Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (novel)/Headscratchers/Hermione and Her Parents

Please check JK's FAQs before asking a question that may have already been answered.


 * Hermione modifies her parents' memories, without telling them about it. Hermione modifies her parents' memories, without telling them about it. What the FUCK?! You're a Muggle-born, for God's sake! I get that the world's in danger from a guy who can't kill a teenager, but would it hurt to, I don't know, talk about it with them? But they would say no, so you wouldn't be able to do it. It's for their own good. You have to do it. Jesus Christ. They would have been perfectly safe in Australia. Have them tell people they're taking a year off, it's easy. Voldemort's not going to come after them; did he come after the Weasleys? No. Hell, if they'd just stayed in England, they would have been perfectly safe. I guess you can argue hindsight, but come on. No one questions her on this? No one goes "geez, Hermione, that's pretty extreme." No, it's just accepted that this is perfectly fine, because they're Muggles and they wouldn't know any better anyway. Talk about Designated Heroes.
 * She did it that way not because they were Muggles, but because they were her parents. Yes, they would've most certainly not gone along with her plan, as no sane parents would've (the Weasleys, being members of the Order, were a very different case), and even if they had somehow found the inner resolve to leave without her, living in Australia would've been a torment. Hermione went for the most merciful way. As for being safe in England... *facepalm* ...the Death Eaters didn't harass the Weasleys solely because they thought Ron was at home, sick, and the very moment the charade was exposed, the whole family went into hiding!
 * 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 Double Standard here?
 * First of all, I agree with you that there are other options out there that she should have considered beforehand. However the reason I don't get upset is that even if they confronted Hermione about it, they can't exactly do anything about it until after they defeat Voldemort. She told them about her plan after she already sent them off to Australia, and even if they knew where in Australia her parents were, they can't go and find them because they're wanted by Voldemort. To bring this possibly polarizing opinion out into the open would cause tension between them, which they can't afford to do. After everything's over, I think they did yell at Hermione for her tactics, but not as much as you would, as regardless her, plan worked and it'll be up to her if her parents forgive her or not.
 * You know, there are plenty of things I have no control over, or can't change, but still piss me off. Just because they can't do anything about it doesn't mean that they can't find it wrong. Not to mention that Ron's favourite pasttime is arguing with Hermione. It just doesn't make any sense that neither Harry nor Ron questioned her on it. As for the idea that it might "cause tension between them, which they can't afford to do", that's ridiculous. Is Hermione really going to leave them alone? No.
 * 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?
 * This is dangerously starting to get into that "Greater Good" shtick that anyone with a functioning brain cell knows is bullshit. Point is, there's plenty of things that Hermione could've done to protect her parents. Why don't they hide at Grimmauld Place or another Wizarding home (like, say, the Longbottoms')? "They are at war" is an awful excuse for not talking about it, because for all intents and purposes, for most of DH the Trio sat in a tent and did nothing but argue about with each other. Would have been the perfect time to bring up the ethics of mind-raping your own parents, or using the Unforgivable curses (life sentence in Azkaban, people!), that have to be powered by hate to use. Remember in OOtP when Harry used the Cruciatus Curse and wangsted about it? Apparently, the Imperius is different somehow. I do love how you mentioned how big of an idiot Voldemort is, because if he couldn't be bothered to go after a family actively involved in the resistance, why would he go after two Muggles whose only connection to the Wizarding World is that they inexplicably produced a witch? Hindsight, I guess, but it would've been nice if there had been some repercussion for Hermione. Or maybe it was just a lazy move on Rowling's part to remove the threat of Hermione's parents being kidnapped. Yeah, let's go with that.
 * 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 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.
 * Let's put it this way. Would you have appreciated it? Would you have forgiven her? In time, probably, but it's still an enormous dick move, and what bugs me is that a) it's never brought up again, b) it's a really weak move on Rowling's part to get rid of the issue of hostages (like Ron disguising the ghoul as him, or Voldemort being criminally retarded), and c) this is the heroes that do this. Hermione's no saint: her treatment of Marietta Edgecome and Rita Skeeter prove this. But what she does to her parents is, for me, her Moral Event Horizon. You might as well have her throwing around Killing Curses (it's justified, because she's a Good Guy).
