Harry Potter Is Hermione Talented or Hardworking?

Is Hermione Talented or Hardworking?

  • Talented

    Votes: 1 3.3%
  • Hardworking

    Votes: 9 30.0%
  • Talented and Hardworking

    Votes: 20 66.7%

  • Total voters
    30

Shirotsume

Not The Goddamn @dmin
#51
Ignoring the temper tantrum, does anyone remember if Hermione fixed Harry's glasses in the movie only, or was it in the book as well?

I remember that at least in the movie, she was fairly confident in instantly rattling that spell off, which according to canon is a variation of a spell used to repair the Coliseum from a rubble pile, (?!) but a first year spell all the same.
 

Contrabardus

Well-Known Member
#52
Shirotsume said:
Ignoring the temper tantrum, does anyone remember if Hermione fixed Harry's glasses in the movie only, or was it in the book as well?

I remember that at least in the movie, she was fairly confident in instantly rattling that spell off, which according to canon is a variation of a spell used to repair the Coliseum from a rubble pile, (?!) but a first year spell all the same.
That was movie only. Aurthur Weasley did it in the book, and it wasn't until Chamber of Secrets.

In the books Hermione never performs that particular variant of the spell. Percy uses it in Goblet of Fire when he breaks his own glasses, but that's the only other time that particular variant is used in the books, if it even exists in the books as a variant at all.

I think Oculus Repario might be a movie only spell. Arthur and Percy might have just used the standard mending spell to fix the broken glasses in both cases, I don't think there was any mention of the incantation in those scenes. They just tapped them with their wands and they were fixed as I recall.

In the books she does use the more general mending charm fix a broken panel of glass that Ron breaks on their compartment door on the Hogwarts Express in GoF, and to fix a few other things after that, but never before then.
 

Shirotsume

Not The Goddamn @dmin
#53
Damn, that would have been fairly definitive if it wasn't movie-only- a specialized variant of a first year spell, snapped off instantly with full confidence would say a lot about where she would or wouldn't be.

Instead there's just a whole lot more nothing.

Also the history of the baseline reparo is badass.
http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Mending_Charm
 

Rising Dragon

Well-Known Member
#54
The only other glasses-related spell she used was during book 3, IIRC, to keep the rain off his glasses during a Quidditch match.

Also, said spell might carry more weight even if it being movie only if the movies didn't pander to Hermione so often.
 

AoMythology

Apparently a report-er
#55
Rising Dragon said:
The only other glasses-related spell she used was during book 3, IIRC, to keep the rain off his glasses during a Quidditch match.

Also, said spell might carry more weight even if it being movie only if the movies didn't pander to Hermione so often.
Yeah, they pretty much Sueified Hermione - and that's without counting the huge upgrade she got in appearance due to being played by Emma Watson.
 

Contrabardus

Well-Known Member
#56
AoMythology said:
Rising Dragon said:
The only other glasses-related spell she used was during book 3, IIRC, to keep the rain off his glasses during a Quidditch match.

Also, said spell might carry more weight even if it being movie only if the movies didn't pander to Hermione so often.
Yeah, they pretty much Sueified Hermione - and that's without counting the huge upgrade she got in appearance due to being played by Emma Watson.
Well, honestly she looked about right in the first couple films. She didn't become from planet babe until around movie 3. Which I would agree happened faster than it should have.

It's also worth noting that Hermione is supposed to get better looking as she grows up. Rowling herself has said she becomes very pretty as she gets older, and that's part of the reason Victor Krum is smitten with her. He's a professional sports player and not some no name roster filler. He was in the championship that year as the ace of his team, it's unlikely he'd have trouble getting a date or that he'd have bothered if she wasn't pretty cute by then.

She's supposed to be nerdy but hot in later books, it's just the first few where she's rough and awkward.
 

Rising Dragon

Well-Known Member
#57
That's not the problem people have with movie!Hermione, though, the problem is that the director kept handing over Ron's moments to her at the expense of Ron. I don't have an issue with the age and beauty thing, since it's kind of unavoidable on a long-running filmed franchise.
 

Contrabardus

Well-Known Member
#58
Rising Dragon said:
That's not the problem people have with movie!Hermione, though, the problem is that the director kept handing over Ron's moments to her at the expense of Ron.  I don't have an issue with the age and beauty thing, since it's kind of unavoidable on a long-running filmed franchise.
Won't argue there. Ron gets the shafted in favor of her a lot in the movies.

