HBP - Chapter 9 The Half Blood Prince

[cheeringcharm]

Chapter 9 - The Half Blood Prince or Harry's first day of classes, year six

There's no need to call me 'sir,' Professor." Ah, probably the best line of the series - definitely the highlight of this chapter. We are greeted with the requisite trip to the Great Hall for breakfast, Ron's bad table manners and McGonagall inexplicably setting schedules

Comments

[muggle_prof]

The gruesome pictures in Snape's class made me think of all those gross movies they used to show in Driver's Ed, trying to impress upon you how important safety was. And since I'm pretty sure Crouch-Moody's little spider demo wasn't Minstry-approved (to quote Umbridge and Hermione), this might be the only way approved way to make students aware of how bad the results of the Dark Arts can be.

Poor Sybill. Even her biggest fangirl, Pavarti, would rather be in Firenze's class...

[annearchy]

This chapter is the beginning of the "Ocean of Potions" in HBP. I'm wondering what was the point of letting the sixth-year class see and smell the Amortentia. Is it a Shameless Plot Device to get us to think about the theme of obsessive love (too bad I can't make the letters flash like Dean does) that is plastered throughout the book? Is it a red herring? Is it an Anvil-Sized Hint(tm)?

I'm sure we won't really know until Book 7 is published...probably on 7/7/07...:D

[house_elf_44]

I'm wondering what was the point of letting the sixth-year class see and smell the Amortentia.

I think it was to show us that the fumes from a love potion have an effect, but that it isn't obvious like when the potion is ingested. It's essential to the Ginny-is-wearing-love-potion theories.

Alchemy symbols

[house_elf_44]

This chapter is the beginning of the "Ocean of Potions" in HBP. I'm wondering what was the point of letting the sixth-year class see and smell the Amortentia.I'm overdue to say something about alchemy. I'm still seeing the thread of symbols going right on through, but haven't mentioned them because I don't see them being of any consequence. I'm wondering if it's an inside thing for writers who know about that. It drives you forward to work in one of the symbols for the next step, and it's a challenge to see how clever you can be in doing it, like "oh, look, a basket of rolls for an amber thing, how clever!". The metals of the cauldrons and the appearances of the potions were part of that thread. Incidentally, yellow canaries, mutilation, and intoxication are part of it, too

Hermione's Misdevelopment Part 1

[euterpe5]

The closest example to innovation I can find is Hermione's use of the Protean charm, which is actually adapting Voldemort's use back to the original, text-book use, as far as I can tell. Hermione may be bright, but she's a book learner, and always has been. I find HBP!Hermione's opinion on the Prince's book to be fully consistent with Hermione's tendency to be a stickler to the rules.Yes, this is Hermione, but this is an earlier version of the character who has been shown (sporadically, because the author doesn't employ consistent development) to be growing out of her inflexible stick-to-the-rules 11-12 year-old-self. Hermione in GoF blatantly ignored the rules to assist Harry in the TWT, not only that but she employed great abstract thinking skills in discovering Rita Skeeter's secret identity (we also have an example of this kind of thinking in CoS when she discovered how the basilisk was getting around the school.) She properly analyzed Harry’s ‘people-saving-thing’ in OoP, Umbridge’s true intent from her waffling speech and

Re: Hermione's Misdevelopment Part 1

[cadesama]

I'm not going to go through point by point, because very simply, I think that JKR has been representing intelligence badly for years. I don't think she does a good job of showing intellect through anything other than achievements, and I think the few behavioral examples we have of Hermione show her using deductive reasoning, not inductive. The basic problem of it for me stems from the fact that several supposedly intelligent characters are in fact rules by their emotions all of the time. Snape is the best example of this, although I think Hermione is a more egregious one. Snape, at least, has the benefit of being totally screwed up. Hermione is not supposed to be an insecure mess who barely functions -- yet, the way she behaves and disregards reason, you would think that she is. That more than anything is what makes me believe her behavior is consistent in HBP. Is it intelligent? No. But Hermione often lets her emotions rule her life, despite her desperate attempts not to and to see herself in a different way.

Re: Hermione's Misdevelopment Part 1

[cadesama]

Right. Strike that assertion about not responding on all parts

Re: Hermione's Misdevelopment Part 1

[cheeringcharm]

The intelligent behavior of the so-called smart characters is not contingent on the characters, but whether the plot needs them to be smart. I don't think the plot is what makes them dumb. I think the only displays we ever see of their intelligence are the ones forced by the needs of the plot.

In JKR's world, the plot drives the characters instead of the characters driving the plot. I mentioned an example of this involving DD in the Chapter 3 discussion. Bear with me, I know you hate DD talk. ;) I won't go into the details in hopes that you remember, but the same plot objectives could have been achieved if JKR had sat in front of her computer and thought "What would this character do?" instead of, "How can I make sure that Dursley knows about Harry's inheritance so I can use it in the next book."

This entire book was plot driven and the characters suffer for it.

Hermione's Misdevelopment Part 2

[euterpe5]

continued from previous post...

And consider the way she "analyzes" the DADA text from OotP. She allows her hatred of Umbridge to bleed over into her interpretation of the book, especially when she says that Slinkhard "doesn't like" counter jinxes. If she were thinking critically she would realize that Slinkhard is right -- there's nothing that magically differentiates a counter-jinx from a jinx.

This is what is in the text: OoP, The Hogwarts High-Inquisitor

'He says that counter-jinxes are improperly named', said Hermione promptly. 'He says "counter-jinx" is just a name people give their jinxes when they want to make them sound more acceptable

Re: Hermione's Misdevelopment Part 2

[cadesama]

I disagree. Hermione is making spurious assumptions about authorial intent to allow herself to dismiss what he's saying; just because Slinkhard is identifying how people justify themselves, it doesn't mean that he thinks jinxes aren't useful. By ignoring the problem raised by nomenclature she is avoiding critical analysis, not making one. She's just using the quote as a jumping off point to voice her own opinion on how the class is being taught, not to actually comment on what Slinkhard is saying

Re: Hermione's Misdevelopment Part 2

[euterpe5]

Anyway, my broader point is that Hermione has never been consistently analytic or logical.

And this is the fundamental problem in attempting to have any kind of intelligent discussion about JKR's character development. As I said previously, the characters morph into whatever the Plot(intentional capitalization) needs them to be at the time. There are so many images of each character that there is evidence to clearly support almost any argument you wish to offer. I have seen people on forums argue that Hermione was only a marginally good character with canon evidence.

Nia

Re: Hermione's Misdevelopment Part 2

[cadesama]

I agree. I do think, however, that there are theories that do describe most of the behavior for each character. I understand Harry through his abandonment issues, Hermione through her insecurity, and Dumbledore through whatever would be the most offensive thing possible for him to do. The theories don't cover everything, and often allow for too many possible behaviors in a given scenario. I do think it's a pretty big flaw in JKR's writing, though, that the best we can do is describe their behavior, not predict.