying such a person as a protagonist to root for was easily one of her worst, and says a lot about her.
But okay, see ya, it’s been … Fun. Not sure I’ve learned anything new about Hermione, but I have learned something about some of her fans.
Wow, I love this idea! Although I love the Harry Potter series, I’ve always wondered why J.K. Rowling couldn’t have written her books featuring a girl protagonist. Wonderful essay!
Curious that Philip Pullman’s trilogy “His Dark Materials,” which came out around the time of “Harry Potter,” and features a strong girl as lead in the way of Hermione Granger — and which I believe is better constructed and written — is not viewed as counterpoint. The answer to the gender role criticisms of the Potter series is “read other books.”
What is wrong with you?
Did you even read the books at all?
Firstly, Hermione is not the lead, not because she’s a girl, or because she’s not clever enough, or because she’s not brave.
She’s not the lead because we see it from over Harry’s shoulder and occasionally inside his head.
If we didn’t, Harry, Hermione and Ron would be equal leads, and why?
Because they are the Main Three.
They are all instrumental in taking down The Dark Lord.
Hermione wouldn’t have been able to do it on her own. (Remember the troll?)
Ron couldn’t have done it on his own. (Remember when he had to take on a group of Snatchers?)
Harry couldn’t have done it on his own. (Remember the basilisk.)
Without each other, they would die.
Your article is a perverted misunderstanding of the books.
I have to respectfully disagree with this obnoxiously bias article. The fact that Harry was so dependent on Hermione was the reason he looked like a terrible and weak protagonist in contrast. Also, JK’s obviously feminist campaign made other male characters look weak or like douchebags (for lack of a better term) in comparison (i.e. James to Lily; Sirius to Molly). She even made Dumbledore, champion of all muggles & commoners, an arrogant prick in his youth. There were obvious feminist & sexist undertones in the series. Great series but heavily flawed in retrospect.
What the heck Harry Potter is not just a love interest he isn’t a mistake he is a hero HE defeats Voldemort what 7 times you are no Harry Potter fan if you feel that way you should shut this website down
I love you so much. So much. So, so much. All my peeves, some of which I didn’t know I had, summed up in the best way possible.
Hello hermione granger
Hello love scott Payne xxx date
The thing is, if JKR had written the “Hermione Granger Series” you’ve just described, I don’t think we would be able to appreciate the true depth of Hermione’s struggle. Of course Hermione is the most talented, the most hard-working, the most brilliant- and seemingly the most unacknowledged. That’s the way it has to be, because that’s the way things really are. Why isn’t she the hero? Because that’s how the world right now would treat her; because that’s how the world treats women, and that’s how the world treats anybody who tries to do something good. JKR gave a realistic portrayal of our heroine right down to the fact that she isn’t even the title character. Too realistic, you say? Think it was sub-conscious rather than intentional? Then why is Hermione so obviously freaking talented, that we are all wondering why she’s “in the background”? I think that by creating this exceptional female character, who is not even the main character, JKR is showing us something about the absurdity of our own world.
For my part, I can relate to Hermione on a personal level; I was valedictorian, national merit scholar, graduated a year ahead of my class, and yet I still have to contend with people’s surprise that I (a woman) am studying physics. And there are certainly people who (it seems to me) get a free pass because of who they are, or rather who we expect them to be. My brother is just as talented as I am, and yet (I think- I hope it’s not mere jealousy) he has been vastly more successful than I in pursuit of a scientific career.
Would I *like* to see Hermione be the main character? Definitely. But we have to make it happen in reality, not just fantasy.
My eail
Liked this, but what’s so bad about marrying someone you met before graduation? It doesn’t mean you got married immediately after graduation. There are some incredibly nice, funny, smart guys at my high school.
I especially love the bit about house elves. And hard work, of course. People idealize stuff you’re born with too often to appreciate that.
Personally, I love that Harry relies on others. It’s a boring protagonist that can do literally everything himself without any help from anyone ever; those are Gary-Stus. Since one of the main themes is love, familial rather than romantic, it’s great that he couldn’t have done anything without a group of people behind him. And he clearly isn’t cocky since he’s humble enough to accept help.
Hermione ends up with ron? and Harry wasn’t given the choice for this he didn’t want any of that to happen to him he didn’t want the attention
#Hermy is Awesome#talented
I guess it’s easier to stand by and critique the motives of some famous person’s labor, fortune, and influence than to go out and make your own.
Judge Deborah.
I agree that everything about Hermione is true, and she is my personal favorite hero. However I think you’re being unfair on Harry’s part- you are right, he turned out having a fortune waiting for him in the wizarding world but it is a little silly to brush off the Dursley’s as “parental issues” and that he is undeserving? As a growing child Harry faced a decade of physical and mental abuse living with the Dursleys, and despite of this he still did have to work to HOLD UP the name of a hero and not just be called one when he got to Hogwarts. He even went back the the Dursley’s, his abusers, to save them in the end because it was the right thing to do. Even if that is cliche for a hero archetype, it makes no difference that children are still reading this and understanding through characters BOTH like Hermione and Harry, and others like McGonagall, Ron, Luna, the twins, that everyone faces problems but can still be a hero/stand out against adversary/be themselves/save the day in their own way with what they can do, and not where they come from.
Hermione is incredible, and yeah, maybe she should have been the lead. However we can’t change what has already happened, so instead of trying to bash every other character and put down the male ones, why don’t we just work to raise Hermione up and remind the world of how amazing she is?
If JK Rowling could read this article and the comments down below she would be thrilled!!! This debate is a dream come true!!! If theis represents the seed she has planted of the years, then WOW! What a total win for Rowling!
Loved the article, always tought Hermione was the best character in the series, “he One That Did Everything”. So… who will re-write the series with this twist?
Ystava:
> I guess its easier to stand by and critique the motives of some famous persons labor, fortune, and influence than to go out and make your own.
I didn’t read any judgement of Rowling’s *motives* here … just some gentle mocking of Rowling’s work.
There wasn’t anything here about Rowling’s ‘riches’, either; merely observations on the paucity of the content she produced.
Rowling’s ‘influence’ on literature? Rather, regret at Rowling missing the opportunity of bravely writing a series with a heroine who could stand on her own two feet without continual contrived life support from the author’s pen.
I guess it’s easier to avoid a proper rebuttal of an article – when you don’t have one, Ystava – by instead saying something trite and inconsequential about the author of the article instead, right, Ystava? Committing, in fact, the same error of which you accuse the columnist!
This is brilliant. I agree wholeheartedly. Rowling definitely got stuck in some literary platitudes. Hermione is why I read HP. I am currently rereading the HP series and am struck by Harry’s incompetence and ‘chosen one’ luck. I still love the series though, but would love to read Joanne Rowling’s version of Hermione so much more!!
This is absolutely brilliant!
I wouldn’t be quite so hard on Harry, though. He grew as a character, though slowly.
And even at Harry’s peak, he relied on everyone else to fight and even die.
And it should be noted that Neville, not Harry, beheaded the basilisk.
I especially like the last line about Neville getting handsome; kind of a spin on the stereotypical story of the male hero finally falling for the girl, not because of how great she was, but because he finally noticed she’d grown up to be a beautiful woman. And as we all know, looks are a better reason to “live happily ever after” than personality or character.
Well done!
I like Harry for all the reasons that you stated. What I DON’T like is Harry then gets all the credit for being an amazing wizard and the hero when he doesn’t really do anything.
Hmm sorry am I missing something here? What version of Harry Potter did you read? In the version I read Hermione married Ron Weasley, whom she met on her first day at Hogwarts. So yes she did marry someone whom she met before graduation. In addition we never heard anything about what she did for her job in the epilogue. Oh I almost forgot Hermione was never interested in Neville romantically and actually she met him before graduation as well.
You seem to be rather misguided to say the least if you think Ron is pigheaded. Ron is anything but stupid. Sure he might not have done as well at school as Hermione but who did? You also did remember how much he helped out in all those dangerous adventures did he? For example, who was the person that got the Trio past the giant chess set in PS?
You think Draco Malfoy is a better match for Hermione? OK let’s do some quick comparisons between Malfoy and Ron.
1. Hermione is a Muggle-born. Ron despite whatever flaws he may have, never ever showed any prejudice towards her based on her blood status. Malfoy hates and despises Muggle-borns and constantly used the term Mudblood, the foulest term imaginable to insult her. In CoS he said twice that he wished Hermione was killed by the Heir of Slytherin. It doesn’t look good to me.
2. Ron and Hermione and Harry are best friends. Malfoy never wanted friends. He only wanted minions like Crabbe and Goyle who would always do his bidding no matter what he tells him to do or sycophants like Pansy Parkinson.
3. Ron is really brave and has shown many times he would sacrifice himself and die for his friends. Malfoy, on the other hand, can only act brave when his father or some other authority figure is behind him. Remember how scared he was of dying in HBP and DH? Or how he ran away like a coward when Hermione slapped him PoA?
I could go on but I doubt you would get it if you don’t get the three points I listed here. What do you say?
By the way do you know why people don’t like Hermione/Draco shippers? You post is a perfect example of why.
Hi Veil,
I’m to glad to see that you concur with me in how biased this article really is. The fact that the author seemed to have no idea that Hermione loved Ron and married him spoke volumes.
For the record Hermione is my favourite character in the series but I think she is as flawed as Harry and Ron and she definitely is not a goddess.
Well said Megan! I am always amazed how much misinformation Ron haters can come up with. I would only add to say that Ron and Hermione’s relationship is abusive is an insult to the people who have suffered real abuse in relationships.