Simplistic evil characters, Mandrakes, men and Frodo

[Tabouli]

No: HPFGUIDX 23787

Sofie:
> Potter books weren't originally aimed at children however I'd like to 
> point out some things that suggest to the contrary.
> 
> My main point is the characters. Apart from Voldemort, not a single 
> character could be described as entirely evil. 

Much that I agree with has already been said on this subject, but a couple more comments.  I find that a lot of people prefer their lives simple (albeit not many of those on this list :D).  They like to have good guys to cheer on and idolise, and bad guys to boo and blame.  This is especially true for children, who are being taught what their society considers to be "good" and "normal", so that they can interpret other people's behaviour and guide their own.  Hence all the children's stories with moral messages, demonstrating to kids that "good" behaviour is rewarded, and "bad" behaviour is punished.

Unfortunately, as children grow older, they start to find out that things aren't as simple as that in real life.  Bad things happen to good people, and vice versa; their heroes (starting with their parents) reveal themselves to be flawed, their villains show different sides to them which are not so clear-cut in their "badness", and so on.  Hopefully, perhaps if they feel secure enough, they then start to develop a more sophisticated, differentiated, open-minded view of life, where things aren't so black and white, and you need to weigh up how you judge people depending on a much wider range of aspects (context, personal history, personality, age, sex, etc.).  This does open up a much more threatening world, though: it's much easier to just chuck someone in one of a few simple boxes and treat them accordingly.

As people have said, a lot of children's fiction and Hollywood films perpetuate that nice, safe, dualist world, where there are good guys and bad guys (and you know immediately which is which because the bad guys wear black and look nasty), the good guys always win, the bad guys always lose, and so on.  Very comforting.  Good Moral Messages, no doubt.  However, IMO, the world is a complex place, people are complex, situations are complex, and being too simplistic is what leads to bigotry, narrow-mindedness and intolerance.  Why not use (older) children's fiction to encourage them to recognise this complexity?

On this basis, I think Voldemort the Archetypal Dark Overlord and Crabb&Goyle the Archetypal Evil Henchmen are the weakest links in the HP series.  Simplistic, obvious, evil characters.  OTOH, in other ways, I think JKR is doing a great job of opening kids' minds. Snape is a good example.  He starts off drawn as the most obvious villain, and then later proves to be a very complex, albeit nasty, good guy.  Yes kids, good people can do bad things!!

Whoever wrote the summary (sorry, have now deleted original post: HP4G overwhelms my mailbox if I don't!):
> Doesn't this scene tell us something about Ron? He knows  that Harry has already got one warning from the MoM and will  > face  expulsion if he's caught doing Underage Magic another time. Is Ron selfishly trying to show off? Is he extremely impulsive? 

Actually, on rereading CoS, Ron takes the car because he's afraid his parents won't be able to get back through the sealed magic barrier to 9.75 (and has been longing for a good excuse to take that car for a spin!).  Which makes him impulsive, yes, and a bit lacking in foresight (didn't he remember they could Apparate?).  I suppose he's 12, after all.

Question 13: Which part of the plant is used for potion- making?
>    Do they chop up the leaves or the "roots" (eurgh!!)? And if it's
>    the leaves, what happens to the "roots"? Sorry, but this has been
>    tormenting me since I first read the book.

I wonder where Mandrakes sit on the Magical Creatures/Beings registry?  If they're sulking as teenagers, holding parties, and trying to move into each others' pots, they sound like they're sentient to me.  Which makes it a bit rough to slaughter them routinely at maturity, surely.  Where's Hermione?  Maybe she should start S.P.A.M. or something (Society for the Protection of Autonomous Mandrakes)...

Gwyneth:
> What sign of a conscience or a heart has Malfoy shown in Canon?  He seems to love his mother.

I wonder how JKR views love of and loyalty to family members on the evil-o-meter?  After all, Crouch Snr was technically a good guy, yet threw his son to the Dementors.  And then rescued him for love of his wife.  And Harry was protected by his mother's love.

Rosmerta:
> It's a tiresome cliche, but it seems to hold mostly true in HP: women go for the tortured souls, and men, at least 
initially, for the sheets of platinum blonde whatever

Ermm.  Yes well, as a veteran of many a tortured man, I can testify that this woman at least is susceptible to the Savior complex.  No doubt this is partly egotism on my part: I believe that only a fellow tortured, labyrinthine soul could possibly have the insight to understand me.  Nice, simple, ordinary men who follow all the rules in the generic Treat Her Right manual simply because that's what Nice Guys Do... gah, how boring and presumptuous!  :D  I'd rather have someone who understands me well enough to chuck out the manual and interact with me honestly as a unique individual.  So there.

I also remember a quote from some film or TV program somewhere which said "Men's stupidity comes from here" (points at groin) "and women's stupidity comes from here" (points at heart).  Quite clever, I thought.  Same as the ol' maxim "There are many ways to a woman's heart, but pity's straightest".  Women responding to compassion, men to testosterone?  There's certainly more than a couple of grains of truth in that, in my experience.  Then there's some women's weakness for the adorably vulnerable bumbler.  I'm thinking about inventing this fledgling psychological test which judges people by their feelings about Hugh Grant and Madonna.  So many men I know *despise* Hugh deeply and just can't see why women would fancy him...

Red Queen:
> I believe Wormtail will do something to save Harry's life, or even 
more, to save the world. Maybe this is obvious, but does the above 
quote by Dumbledore remind anyone else of what Gandalf said about 
Gollum in Lord of the Rings? I believe it was Frodo (sorry, very 
rusty on LOTR) who had the chance to kill Gollum, but didn't, and 
Gandalf said almost exactly the same thing about Gollum that 
Dumbledore said about Wormtail. 

Gollum then goes on to (inadvertently) destroy the Ring when Frodo 
loses his nerve. And so saves the world. But in reality, it is 
Frodo's act of mercy towards Gollum that ultimately saves the world.

P.S. And when Gollum takes the ring from Frodo, doesn't he do it by 
biting off one of Frodo's fingers? Hmmmmmm.<

Ooo, well spotted, as JKR would say!  I like this.  Gollum is by far the most interesting character in LOTR.

Tabouli.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]