Good/Bad characters

[davewitley]

No: HPFGUIDX 38319

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:
> In contrast to all of this [good characters with bad bits], 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 would add Lockhart and Skeeter.  However, I think there is a fair 
chance that at least some of the Dursleys may show signs of good bits 
in due course.  And we have just thrashed out ad nauseam whether 
Draco's actions have ulterior good motives without reaching a 
consensus.

> 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

Now here we have a clear exception.  Crouch Sr. tries to reach 
Dumbledore and admits he has been very foolish.

> Thoughts?  Can anyone think of a "bad" person who has actually done 
> something good without an ulterior motive?

I would say that classically it is the case that when previously bad 
people do good things, it is always possible to identify an ulterior 
motive.  Indeed, while I have never been out-and-out evil, I would 
say that when I have done something good I have been painfully aware 
of the benefits that will accrue to me through doing so and wondered 
if I would still do it if they were not there.  So, for example, 
Crouch Sr probably has self-preservation in mind, guessing that his 
son and Voldemort intend to kill him once their plot is complete.  I 
don't think one can ever know.

> 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 believe they can be rounded without the need to identify 'good' 
actions.  Fudge is a case in point: the very fact that he is hard to 
slot suggests he has depth (though I accept JKR could make him 
shallower by giving him a self-motivated backstory for POA).  Sirius 
and Snape are 'rounded' not only because they mix black, white and 
grey, but also because they are complex.  Conversely, I think our 
collective difficulty to decide about Draco stems from the fact that 
we need not redemption but depth in his portrayal.  In his case we 
have not ambiguity but a blank canvas which we can choose to fill 
with our own, possibly subversive, interpretations.

David