More Thoughts About Lockhart (LONG)

[cynthiaanncoe at home.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 27507

In the wake of our discussion of CoS's shortcomings, I started 
thinking more about Lockhart (particularly since for some reason I 
said I'd think about it and post again).  Based on the group's 
comments about CoS, Lockhart surely seemed to head up the list of 
difficulties in the book.  But why?  Brilliant HP characters run the 
gamut, ranging from the less competent Neville to the powerful 
Dumbledore, from the harsh Snape to the reserved Lupin, from the rule-
following Percy to the rule-breaking Fred and George.  Sadly, 
Lockhart has managed to tally only a few fans and no support group 
has even been proposed, so far as I know.

So I thought I'd take a stab at proposing what may have gone wrong 
with his characterization.  He's certainly one-dimensional (someone 
called it a one-joke wonder, I believe), but what is it that causes 
that unfortunate result?  After all, even villains can be multi-
faceted, and some would say that the best ones are.  Perhaps 
comparing Lockhart to other Hogwarts teacher characters will shed 
some light on that question.

The DADA teachers are Quirrell, Lockhart, Lupin and Crouch/Moody (who 
I will just call Moody).  I'll drop Quirrell from the discussion 
right away, as we really don't know much about him, and he is 
depicted mostly as living quarters for Voldemort.  Quirrell is 
treated more as a minor character (like Sprout) than as a major 
player like subsequent DADA teachers.

Lupin and Moody do seem to have a few things in common.  Both have 
vulnerabilities that contrast sharply with their strengths.  Lupin, 
of course, has a whole host of difficulties.  Most obvious is that 
bothersome werewolf problem.  We know that he has only had three 
great friends, and so far as he knew prior to PoA, all of them met 
their demise in about 24 hours.  He also has to grapple with poverty 
and prejudice, not to mention Snape's constant attempts to undermine 
him at Hogwarts.  Moody has his own physical problems, and there is 
certainly a suggestion that his once excellent reputation has been 
tarnished by his more recent paranoid behavior.  Although we don't 
know all the details of his background, we can imagine that years of 
tracking down Dark Wizards and seeing the worst that exists in the 
wizarding world has left him more than a little jumpy.  Lockhart, on 
the other hand, doesn't have any strengths and is by design one big 
weakness.  We know almost nothing about his pre-Hogwarts life, except 
that he wrote books.  Perhaps the portrayal of weakness in Lockhart 
isn't as compelling without being balanced against strengths as 
displayed in other character traits.

Also, both Lupin and Moody have a good reason to be at Hogwarts, and 
we have no trouble understanding why Dumbledore has brought them in 
to teach.  Lupin has known Dumbledore since childhood, is part of 
the "old crowd", and there might also be an element of compassion in 
Dumbledore's decision to give Lupin paid work.  Moody, of course, is 
brought on because Dumbledore is reading the signs of Voldemort's 
return, and Dumbledore knows him from before Voldemort's downfall.  
Consequently, it is easy for the reader to accept the presence of 
Lupin and Moody and even to hope they will succeed.  Lockhart, on the 
other hand, is only there because, in Hagrid's words, "he was the 
on'y man for the job," suggesting Dumbledore couldn't get anyone 
else.  That justification might be handy, but it may represent a 
missed opportunity to provide the reader with a more compelling 
reason to accept Lockhart, perhaps one more closely linked to 
something about Lockhart's background.  Rather than just being a 
talentless wizard, for instance, maybe it would have worked better if 
Lockhart had once been talented, but his wizarding skills have 
atrophied, causing him to fabricate his more recent accomplishments.

Next, both Lupin and Moody are excellent teachers, and their best 
lessons are hands-on experiences.  Both are compassionate toward 
weaker students, as both bestow extra attention on Neville.  Lockhart 
is written as the opposite of a hands-on teacher, of course, which is 
consistent with his characterization of a wizard who doesn't know how 
to do a great deal of magic.  But he isn't shown having any 
meaningful personal interactions with students, apart from his 
conversations with Harry.  There really isn't any reason Lockhart 
can't befriend a student or two (Lavender and Pavarti are candidates 
for this role as they are easily impressed).

