Good/Bad characters (Re: Ron's chess ability)

[blpurdom]

No: HPFGUIDX 38318

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne <siskiou at e...> wrote:
> I wouldn't enjoy the books nearly as much, if everyone
> were 100% good or bad, and the "heros" always did and said
> the right things at the right time <g>.
 
This brings up something I've been thinking about lately concerning 
the characters in the book.  While JKR gives us "good" characters 
that are well-rounded (not perfect, sometimes mess up or break the 
rules) the "bad" characters do tend to be a bit one-dimensional.  
Every "good" character has his/her good and bad points: Harry, Ron 
and Hermione are of course brave, each with their talents they bring 
to fighting dark wizards and they're also basically nice people.  
They also break rules regularly and each of them has obsessed over 
someone chiefly based on looks (Cho/Fleur/Lockhart).  Neville is a 
sweet boy with a tragic past.  Dean and Seamus seem like basically 
nice boys.  Lavender is kind of a question mark, but harmless (her 
flaw, like Parvati's, seems to be idolizing Trelawney); Parvati and 
her sister seem all right most of the time and who can really blame 
them for wanting to be with boys that were noticing their existence 
at the Yule Ball?

The adults are the same--well-rounded yet imperfect could also 
describe Mr. & Mrs. Weasley, McGonagall, Dumbledore and even Snape.  
We know for certain he's good after the fourth book, with Dumbledore 
vouching for him in the Pensieve and being given what sounds like a 
fairly dangerous mission.  In the first book he saved Harry's life 
during the Quidditch match and in the third book he genuinely 
believed he was going to catch a dangerous murderer and the werewolf 
who was abetting him.  Sirius and Remus both, of course, are good 
and yet also with their flaws.

In contrast to all of this, the following people could not,in their 
behavior or motivation in canon, be termed anything but "bad," and 
while the "good" people occasionally do "bad" things, these "bad" 
people NEVER do "good" things:

The Dursleys (all three)
Lucius Malfoy
Draco Malfoy & sidekicks (including Pansy)
Tom Riddle/Voldemort
Karkaroff
Trelawney

I included Trelawney in there after much thought; I really could not 
think of a single time she did/said anything nice or constructive, 
and in general her role seems to be to discourage Harry even more 
than Snape (who is known to be good) does through her doom-and-gloom 
predictions.  Although we are learning more about Riddle/Voldemort 
and his history, even though one might want to be sympathetic about 
his being an orphan we are not treated to any good act he has ever 
performed.  (When his "memory" was sympathetically "listening" to 
Ginny in CoS, it was with ulterior motives and he actually found it 
tedious.)  And the Dursleys, Malfoys et al have yet to do anything 
remotely sympathetic or nice.

Five "bad" people who were masquerading as "good" people did things 
that were sometimes not so bad until their true nature was revealed:

Quirrell
Pettigrew
Crouch, Sr.
Crouch, Jr.
Bagman

Thus their pre-unmasked "goodness" doesn't really count toward 
making them well-rounded characters, since it was for the sake of 
public appearance and they had ulterior motives for it.  (It may 
have seemed that Crouch, Jr. was being kind to Neville, for 
instance, but it was with the intention of getting Harry to win the 
tournament and to eventually deliver him to Voldemort, so that 
hardly counts.)

Thoughts?  Can anyone think of a "bad" person who has actually done 
something good without an ulterior motive?  I admit I am still 
unsure where to slot Fudge--he seems full of ulterior motives, 
frankly, and I'm not convinced one nice thing he did for or said to 
Harry in PoA was genuine.  He certainly doesn't seem like he will be 
part of the solution (as opposed to part of the problem) at the end 
of GoF.

While it is good that JKR makes the "good" characters well-rounded, 
in a way it would be even more satisfying if she were to do the same 
thing with the "bad" characters.

(I apologize if this treads into the territory of the current Nel 
question, which I haven't had the chance to read yet.)

Any thoughts, folks?  Opposing points of view welcome...

--Barb

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb