History Headscratchers / HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsHermioneAndHerParents

* Just want to make a point here-the war started for the Trio, the Weaslys, Luna and Neville back in Year 4 (Ginny/Luna)/5 (the others). Since the others (like MOM) didn't believe in you-know-who back at the time.

* OP, do you always demand your protagonists never make morally ambiguous choices but instead do everything perfectly and with sensitivity to every single being's autonomy? You must read some seriously boring books. This isn't "lazy writing" on JK Rowling's part. This was her deliberate way of showing just how serious the war is against Voldemort. Hermione had to make a decision. Should she just leave her parents and hope for the best they WON'T be attacked and tortured by Voldemort's followers and not tell Voldemort everything the know about Harry, which is, according to Hermione herself, a lot since she's told them about him, or do something that may not be commendable but under the circumstances made, actually quite a bit of sense? By mind wiping them she saved their lives, and ensured that they can't tell Voldemort the valuable information they have about Harry. Yes, it was extreme. Yes, I think it demonstrated just how serious the situation was that hermione felt she had no other choice. Yes, I think you are overreacting as you sit in your computer chair in a (I'm assuming) safe environment raging about autonomy and not in the middle of a deadly war where people are killed left and right just for knowing the wrong people. Just get over it that sometimes protagonists do things that are not actually good, as they should in any book thats actually interesting.

*** First, no wizarding home in England was safe, especially for Muggles who cannot Apparate. Even Grimmauld Place was eventually compromised, if you recall. Second, V's idiocy is obvious to us, but it's clearly not something they could rely on if they had a choice. Third, no, Harry never wangsted about Cruciating Bella - he had more important things to worry about, just as the Trio does in this case. What real good could bringing that topic up possibly bring them? Fourth, if you tone the righteous wrath down, what exactly was so horrible in Hermi's deed? She ensured her parents' safety, she spared them from missing everything they left behind (which they would've no matter where they hid) AND going insane with worry and fear for her, and [[ArsonMurderAndjaywalking provided them with a nice respite from England's dismal climate]]. Finally, and that probably should've been brought up in the very first place, what proof do you have that she didn't tell them about it, huh? HUH?!! Oh, and she was clearly distressed about it.

*** Voldemort knew the Weasleys were close to Harry. Hell, he ''had'' to have known he was dating one of them and another was his first and best friend. So why didn't he ever kidnap them (Ginny was at Hogwarts the whole time, ''which was controlled by the Death Eaters''), and threaten to start sending Harry body parts unless they showed up? And I don't see how mind-raping her parents into believing that they were entirely different people is the more "merciful" option. How about a house under the Fidelius charm? And Hermione could've gone with them to Australia, then left. She's a witch, remember? Are they really going to follow her back, knowing that they don't stand a chance against anyone with a wand? No, what really pisses me off is no one has a problem with this, because Hermione did it, and since she's on the side of good, that makes it okay. If a Death Eater did it, then it's
eeeeeeevil. Am I the only one that sees the '''HUGE''' DoubleStandard here?

*** Voldemort knew the Weasleys were close to Harry. Hell, he ''had'' to have known he was dating one of them and another was his first and best friend. So why didn't he ever kidnap them (Ginny was at Hogwarts the whole time, ''which was controlled by the Death Eaters''), and threaten to start sending Harry body parts unless they showed up? And I don't see how mind-raping her parents into believing that they were entirely different people is the more "merciful" option. How about a house under the Fidelius charm? And Hermione could've gone with them to Australia, then left. She's a witch, remember? Are they really going to follow her back, knowing that they don't stand a chance against anyone with a wand? No, what really pisses me off is no one has a problem with this, because Hermione did it, and since she's on the side of good, that makes it okay. If a Death Eater did it, then it's eeeeeeevil. Am I the only one that sees the '''HUGE''' DoubleStandard here?

