#Hermione greanger critical

[maxdibert]

I’m rereading the Harry Potter books, and the amount of hatred I feel toward Hermione is insane.

I was always a very shy student who struggled with learning because everything distracted me during class. When I asked the teacher a question or was asked something directly, it was incredibly important to me because it was the only way I could truly learn—through direct interaction. Unfortunately, I always had the "luck" of sharing classes with those types who love answering questions that weren’t directed at them, trying to stand out as “the smartest” or meddling in my business.

While the fandom adores Hermione for being “so intelligent” and knowing all the answers, she’s actually a nuisance. Supposedly being “the smartest” and having this constant need to prove herself, she hinders others from learning by butting in where she doesn’t belong.

I think it’s very biased when, for example, Lupin says she’s “the brightest witch of her age” or something along those lines. Of course she stands out—she never lets anyone else answer before she opens her mouth or gets called on.

Honestly, the only reason I like Hermione is because she’s the only well-built and developed female character in the entire bloody series, since the rest are absolute rubbish, and honestly, Rowling makes them terribly one-dimensional in general (which is ironic considering she likes to pose as a feminist). But as a person, Hermione would drive me up the wall.

As a teenager, I thought some people disliked her because of that misogynistic trope where proactive and intelligent women are always looked down upon or labelled as annoying. But as the years have gone by, I’ve come to the conclusion that no, it’s because Hermione was annoying.

I wouldn’t have been able to stand having her as a classmate because I found teacher’s pets and those constantly trying to get teachers’ approval pretty revolting. Nothing disgusted me more than a brown-noser, and if they were also the type to always speak up, act like a know-it-all, and throw a fit if they got anything less than an A+, my dislike would’ve been through the roof.

I mean, I was never the type to tell someone off if they hadn’t done anything to me personally, but I remember this girl who got really upset because she always got top marks and took her grades so seriously (as if they actually mattered in the real world), but she came second in Literature because she was absolutely awful at interpreting and analysing texts. She was great at memorising but had the imagination of a rock. And she threw an actual tantrum over it, like, girl, you can’t be good at everything, relax. Or this university classmate who got mad because another girl,not her, received the highest distinction in a course. And that girl was supposed to be her friend, like ??? Honestly, people like that should be sent straight to the stake.

I never took my studies too seriously because I saw them as a means to get a degree and a job. The things that have truly interested me, I’ve studied on my own, and what’s been most fulfilling and educational for me has been travelling, working crappy jobs, and meeting loads of people. In the end, your grades don’t mean much because they guarantee nothing in life.

That said, I’d absolutely hate having a student like Hermione in my class. Imagine being a teacher trying to check whether your students are doing their homework, understanding the lesson, or simply trying to encourage them to speak up and express themselves because that’s a crucial part of their cognitive development — but you’ve always got that one kid cutting them off, correcting them, answering when nobody asked, or interrupting your interaction with other students just to show off.

I’m sorry, but if I were Snape, I wouldn’t be able to stand her either, because she’s actively sabotaging your work with the other students. It’s all me me me me, and a classroom isn’t just about you; it’s about everyone learning. Honestly, I would’ve really struggled not to tell her to shut the hell up at some point.

I also don’t think she’s brilliant. She’s tenacious, disciplined, and clever. She’s good at studying, memorising, practising, and she’s diligent — and these are very good and valid qualities. But brilliance comes from natural talent developed through practice, and she’s not naturally talented — she just works very hard.

[maxdibert]

Lily doesn’t seem to think she’s done anything wrong by insulting his poverty and aligning herself with his abusers - only Severus is remorseful, and the trauma that caused him to lash out was considerably worse than the trauma that caused her to lash out. She believes he deserves it, as apparently she believed his abuse was amusing. And I’d be totally fine with this from a character perspective because it’s the teenage condition to be self-centred and poor at self-reflection. But the *narrative* (and the author in interviews) doesn’t believe Lily was in the wrong here. And it believes Lily made the correct moral judgment on the two boys when she casts Severus off for his crime and falls in love with James despite his. But I just don’t buy into that framing, and I didn’t even when I was 10. The use of the word ‘mudblood’ while in considerable distress is not a greater sin than sexual assault.

Lily feels no remorse, nor does she think it's wrong to half-smile at the bully who’s targeting your so-called friend. She doesn’t even consider that this might be why your supposed best friend insulted you in the first place. But here’s the thing: this isn't Lily's fault. It's J.K. Rowling's fault, and the way she portrays ethical dilemmas throughout the series, blurring the lines between what's morally right and wrong. Now, if you’ll allow me, before diving into the dynamics between Lily and Severus, I’d like to provide some context as to why I believe the biggest issue with many of the characters’ attitudes in the series lies in Rowling’s constant attempt to project her own moral compass through her writing. In doing so, she falls into repeated inconsistencies and creates a narrative that’s all over the place when it comes to how certain characters are treated.