 * Okay, let me be the mediator here: Yes, it was extreme for Hermione to send her parents to Australia. She could've just sent them to France, where they'd be closer to Britain than Australia. Let's remember that she was crying about this. She knew she probably screwed up her relationship with her parents for a long while. It was made clear that she was not happy with this. The only reason she did it was because of Voldemort. If it weren't for a mass-murdering nutcase running around, she would not have had to do this at all. I think Harry actually tried to call her on it, but Ron told him to STFU.
 * Death Eaters were attacking Muggles at random when this was going on. Every single Muggle, connected to the Wizard world or not, was in extreme danger of casual torture and death, and given that Hermione was wanted, it's likely that they even faced the same dangers that the Dursleys faced. Hermione needed to get her parents out of that danger, which they likely would have refused to do while she was at such risk. So she made them get off the entire continent since Voldemort was only a threat in Europe, change their names so they wouldn't be tracked down buy magical or mundane means (Which surely the Ministry would try to do for any wanted criminals), and not accidentally slip up and put themselves in danger with a slip of the tongue, or have their minds casually read by any Australian wizards that might have any Death Eater sympathies, plus it kept them from the torment of worrying about their daughter that they'd raised for seventeen years. They could enjoy their safety in their own comfort.
 * Does it ever actually say in the book that Hermione did it without their consent? Because from what I remember, it didn't say one way or the other.
 * Which means that her parents were OK with never, ever, remembering their daughter again, which is kinda creepy. Heck, the debater below me is of option that "they definitely would have given her a resounding "Hell no"".
 * OP, let's say that Hermione did ask her parents about it first. They definitely would have given her a resounding "Hell no" to the idea of moving to Australia while she fights a magical war. They can't hide at home because there is the possibility of them being hunted and tortured for her whereabouts. They possibly wouldn't have been totally safe in Australia either. Where do you go from there? Hermione was under the impression that she very well could die while on this mission, and didn't want her parents sitting at home or in Australia waiting to figure out their only child is dead. If she did happen to die, they would be able to live normal lives. If she didn't, then she said that she would go find them again and reverse the charm. When she did (fully offscreen), that would have been the time for her to suffer some kind of consequences for what she did.
 * Well, if they refused, it'd be their choice. They are adult people and have the right to decide for themselves.
 * What kind of child would allow her essentially defenseless parents to make a decision that would almost certainly lead to their deaths? Obviously Hermione considers doing what's right for the people she loves to be more important than respecting their right of choice (which we see in her character all the time by the way, such as deciding that she knows what's best for the House Elves, Confunding Ron's opponent for Goalkeeper position rather than let him make a fair attempt and fail, etc.) Also, no decent parent would accept the proposal and leave their daughter alone at war, but in this case, that clearly isn't the sensible decision to make. They'd have been acting out of parental love and obligation, and Hermione makes a choice against theirs out of filial love and obligation. She believes it's the right thing to do by her parents, and besides, it's still made very clear that doing it broke her heart and left her sobbing for basically the first half of the book.
 * Not entirely defenseless, at least in theory (refer to the "Why don't the trio just shoot Voldemort" discussion. I'm sure two adults with post-graduate degrees would be smart enough (given enough warning and time to figure it out) to defend themselves. Hermione was essentially treating her parents like children, even though her intentions were good. And the fact that she cried over it for the first half of the book means nothing. An unethical act is still wrong, even if the person feels bad about doing it.
 * Yes, entirely defenseless, both in theory and in practice. There was literally nothing the could've done against any Death Eater, let alone V himself. To suggest otherwise is simply to delude oneself.
 * You're assuming that no possible argument would convince the Grangers to go along with such a plan. But what about the argument that knowing they're safe will free their daughter from constantly worrying about them, thus allowing her to concentrate on keeping herself safe? Ensuring Hermione isn't distracted by her fears for their welfare is potentially the one thing they can do to help her.
 * There's also the fact that Hermione lives in a society where obliviating is considered mundane. A witch/wizard's reaction to memory-wiping is NOT the horrified Mind Rape that we would have, it's more of a giant shrug. The Ministry even in its non-corrupt forms, has an entire office devoted solely to mindwiping Muggles, good characters (including Arthur, quite possibly the biggest Muggle-lover of all the wizards that weren't raised by muggles, and the trio) regularly talk about Obliviating Muggles like it's no big deal, and the worst part of Lockhart's use of the memory charm isn't considered the mindwipe, but the taking credit for work that he did not do. Yes, Hermione's Muggle-born and she tends to have more compassion for non-wizard/witches anyways, but there's no real double standard here, just one giant case of Values Dissonance.
