How likely is it that the outcome of the Defense Professor’s talk with Hermione was genuinely not what he wanted? Surely he has to have realized by now that Hermione is the sort of person who’d act like that, however incomprehensible it may be to him. I am reminded of the passage in the LotR omake that reads:
“If the Enemy thought that all his foes were moved by desire for power alone—he would guess wrongly, over and over, and the Maker of this Ring would see that, he would know that somewhere he had made a mistake!”
Maybe he truly doesn’t understand her psychology, especially if he doesn’t have H&C’s, erm, experimentation to draw on. (I rather think he is H&C, but that’s another issue entirely.) But working from the supposition that he wanted Hermione to react as she did, what does he gain from that?
She’s within easy striking distance if he wants to use her in some future action.
She’s acquired extra suspicion of the Defense Professor, which she will communicate to Harry, and which the Defense Professor may duly disprove to Harry, strengthening the latter’s trust.
She may, if she stays near Harry, do something unpredictably Good (c.f. SPHEW) of her own free will (inasmuch as that exists anymore) that would be useful for enacting various lessons.
Hermione came very very close to agreeing with the Defense Professor, and we see him using all the ways and mannerisms which cause her to trust him a little bit more—not to ‘acquire extra suspicion’.
So, no, I think Quirrel made a very very good attempt at what he wanted—getting Hermione away. He simply failed.
He knows Hermione is suspicious of him. Why did he not let Harry—whom IIRC we previously saw saying that Hermione ought to be sent to Beauxbatons—beg Hermione to leave, or failing that, order her? Why did he make the blatantly manipulative hard-sell tactic of ‘buy now, this is a limited-time offer only!’ to someone whom he knows distrusts him, has read literature on manipulative tactics, and without giving a convincing Inside View explanation for why it’s genuine and not what the Outside View says it is (manipulation)? Is this all reverse-psychology?
Why did he not let Harry—whom IIRC we previously saw saying that Hermione ought to be sent to Beauxbatons—beg Hermione to leave, or failing that, order her?
“Why did he not let”? I don’t see any place where Quirrel isn’t “letting” Harry do these things. Perhaps your question should be better phrased why he didn’t ask Harry to do these things?
I think a simple enough answer is that he feels he has a better chance of convincing Hermione to leave, than to convince Harry to force Hermione to leave against her will. Since Bellatrix, Harry has learned to inquire about what is in it for Quirrel when Quirrel asks him to do things. And he’ll see that wanting Hermione to leave may be to the advantage of whomever wanted to frame her in the first place, as both events lead to a Hogwarts without Hermione in it.
Is this all reverse-psychology?
I don’t understand your usage of the term. It’s me who’s saying he wanted her to leave (aka non-reverse psychology), it’s LKtheGreat and you who seem to be saying he was applying reverse-psychology and that he really wanted her to stay.
Why did he make the blatantly manipulative hard-sell tactic of ‘buy now, this is a limited-time offer only!’
The simplest explanation of why someone tries to manipulate you into doing something is because they want you to do it.
And frankly he came very close to getting her to say “Yes.” We were inside Hermione’s head. Quirrel came close to succeeding. If someone comes that close to succeeding, and fails just by something tiny which is outside their control, then the simplest explanation is that they wanted to succeed.
It’s particularly worth considering that if Quirrel’s last success in manipulating Hermione came at the end of a long obliviation cycle, then that was achieved when she was already in a state of mental exhaustion.
Excellent point about Harry. The Defense Professor virtually certainly knows Harry’s opinions on the subject, whether by his mental model of Harry or by observing him telling anyone who’ll listen that Hogwarts is dangerous.
On the other hand, I believe we’ve seen Harry failing to convince Hermione of something she was morally set on, much like this. (Anybody remember the specific incident, or am I imagining things?) Once Hermione had refused Harry’s entreaties for her to leave, it would have been much harder for the Defense Professor to change her opinion.
And finally, there’s this:
She couldn’t have described it in words, what triggered the realization, unless it was the sheer pressure that the Defense Professor was exerting on her.