Rowling is never consistent. She portrays Draco Malfoy as an irredeemable, terrible character because he’s a rich kid spoiled by his parents, using his power and influence to bully those weaker than him. Yet, she gives James the benefit of the doubt, even though he behaved exactly the same way: a rich bully who used his status and his friends to gang up on the vulnerable. From early interviews, Rowling claimed Pansy Parkinson is practically the reincarnation of Satan, even though, of all the antagonists, Pansy is probably one of the least relevant and harmless. This is simply because Rowling projected onto her the stereotypical “mean girls” who mock those who read and study—something Rowling clearly couldn’t stand. On the other hand, she glorifies characters like Ginny, who has a pretty nasty attitude towards any girl she doesn’t consider cool or "not like the other girls." Ginny treats Fleur like a witch when Fleur has done nothing wrong—her only crime is being incredibly beautiful, knowing it, and not constantly apologizing for it. And this treatment of female characters throughout the series deserves a proper gendered critique, because they fall into every stereotype and archetype set by the traditional male gaze.

In Rowling's world, there are always two kinds of women. When it comes to younger, adolescent characters, there are the "good" women—those who don’t fit the typical feminine mold, the weird ones (like Luna), the tomboys who are “one of the guys” (like Ginny), or the overly studious ones who don’t have time for frivolous things like reading magazines or talking about boys (like Hermione). In other words, the cool girls, the ones who are supposed to be role models, are those who "aren’t like the other girls." But not because they’re deconstructing gender roles consciously—they just happen to embody the fantasy of the woman who can give you kids while still being one of your bros. It’s a common male fantasy, where women abandon the graceful, ethereal, delicate image to fit into a set of needs the modern man has. These are "manic pixie dream girls," hiding a deeply internalized misogyny as they are presented as individuals opposed to the “other” women—the “other” being less cool because they lack traditionally masculine traits, and thus are less than. We see this not only with how Fleur is treated but also with the disdain or prejudice Hermione shows towards girls like Lavender or the Patil sisters, just because they act like normal teenagers instead of validating themselves through academia to compensate for their inferiority complex (cough, cough).

Then we have the adult female characters, where Rowling’s toxic and incredibly conservative view of motherhood kicks in. Except for McGonagall, the rest of the adult women who are seen in a positive light are either already mothers or end up becoming mothers. And for them, motherhood is everything. They are mothers first and women second, in every case. Lily is Harry’s mother, who sacrifices herself for him. Molly is the Weasley matriarch, whose entire life revolves around her kids—she hasn’t even looked for a job (which wouldn’t be a bad idea, considering the family’s financial situation), nor does she have any aspirations beyond knitting sweaters and worrying about her children. Even Narcissa, a negative character throughout most of the saga, earns her redemption solely because she loves her son and is willing to risk everything for him. Nymphadora Tonks, a 25-year-old woman, ends up pregnant by a man 13 years older than her and goes from being an independent Auror with her own life to a passive housewife waiting for her man, who is off having an existential crisis. The adult women in the saga aren’t independent individuals—they’re extensions of their children. And any woman who isn’t a perfect, self-sacrificing mother (like Merope Gaunt) is either a psychopath or portrayed as a terrible person.

What I’m getting at is that Rowling is far from impartial in the moral narrative of the story. In fact, she’s absolutely inconsistent. She presents characters she sells as "good," whose attitudes are absolute trash, yet she continues to insist that they’re good and perfect. This is especially obvious with her female characters, because throughout the seven books, she constantly emphasizes her ideal of the "perfect woman" in terms of tastes, motivations, and behavior. Hermione is a self-insert, Ginny is probably a projection of who Rowling wishes she could’ve been, and Luna is the quirky girl who isn’t “threatening” to other women, and is treated with a condescending, paternalistic lens. They are either Rowling’s aspirational figures or archetypes that don’t bother her, or they’re reduced to filler characters who are mistreated by the narrative.