 * Mindwiping small things like biting doorknobs is one thing, and mindwiping a large part of yourself is another one.
 * To me, Hermione's actions were done to protect her parents. She is a very gifted witch who is known to be very close to Harry. Ron's family goes into hiding, but they're wizards who can defend themselves and they have wizarding allies who could help if they got into trouble. Hermione probably was afraid of what would happen if Voldemort gave up on tracking down the Weasleys and focused instead on her parents. It was mentioned above that the Death Eaters might torture Mr. and Mrs. Granger for Hermione's whereabouts, but why would they do that if all that was necessary was a simple "Dear Hermione, we have your parents. We will kill them slowly and painfully unless you turn yourself and Harry Potter in at [specific place] on [specific date and time]. Yours, Bellatrix Lestrange." There are three options here: 1. Hermione betrays Harry and is killed, possibly with her parents dying because Bella tortures Muggles For the Lulz; 2. The Trio attempt a rescue, which gives away their location and puts all three at risk of capture and torture; 3. Nothing is done, meaning that Hermione is responsible for the deaths of her parents. Since it's Hermione, she probably figured out that it was an option. Hiding them would make it worse - they're her parents, how easy would it be for them to hide out in a safehouse while their only daughter is fighting terrorists who control the government? She did what she thought was best. Was it a stupid decision? Maybe. But SHE'S A SEVENTEEN-YEAR-OLD GIRL WHOSE ENTIRE WORLD IS COLLAPSING. She's not perfect.
 * She's also shown to be incapable of logical thought when she's stressed or upset. She's going to go to the height of what she can to protect them. If that means making them forget about her and move half a world away, then so be it. At least they'll be alive and well. There might have been other options, like a Safehouse, or hiding them with a Wizarding family, but there are downsides. Hiding them at a Wizarding house is like waiting for them to get killed, since Voldemort and the Death Eaters are going to hunt down people who are on the side of good. A safehouse would be a psychological torture to them, not knowing how Hermione is doing. What Hermione did was, I agree with an above poster, the most merciful way. If they don't know they've got a daughter, they won't worry about one. Yes, should the charm break and she is dead, it is horrible, but then again, Hermione's a gifted enough witch that the charm wouldn't break unless it was forcibly broken. It is shown that memory charms CAN be permanent if the wish to conceal that memory or alter the memories is strong enough. To say Hermione is a bitch for what she did is unfair. And I don't recall her ever saying she hadn't done it with their knowledge. Movie, yeah, but not in the books.
 * I don't object to it because it was "stupid", I object to it because it was arrogant and really jerkassy. It's quite arrogant and jerkassy to deprive adult people of choice whether they want to have their memories or not. I'd rather lose a limb or something then lose my memories of my loved ones. And well, the true reason for this quagmire is JKR not being a perfect writer, not Hermione not being perfect. I bet that JKR never spared the whole thingy a thought barring "Oops, I forgot Hermione's parents! Oh, I've got an idea, I'll have Hermione Obliviate them! Done! Now, back to the important stuff..." It's not like JKR is unique in that regard - all works involving Masquerade situations like this are prone to annoying narrative elitism of a sort.
 * Because you, dear troper, would have done that. YOU would be a better writer 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 Author Avatar, and thus would quickly become The Scrappy 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 ENTIRE 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 Well-Intentioned Extremist than a Strawman. Oh, and before you accuse me of being a Jerkass, well I'm just going to say "He Who Fights Monsters". In short: Hermione isn't Umbridge. Thank you, and good night.
 * 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.
 * Does anyone else wonder what Hermione's parents worked as in Australia? They're both dentists, but presumably to work in Australia they'd need registration there, or at least evidence of qualification. But since their names are changed they can't use their degrees, nor can they list references on their CV. So it seems either they would have to live off whatever savings they have (again a problem since Hermione would have to transfer money from their old account to a new one using their fake names) or they would have to spend the rest of their days working in a bar.
 * She fixed all the necessary papers. With magic.
 * Didn't she say she only modified their memories? It's not like she can't just find them after the war and undo the spell, which i believe according to JKR she did. I don't understand why people feel the need to criticize every move the characters make...the important thing is that her plan worked.
 * Just because it all worked out in the end, doesn't mean it wasn't jerkassy. And if Hermione had died (she came close to it), her parents would never, ever, remember that they ever had a daughter. True, it also spares them their grief - but it's up to them to decide whether they agree to this blissful ignorance or not.