*** Somewhere above in this page, it was asked about whether it was strange that none of the Trio stops to angst about stooping to the Unforgivables. I'll give you the same answer I gave there: '''it's neither the time nor the place for that'''. They are at war. The Trio is enlisted, the Weasleys are as well, but the Grangers are not - they are civilians. And civilians have no say in their safety at war. As for alternatives, a Fidelius Charm requires a Keeper, most likely Hermione herself, who constantly risks capture, which invalidates the whole point. That is, if the FC even ''works'' on Muggle houses (it's never used that way in the books). As for the Weasleys, they considered hiding the whole family, but decided to take the risk to keep Arthur in the Ministry. As for "why didn't V take advantage of it", well, keep in mind that he was obsessed with the Elder Wand, not to mention that he was, and I can't stress this enough, '''a complete and utter moron'''. As for double standards, I'm sorry, but just WTF are you talking about? When did a Death Eater try to protect someone from certain death, if even through such unorthodox measures?

*** The answer to that is obvious. They would never have agreed to her getting involved in the war.

* I believe this headscratcher can all be summed down to one thing: putting yourselves in Hermione's shoes. You're seventeen years old, belonging to another world opposite of your family while the wizard equivalent of Hitler has just come to full power and is targeting...get this, muggle-inclined people. That's right, it's not just you who's in danger, but because you are just as integral to stopping wizard!Hitler as the messiah, your family is just as much of a target. Safehouses are dangerous and they can't protect themselves in the wizarding world, they OBVIOUSLY wouldn't want you to participate in this war, and you know they'll be sick with worry and heartbreak if there's a chance they'll never see you again. You can take the selfish option and don't try to make sure they stay safe, but don't worry! At least you'll be morally free from repercussions! I mean, their deaths mean nothing if it means your conscience is cleared! Or, you can take the selfless option and erase their memories of you and ship them off safely from the claws of wizard!Hitler. You might have some explaining to do when the war is over, but it's worth it if they're safe, yes? And if you don't survive, they'll still be safe, if not one huge memory-less of you. The point I'm making is that I'd rather pay the price of them not remembering me anymore, than know their lives are on the line and I did nothing to make sure it didn't. Mothers would make the same choice, fathers would, siblings would. It may not be right to deprive someone of their memories, but drastic measures must be taken in a war. And you can call me a jerkass all you want if it means my family is safe.

* ...What, what? This is honestly a question? So whoever posted or supports it, you ''wouldn't'' want to go to the greatest lengths possible to protect your ignorant parents from people who can control them like puppets, cause them intense pain and agony, or even kill them, all by simply waving a stick? You're ''seriously'' ''blaming'' Hermione for doing it without their consent? ...Jeepers, if people are going to be this nitpicky, overanalyzing, possessive, and, to be frank, rather heartless over something like this, then they shouldn't be reading the ''Harry Potter'' books.

****** Because you, dear troper, would have done that. YOU would be a better writer [[SmallNameBigEgo than JK Rowling]]. Because what Hermione ''should'' be is a perfect, leftist, humanitarian, full-support-for-freedom angel who thinks like a rational adult while the entire world falls into the control of someone who is essentially Wizard!Hitler. Aka, she would be a ''humongous'' AuthorAvatar, and thus would quickly become TheScrappy since people ''don't'' think that way. People are not rational creatures, and even the most rational of all of us are still going to be liable to emotional breakdown. Now, I will remind you again: SHE IS A 17-YEAR-OLD TEENAGE GIRL WHOSE WORLD IS FALLING DOWN AROUND HER. She is ''not'' going to think like one of those liberty-or-death people. She's going to want to protect her parents at all costs, even their memories. And you know, she probably hated herself for doing that. Oh, wait, that's canon. Oh, and, you're not Hermione's parents. Hermione's parents probably don't even ''know'' the full extent that Voldemort and the DEs can go down to. So in the end, it's safer for Hermione to be a WellIntentionedExtremist than a Strawman. Oh, and before you accuse me of being a {{Jerkass}}, well I'm just going to say "HeWhoFightsMonsters". In short: Hermione isn't Umbridge. Thank you, and good night.

* The "lazy writing" part isn't Hermione doing it, it's the fact that nobody calls her out on it. If it were recognized as wrong or at least dubious by the narrative that would be one thing. But it isn't. Also, refrain from borderline insulting people when you try to have a rational argument.