I've seen plenty of complaints that she's prettier than she should be in the movies, and she really isn't. She's supposed to grow up hot, just happens a bit faster than it should in the films, and not by much. She's supposed to be a babe by the time Goblet of Fire comes around, which is part of why Victor was trying to win her over.

Not like supermodel hot, or prettiest girl in school level, but she's supposed to be good looking and still nerdy. They kind of dropped the 'nerdy' more than they should have in the movies though.
 

zerohour

Well-Known Member
#59
Yeah, flanderization had kind of set in for the fandom when the movies started coming out, and they just exacerbated things at that point.  Ron had the reputation as the weak link thanks to GoF, and got hit with it again in DH.

Part of the reason he keeps getting cast as a bad guy out for himself.


I always thought of Ron as the guy who should have just been Harry's friend, instead of part of the power trio.  He didn't really bring much to the table once Harry and Hermione got used to the wizarding world, and didn't have much character development beyond who he was.  Neville at least got to level up in the end and fight for Hogwarts.  Ron was... just Ron from what I recall.



Out of curiosity, who voted that Hermione was just Talented?  I'm honestly curious what makes you think that, or if you just think she had more talent than work ethic.
 

Contrabardus

Well-Known Member
#60
zerohour said:
Yeah, flanderization had kind of set in for the fandom when the movies started coming out, and they just exacerbated things at that point.  Ron had the reputation as the weak link thanks to GoF, and got hit with it again in DH.

Part of the reason he keeps getting cast as a bad guy out for himself.


I always thought of Ron as the guy who should have just been Harry's friend, instead of part of the power trio.  He didn't really bring much to the table once Harry and Hermione got used to the wizarding world, and didn't have much character development beyond who he was.  Neville at least got to level up in the end and fight for Hogwarts.  Ron was... just Ron from what I recall.



Out of curiosity, who voted that Hermione was just Talented?  I'm honestly curious what makes you think that, or if you just think she had more talent than work ethic.
I wonder if part of the issue is how some of us are defining 'talent'?

She is talented just because she can use magic, but not above and beyond what most other wizards can do as far as natural affinity goes. She isn't especially powerful, doesn't have 'more magic' than most wizards, and most of her ability to do things has to do with her work ethic. Something she cultivated and learned growing up. Temperament has something to do with it as well, as she actually enjoys learning and has the patience for it. Some of that is just how she is personality wise, but that's at least partially environmental and her parents most likely had a lot to do with it.

She doesn't have above average magical ability or base power. She's just smart and practices a lot. She's not the Sasuke of Harry Potter or anything like that.

Her 'talent', as some are defining it, is actually skill, which is something you get through practice and effort, and not because she's got some massive magical reserve or because using magic is naturally second nature to her. She's not particularly gifted beyond having above average intelligence, and that is incidental to her being a witch. If she wasn't, she'd probably have ended up doing just as well in muggle school for the same reason.

Her affinity for magic isn't really any better than most witches or wizards, she's just able to make better use of what she has than most because she's intelligent and works hard.
 

zerohour

Well-Known Member
#61
I'd be willing to go along with that, if it wasn't for the Houses.  If everyone was just sorted by years, I could buy that Hermione just studies harder than anyone else and that's why she's the top student.

But that's not how it works.  In the books, we Have Hufflepuff House, the home of the hardworking, and Ravenclaw, home of the intelligent with a thirst to learn.  We could probably include Slytherin in there, because wanting to be the best sounds pretty ambitious to me.  She managed to beat all of them out for the top marks.

To me, saying Hermione lacks talent translates to:

Hermione isn't talented she's just very intelligent, that's why she managed to do better than the house dedicated to learning and intellect.

Hermione just works hard, that's why she outperforms the house of the hardworking

Saying those things doesn't really make sense to me.  If she didn't have a natural gift, then she wouldn't be the number one student, she would be on par with the students who work hard, or the students who are intelligent, not standing above them.  I'm not saying she's a one in a thousand years magical prodigy who will redefine magic as we know it, but she does have a gift for it, above the average wizard at least.




There's definitely an aspect of magical talent in the books, the ability to use or manipulate magic to cast spells, since I can't think of a better term off the top of my head.  We know there are people of exceptional talent, people who have almost no talent, and a wide range in between.

A good example of natural talent is Ron and Neville in first year.  Both of them have mismatched wands, but Ron is described as getting good mark at the end of the year, while Neville is described as scraping by.  We don't know what Neville's study habits are, but I would guess they are equal or better than Ron's, but Ron manages to do better than him.
 