 * Until you can at least provide some evidence that she indeed Obliviated them without their consent (and no, "they couldn't possibly agree" is not valid reasoning), please stop vilifying one of the very few mature and reasonable characters in the whole story.
 * What's probably ironic is that this very rant made me review this subplot and come to the very opposite conclusion. When you look at it without your pink liberal glasses on, what Hermie did was not nearly extreme enough, but instead was half-assed and sloppy. Sure, her parents were safe for the moment, and the DE couldn't reach them to get to Hermie, but what if Hermie herself was captured first? Would you honestly put it past Voldemort to go after them just to make sure she didn't tell them anything important or to make an example that no one was safe from his wrath, or simply because he was a sadistic asshole? And with all the information he could extract from her, i.e. their new names, their appearance, and their general location, I'd say finding them doesn't sound like an impossible task for a sorcerer that powerful. So, obviously, the only really safe option was to obviate herself afterwards, or even to create a fake memory of her parents dying in a car accident. Maybe she could also arrange for herself to receive a message in a few years that explained everything, but that's secondary. Of course, that would require collaboration from Harry and Ron.
 * Seems a bit unnecessary. Why would Voldemort bother going after Hermione's parents if he's already captured her? The only reason he'd have for going after them would be to make it easier to capture Harry, and capturing Hermione puts him in way better shape than capturing her parents, who at best would know half of what she knows. As far as torturing them For the Evulz, Voldemort probably had better things to do than torture a few Muggles whose only real connection is their daughter -- especially if these Muggles are all the way in Australia, under a memory charm. He has better things to do in Britain.
 * When you are planning precautions, you do not placate yourself with speculations like that. You proceed from the absolutely worst possible scenario. Otherwise, you can just fall in with the OP of this section and say that Obliviating them wasn't necessary at all, because they could've hidden... somewhere, and Voldemort wouldn't have gone after them at all because that's how you like it.
 * But then comes the storytelling considerations. True, having Hermione obliviating herself is the more logical thing to do, but now it becomes impossible to tell the story of Hermione's parents. Harry is the focal character, what he does not know, the audience does not know, and how will the reader learn about Hermione's parents if the only person who can tell Harry the story got her memory wiped. If Hermione's parents are an integral part of the plot, the writer can work something out, but they are not; the anecdote is simply an illustration of how dangerous the Wizarding World is getting and the extremities that the Trio is driven to.
 * Not necessarily. As I said above, such feint would require cooperation from Harry and Ron. So she'd still have to tell them and, therefore, the audience. Besides, the "Other Minister" chapter of HBP disproves your argunment.
 * 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.
 * You said it.
 * Exactly. She did the best she could to insure that her parents were safe and happy. Sure, you might argue that the happiness is artificial because of false memories, but they're not worried sick about their magically talented daughter who's gone off to fight in the worst war the world has ever seen. They're powerless and would only be miserable while in hiding, and given the fact that Hermione is one of the two people closest to Harry, they would be a huge target (the Weasleys could at least fight back, and in any case, Arthur was in the Ministry, his family's death or disappearance would have been obviously noticed). What Hermione did might be considered morally wrong, but she insured that her parents could live throughout the war without worrying sick; if she survived, she would go reverse the spell, but if not, they could live the rest of their lives without ever being devastated by the death of their only daughter.It was a selfless act that made sure her parents would never be in any danger or grief. They may not like being violated like that, but surely they'd think it better that their daughter protect them when they couldn't protect themselves.


 * Apart from any moral issues, how did Hermione deal with her parents' friends, siblings, co-workers, neighbors etc? Did they spend the year thinking the Grangers had dissappeared? What did the 'Wilkinses' say in Australia when their new friends asked them about their pasts, families etc? Creating a false identity requires much more than just modifying two persons' memories.
 * Recall that we know next to nothing about the Grangers except for that they are dentists, muggles, and that they produced Hermione. It might not be completely out of character for them to suddenly move away without telling anyone. And since their names were changed, any family or friends who manage to contact them/see them around would be unable to convince them of their relationship. Even if you swore you recognized or were friends with someone, if they don't even know your proper name they can't be the friend you thought they were (particularly if they happen spout off about this daughter you know you don't have). From there, they could have been totally and properly open to any new Australian friends about their past.

Back to the main Headscratchers page