Finally, Lupin and Moody are both reasonably powerful and 
accomplished wizards.  Lupin is capable of resisting boggarts that 
turn into the full moon, and is capable of conjuring a Patronus as 
needed and can also teach it to an underage wizard.  Moody is capable 
of performing the Unforgivable Curses.  Both are independent 
thinkers – Lupin gives the Marauders' Map back to Harry and protects 
Harry from Snape's wrath, and Moody has the backbone to perform the 
Imperius Curse in the classroom.  Lockhart, of course, does not 
display these qualities (by design), as he is supposed to be 
incompetent and, as they say in Texas, all hat but no cattle.  But it 
might not hurt to have Lockhart be adept in other areas, such as 
displaying people skills.  To the extent Lockhart is shown exhibiting 
people skills, his efforts are not convincing.

Perhaps comparing Lockhart to Lupin and Moody is not entirely fair, 
though.  After all, we are meant to like Lupin and Moody, and we are 
meant not to like Lockhart because he is incompetent and turns out to 
be evil in the end.  Setting aside that we somehow manage to wind up 
liking Moody and Snape even though they are not the most personable 
wizards around, there is also the Trelawney question.  

Professor Trelawney is set up to be similar to Lockhart in a few 
ways.  Her competence is certainly in question, and like Lockhart, 
she seems to have a rather inflated opinion of herself and be riding 
her reputation rather than showing any discernable talent on a day-to-
day basis.  Although Trelawney also does not seem to have a great 
number of fans in this group, she also doesn't seem to generate quite 
as many detractors, either.  So why does Trelawney's characterization 
work better than Lockhart's?

Perhaps it is that, although Trelawney does not have that many scenes 
in the third and fourth books, the reactions of other characters 
toward her are fairly complex and laced with conflict.  We quickly 
learn that McGonagall does not respect Trelawney, and will make this 
fact known in the presence of students, teachers and Trelawney 
herself.  There is a hint that Lupin does not think much of 
Trelawney's crystal ball gazing ability.  On the other hand, 
Trelawney has her fans, as Lavender and Pavarti show respect 
bordering on reverence, possibly based as much on what they have seen 
in class plus all the time they spend visiting with Trelawney.  There 
is the hint from time to time that Trelawney does have some ability 
(with the occasional arguably-correct prediction).  Also, we know 
that her predictions are not always entirely unfounded.  She did spot 
Sirius in her tea leaves and crystal ball, and Dumbledore confirms 
that she has made two correct predictions (which also helps explain 
why she has a job at Hogwarts).  Even though Trelawney is not a 
pivotal character in PoA or GoF, her characterization is reasonably 
complete.

The reactions of teachers and students to Lockhart, however, seem 
strangely muted in the face of more flagrant incompetence, 
particularly given the substantial number of scenes in which he 
appears.  Professor Sprout merely scowls following Lockhart's 
condescending remarks.  Hermione is inexplicably taken with Lockhart, 
but not based on any special relationship she develops with him.  
Professor McGonagall initially does not dispute Lockhart's claim of 
having made the attacks stop.  Even the scene in which the other 
teachers assign Lockhart the task of subduing the attacker seems 
oddly subdued, as none of the teachers voices concrete concerns about 
Lockhart, and McGonagall suggests that he was given this task to get 
Lockhart "out from under our feet."  Perhaps Lockhart's 
characterization would have improved with a few indications that he 
might in fact have some measure of wizarding talent, as we saw with 
Professor Trelawney.

Regarding their respective abilities as teachers, no matter what one 
concludes about Trelawney's success (or lack of success) in Seeing, 
there is no question that the students actually do something when 
they attend her classes – they try to See.  With Lockhart, however, 
the students do next to nothing.  Even if Lockhart is supposed to be 
devoid of wizarding talent, perhaps his characterization would be 
improved if the students had spent their class time battling or 
controlling dark creatures (unsuccessfully, of course), as they did 
with Hagrid's Flobberworms and Blast Ended Skrewts, or if they were 
studying creatures that Lockhart said are "dark" but that in fact 
were simply mundane.
                      * * * * *
Anyway, this is my attempt to put my finger on the Lockhart issue, 
and even after trying to spell it out in detail, I am still unsure 
that I have communicated my own "Lockhart" issues.  There are many 
others in the group who can probably pin this down better than I can, 
and I'd love to hear any ideas out there if there's any interest in 
discussing it further.

Cindy (who really did enjoy Lockhart's attempt to repair Harry's arm, 
the singing Valentine, and the portraits with hair rollers)