Contrabardus

Well-Known Member
#62
I don't think that everyone in Ravenclaw is a genius. In fact, I don't think most students in Ravenclaw would qualify. It's entirely possible no one in that year was at all.

Hermione memorized the entirety of all of her textbooks in what we can assume was a couple of months at most. She's a genius, but that doesn't have anything to do with magic.

The Houses seem to be sorted more in regard to temperament than anything else.

Someone who ends up in Ravenclaw isn't necessarily intelligent. It's people who tend to be more studious and cautious. The types who are more likely to be curious and skeptical about things. I also get the impression they tend to get the creative and artistic types. Luna Lovegood ended up in Ravenclaw, and she's not the brightest bulb in Hogwarts. Cho Chang didn't seem to be a genius either, though she wasn't stupid. Marieta Edgecombe was also in Ravenclaw, and wasn't terribly bright. They tend to be more concerned with their studies and the type to keep their heads down if there's trouble. Though, they can also be somewhat aloof and self serving. It's the house that is closest to Slytherin.

Hufflepuff isn't full of idiots who can only manage if they work hard. They're a more laid back group that likes to do things with their hands more. They tend to be cheerful, but not overly rowdy.

Slytherin is sociopaths and people who tend to look down on others. It's the people most concerned with gaining power and putting up appearances. It's the house of the Egotistic narcissists, and those who look for opportunity and don't mind using others to achieve their goals.

Gryffindor is the sort of people who do dangerous things for fun, tricksters, extroverts, and people who tend to make shit up as they go. It's the outgoing party house.

The Houses are about attitude and personality traits, not abilitiy. The Sorting Hat's song is somewhat deceptive and it seems to be trying to be flattering in its description of the houses. You get sorted into the house that most reflects your attitude. Hermione went along with her friends, helped them out with their mischief, ignored the dangers despite usually being aware of them, and got into it despite her protests. That's why she didn't end up in Ravenclaw.

That isn't to say that someone in a particular house can't also have strong elements of the attributes of the other houses. Hermione probably came pretty close to ending up in Ravenclaw. The sorting hat seems to weigh it out and figure out where you should be based on which way a student leans most. In the case of a tie or near tie, it may do what it did to Harry and see if it can figure out a preference with a bit of prodding.

I don't think Hermione has a low level of magical ability. I just don't think she's above average in regard to inate magical ability compared to other witches and wizards. Her edge over other students in her year iis almost entirely her intelligence and work ethic, and neither of those is a magical ability.
 

Shirotsume

Not The Goddamn @dmin
#63
If you ignore what everyone in the books SAY about the sorting, and look at how it actually works, in my opinion people are sorted into the houses of the trait they covet, not that exemplifies them the most.

Draco WANTS to be cunning and ambitions- he's not, but that's what he wants to be. To Slytherin he goes, in hopes that he will learn it.

IMO, Gryffindors are those that want to be outgoing- the cowards, the quiet ones, those that aren't sure of their place.

The ravenclaws are those who value knowledge and intelligence. They want to learn, to spend their time studying, debating and learning.

Hufflepuff is for those who want belonging, togetherness, a solid discipline that will serve them well in lives, and get them off their behinds.


IMO, Hermione does not covet intelligence or knowledge. She knows how to get it. She doesn't need to learn how to study, how to attack a problem. She doesn't covet discipline or people accepting her as she is. She has the first, and she probably isn't all that fond of her own social skills.

No, what I believe she covets is the ability to put herself out on a limb- to try that new thing, to speak up, to be somebody, to gain that charisma. To become a leader. The courage to be something new- not what is comfortable, nestled alonein her books and schoolwork.


To me it makes perfect sense that, especially in the lower years, the highest grade of the year wouldn't be in Ravenclaw. If they're that smart, they don't need Ravenclaw. Same with the hardest working- those that disciplined wouldn't need Hufflepuff.


Just think about it- Neville, the Weasley's, Harry himself (both Slytherin and Gryffindor), Luna, Cho Chang, Crabbe and Goyle/Montague (Cunning they are not), etc etc.
 

AoMythology

Apparently a report-er
#64
Part of the problem with talent for magic is that intelligence is a part of it - at least, that's what it seems like for me. (Kind of like game logic, with the Intelligence stat, perhaps.)

Dumbledore and Tom Riddle effortlessly got high marks on subjects other than the ones that involved casting; same with Snape - now that I think of it, Snape is the better example, since he didn't have the raw power the other two possessed (note that he couldn't do much with silent Sectumsempra as a teen; Harry needed no practice to make it lethal, though it was verbal), but he was still an exceptional wizard.
 

Rising Dragon

Well-Known Member
#65
How can intelligence be a part of it when we have examples of things like Crabbe--who is dumb as shit--still able to cast powerful and highly dangerous magic like Fiendfyre?

The House system's broken anyway. Even Dumbledore suspects that, claiming that they sort too early.
 

atlas_hugged

Well-Known Member
#66
Rising Dragon said:
How can intelligence be a part of it when we have examples of things like Crabbe--who is dumb as shit--still able to cast powerful and highly dangerous magic like Fiendfyre?
Implicit in this question is an assumption that intelligence is a necessary factor to learning spells, rather than one that helps a lot. Hermione was able to master a lot of spells because her intelligence facilitated her hard work.  Crabbe, who only had hard work, was able to cast one highly powerful spell in the series. 

There's also another assumption that we're both guilty of: "Powerful and Highly dangerous magic is hard to cast".  That isn't necessarily true.  Maybe Fiendfyre is stupid easy to cast, and the intelligent thing to do is never cast it.
 

Rising Dragon

Well-Known Member
#67
All documentation points so Crabbe never bothering to learn the two spells used to disable the spell after its casting. Also notes that most inexperienced casters lose control over it, while someone like Voldemort knows how to truly weaponize the attack. Nevertheless, someone as stupid as Crabbe was able to utilize such a spell. And again, Hermione being able to master so many spells because of her intelligence just means she's smart and hardworking, not a prodigy at magic itself.

The series as a whole has been consistent on it displays talent within its narrative. What Hermione does just doesn't match up with such depictions like Harry and Snape.
 

AoMythology

Apparently a report-er
#68
Rising Dragon said:
How can intelligence be a part of it when we have examples of things like Crabbe--who is dumb as shit--still able to cast powerful and highly dangerous magic like Fiendfyre?

The House system's broken anyway.  Even Dumbledore suspects that, claiming that they sort too early.
Casting Fiendfyre is easy - the hard thing is not to lose control over it. That's the implication we get from that scene.

Harry is powerful and somewhat skilled; Snape is skilled and somewhat powerful. Dumbledore and Tom Riddle are both to the greatest degree. Hermione is able to cast complicated magic such as the Protean Charm, but she hasn't cast something overly powerful before reaching the age for it. So, yes, intelligence helps a lot with learning magic, but having both intelligence and raw power is the way to go if you want to be truly powerful. (And no, neither Harry nor Hermione came close to either Voldemort's or Dumbledore's level of magical ability. Ever. It's Harry's emotions-empathy that bridged the gap; his luck didn't hurt, either.)
 

Contrabardus

Well-Known Member
#69
Shirotsume said:
If you ignore what everyone in the books SAY about the sorting, and look at how it actually works, in my opinion people are sorted into the houses of the trait they covet, not that exemplifies them the most.

Draco WANTS to be cunning and ambitions- he's not, but that's what he wants to be. To Slytherin he goes, in hopes that he will learn it.

IMO, Gryffindors are those that want to be outgoing- the cowards, the quiet ones, those that aren't sure of their place.

The ravenclaws are those who value knowledge and intelligence. They want to learn, to spend their time studying, debating and learning.

Hufflepuff is for those who want belonging, togetherness, a solid discipline that will serve them well in lives, and get them off their behinds.


IMO, Hermione does not covet intelligence or knowledge. She knows how to get it. She doesn't need to learn how to study, how to attack a problem. She doesn't covet discipline or people accepting her as she is. She has the first, and she probably isn't all that fond of her own social skills.

No, what I believe she covets is the ability to put herself out on a limb- to try that new thing, to speak up, to be somebody, to gain that charisma. To become a leader. The courage to be something new- not what is comfortable, nestled alonein her books and schoolwork.


To me it makes perfect sense that, especially in the lower years, the highest grade of the year wouldn't be in Ravenclaw. If they're that smart, they don't need Ravenclaw. Same with the hardest working- those that disciplined wouldn't need Hufflepuff.


Just think about it- Neville, the Weasley's, Harry himself (both Slytherin and Gryffindor), Luna, Cho Chang, Crabbe and Goyle/Montague (Cunning they are not), etc etc.
I agree with this, but I would also argue that personality traits factor into that directly, and that both probably have something to do with it. The type of person a student is would be a direct influence on their goals. I think the Sorting Hat works it out based on a mixture of the type of wizard a student desires to be and their personality traits to figure out who goes where. That makes the most sense to me given how the sortings work out.

It doesn't really have anything to do with ability or a particular magical affinity.
 
Top