When it comes to Lily, the problem is that Rowling spends half the saga painting her as some kind of Mother Teresa. She’s the quintessence of motherhood—but not a conscious, modern motherhood, but one rooted in traditional Judeo-Christian ideals. This is the kind of motherhood that can do no wrong, the one that represents women because, in this view, a woman can’t be fulfilled unless she’s a mother. Lily dies for her son, and that love creates a divine, protective magic. She’s beautiful, popular, and one of the most popular guys at school is after her. Clearly, she must be a saint, because everyone describes her as such. And while the narrative does question James’s perfection, even if vaguely and unsuccessfully, it doesn’t do the same with Lily. Harry questions his father’s actions but never his mother’s. He never stops to think about how problematic it is that his mother almost laughed at Severus or refused to hear his apology, or that she couldn’t empathize with what he was going through, knowing full well the kind of situation Severus had at home. When a narrative tells you something but never shows it, and worse, never questions it, that’s a problem. Something doesn’t add up. Rowling is obsessed with showing her own moral line through her characters and doesn’t realize how incoherent it is to portray Lily as someone who always does the right thing when what we actually see of her suggests that, if she really liked James all along, not only is she a hypocrite, but she’s also quite superficial with questionable principles. But this is never addressed, never explored. It would be fascinating if it were, giving the character more depth and making her more relatable. But Rowling brushes all this aside, as she does with so many other things, because to her, Lily was a role model, despite the fact that anyone with common sense can see she was just a terrible friend who got tired of justifying why she hung out with a poor, scruffy kid and ultimately decided it made more sense to date the rich, handsome bully.

[maxdibert]

cho and dean thomas are overhated because hinny is endgame

viktor and lavender are overhated because romione is endgame

tonks is overhated because wolfstar is more popular

snape is overhated because jily is endgame

and that shows a lot about the fandom. let people have their ships :( i ship some of these hated ships and it’s basically a crime; most of their arguments are “cho was a crybaby!” she was mourning her dead boyfriend who was so nice and literally did nothing to deserve that?? “lavender was obsessed” she was in love?? “18 and 14-15 is literally pedophilia!!!!1!!! i hope somebody grooms you!” WHAT?

basically, my rant was all about the fact you can’t like pairings of characters most don’t like.

Imagine validating an idea as horrible and problematic as a 15/16 year old girl who just lost her boyfriend being annoying because she cries in the midst of a terrible grieving process and post-traumatic stress. Imagine narratively complimenting another girl because that girl doesn't cry. Imagine you're JK Rowling and you say you're a feminist but all the teenage girls who behave like teenage girls in your books get a ton of criticism and bashing and you only treat positively those who fit within feminine standards or conform to men's fantasies. It's just fucking disgusting. I mean Lavender is a gossipy and normal teenage girl who likes basic teenage things and clearly she has to be an annoying creep because she likes Ron, because of course Ron is for Hermione who has more important things to do with her life like reading books and being the best in class. Because clearly, you can't be intelligent and hardworking and at the same time frivolous and feminine if you're a woman in Rowling's eyes; you have to be one or the other.

You also can't be a vulnerable teenager with emotions you can't control, or be in mourning, or be unable to know what you want after a traumatic event, or prefer to cover up for your best friend over whatever political shit you're stirring up, you have to be a tough chick who only has guy friends and who doesn't cry because big girls don't cry and who instead of solving things civilly casts spells violently and who has outbursts of a real rude bitch like Ginny, because that's what a real girl is, that's a cool girl that boys like, a girl who's not like the others, a warrior girl. In Rowling's world you can't have ovaries and feelings at the same time, it's impossible, it doesn't happen.

Y sí me encanta cómo olvidan convenientemente que Hermione es un año mayor que Ron y Harry, con lo que en el 4to libro tiene 15/16, no 14/15. Y cómo el hecho de que se lleve con Krum 2/3 años les parece fatal pero luego Fleur y Bill que se llevan 8 años y ella apenas tiene 18 cuando se conocen y Remus y Tonks que se llevan 13 y ella tiene como 22 o 23 cuando se conocen está todo bien o sea???

En fin que me da igual y que paso muchísimo, la misoginia que hay en esa saga y el tratamiento tan pobre de los personajes femeninos y cómo Rowling reduce a todas las mujeres que no se adaptan a las fantasías del male gaze o a la idea de las madres santas ultra sacrificadas a mujeres malas, inválidas o menos aceptables es para vomitar. En serio es que se podría hacer toda una tésis de lo mucho que esa señora odia a las mujeres en general y solo soporta a los estereotipos creados para que los hombres se hagan pajas en particular.

[maxdibert]

Omg now I'm also curious about what you think about the characters' political spectrum. I think Severus would be a centrist and the type of guy who would say "facts above feelings". His worldview is very isolated in the books, he only focuses on how the world impacts him and what benefits him the most, so he would be pro worker rights, but I doubt he would take things that don't touch him, like feminism, seriously. Would he be an incel? Lol idk. Lily would be a typical liberal feminist. James and Sirius would be centrists or just apathetic, because why would they actually care about politics when they have it all, but they would pretend to be liberal to safe face and attract girls. Peter would be right leaning and probably an incel too. Remus...I genuinely don't know.

Hermione would be a liberal but I can see her becoming more leftist with time. Ron a liberal, same as Harry. Dumbledore would be a leftist but do nothing to change the system, just like in the books.