Which supports your argument that he’s being a little too over-the-top. The Defense Professor is above all, subtle—this kind of all-out effort is not like him. Maybe there’s some time constraint, though, and he doesn’t have time for “subtle?” Aargh.
How likely is it that the outcome of the Defense Professor’s talk with Hermione was genuinely not what he wanted? Surely he has to have realized by now that Hermione is the sort of person who’d act like that, however incomprehensible it may be to him. I am reminded of the passage in the LotR omake that reads:
Maybe he truly doesn’t understand her psychology, especially if he doesn’t have H&C’s, erm, experimentation to draw on. (I rather think he is H&C, but that’s another issue entirely.) But working from the supposition that he wanted Hermione to react as she did, what does he gain from that?
She’s within easy striking distance if he wants to use her in some future action.
She’s acquired extra suspicion of the Defense Professor, which she will communicate to Harry, and which the Defense Professor may duly disprove to Harry, strengthening the latter’s trust.
She may, if she stays near Harry, do something unpredictably Good (c.f. SPHEW) of her own free will (inasmuch as that exists anymore) that would be useful for enacting various lessons.
Something else that I haven’t thought of yet.
Hermione came very very close to agreeing with the Defense Professor, and we see him using all the ways and mannerisms which cause her to trust him a little bit more—not to ‘acquire extra suspicion’.
So, no, I think Quirrel made a very very good attempt at what he wanted—getting Hermione away. He simply failed.
He knows Hermione is suspicious of him. Why did he not let Harry—whom IIRC we previously saw saying that Hermione ought to be sent to Beauxbatons—beg Hermione to leave, or failing that, order her? Why did he make the blatantly manipulative hard-sell tactic of ‘buy now, this is a limited-time offer only!’ to someone whom he knows distrusts him, has read literature on manipulative tactics, and without giving a convincing Inside View explanation for why it’s genuine and not what the Outside View says it is (manipulation)? Is this all reverse-psychology?
“Why did he not let”? I don’t see any place where Quirrel isn’t “letting” Harry do these things. Perhaps your question should be better phrased why he didn’t ask Harry to do these things?
I think a simple enough answer is that he feels he has a better chance of convincing Hermione to leave, than to convince Harry to force Hermione to leave against her will. Since Bellatrix, Harry has learned to inquire about what is in it for Quirrel when Quirrel asks him to do things. And he’ll see that wanting Hermione to leave may be to the advantage of whomever wanted to frame her in the first place, as both events lead to a Hogwarts without Hermione in it.
I don’t understand your usage of the term. It’s me who’s saying he wanted her to leave (aka non-reverse psychology), it’s LKtheGreat and you who seem to be saying he was applying reverse-psychology and that he really wanted her to stay.
The simplest explanation of why someone tries to manipulate you into doing something is because they want you to do it.
And frankly he came very close to getting her to say “Yes.” We were inside Hermione’s head. Quirrel came close to succeeding. If someone comes that close to succeeding, and fails just by something tiny which is outside their control, then the simplest explanation is that they wanted to succeed.
It’s particularly worth considering that if Quirrel’s last success in manipulating Hermione came at the end of a long obliviation cycle, then that was achieved when she was already in a state of mental exhaustion.
Excellent point about Harry. The Defense Professor virtually certainly knows Harry’s opinions on the subject, whether by his mental model of Harry or by observing him telling anyone who’ll listen that Hogwarts is dangerous.
On the other hand, I believe we’ve seen Harry failing to convince Hermione of something she was morally set on, much like this. (Anybody remember the specific incident, or am I imagining things?) Once Hermione had refused Harry’s entreaties for her to leave, it would have been much harder for the Defense Professor to change her opinion.
And finally, there’s this:
Which supports your argument that he’s being a little too over-the-top. The Defense Professor is above all, subtle—this kind of all-out effort is not like him. Maybe there’s some time constraint, though, and he doesn’t have time for “subtle?” Aargh.