I'm not an expert so I'm curious what'd you think? Do some of my guesses fit?

It always amuses me when people frame Severus as an incel when canonically he’s always gotten along better with women than with men. In his household, his father—the man—was the negative figure, while his mother’s world seemed to be what interested him most. His first friend (and apparently his only real one) was Lily, a girl, and he also hung out with Petunia, despite them not liking each other. At Hogwarts, his safe space was still with Lily, a girl, while boys represented the negative aspects of his life: on one side, the Marauders, all men, making his life miserable, and on the other, his housemates leading him down a dark path. As an adult, as a professor, despite the comment he makes to Hermione, he’s always shown to be much harsher and more aggressive with boys than with girls. In fact, his antipathy toward Hermione is significantly less intense than what he feels for any of her male classmates. His paternal figure, Dumbledore, is a gay man, and the only coworkers we know he had a cordial relationship with were McGonagall (a woman) and Charity Burbage, with whom it’s stated they were “friends,” another woman. Then there’s Narcissa, who apparently knows where his shabby Muggle house is in his poor Muggle neighborhood, and with whom he behaves unusually gently, considering his usual crappy personality. That’s not the behavior of an incel, nor is it the behavior of someone who hates women. In fact, given his history as a victim of violence, with all that violence being perpetuated by men, it’s not surprising that he might feel considerably more comfortable with women, who have not been negative figures in his life but rather the opposite.

I don’t see Severus as a feminist supporter, because I don’t think he’s someone who actively participates in political matters. After his flirtation with the far right and the way that blew up in his face, I see him as someone who stays on the sidelines of such things. But I absolutely do see him supporting laws against gender-based violence, for example, because he was a victim of a violent household. I don’t see him going to protests, but I don’t see him opposing them either. Politically, I imagine him as more of a centrist who might occasionally vote for more progressive parties on social issues he considers fair, given his life experiences and working-class origins, but never getting involved in those debates or sparking discussions because he’s pretty burned out from his own past.

Lily is a self-insert for Rowling, so yes, absolutely a neoliberal white feminist, the type who’s all about “I love Hillary Clinton,” with a perception of women’s rights that only considers the problems of white European women and doesn’t grasp intersectionality or dissident feminism. The kind who thinks some people “take things too far” or who says, “I’m a feminist, but the real kind, the kind who doesn’t hate men,” you know? She’d never have voted for Thatcher, but she’d probably see her as an excellent example of an empowered woman, if you catch my drift. That kind of person. Maybe progressive for her time, but a total relic by 21st-century standards. I see her as the type who starts out with more leftist ideas in her youth but gradually shifts to the right over the years, although always supporting basic social causes that won’t fix systemic issues but make her look good in a conversation.

James and Sirius are the typical rich boys who don’t understand the struggles of the poor but think they’re “not like other rich people,” so they claim to have a progressive mindset. Sirius, for example, is the type to bash the right but then treat waiters like crap if they don’t serve him quickly enough at a restaurant (ahemKreacherahem), and he’d get really defensive if someone called out his problematic comments because “I stood up to my fascist family; I know what it means to fight for my beliefs.” Zero self-criticism because zero fundamental political awareness. James is a bit like Lily: “I’m progressive, but let’s not go overboard because extremism doesn’t lead anywhere,” which is a very convenient way of saying he supports workers having vacations but doesn’t want them burning down factories because “that’s not politics; that’s terrorism.”

Remus is the kind of guy who votes for social-democratic left-wing parties with union leanings but doesn’t say so openly at a dinner party and always presents himself as more moderate because he cares more about what people think of him than about his own rights.

Hermione is the classic progressive who seems very leftist within her circle and stands out because, surrounded by a bunch of centrist and neoliberal idiots, she might almost pass for a Bolshevik. But real Bolsheviks would treat her like a system lackey. She’d be seen as too leftist for conservatives and too conservative for the left. She also has a pretty questionable white savior complex and could use a solid dose of deconstruction and some reading on the issues of Eurocentrism and colonial leftism.

Ron is the guy who votes for progressive parties because his whole family always has, and his family does it out of the same habit, so he doesn’t even know what he’s voting for; he just does it out of inertia. And Harry? Harry is a neoliberal with socially progressive tendencies, but social issues only matter to him if they directly affect him. Plus, he’s a system loyalist because he ends up as an Auror, which is the magical equivalent of being an MI5 agent, so… On this account, we’re ACAB; sorry, not sorry.

Dumbledore is the typical guy who was a fascist in his youth and later joined some far-left party but still approaches it the same way he approached the far right: all or nothing. His political vision isn’t ideological in itself but entirely militaristic. He wants to achieve the objective, and he doesn’t care who he steps on to get there, so he’d actually make a fantastic Stalinist.