Bad characters

[blpurdom]

No: HPFGUIDX 38341

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jferer" <jferer at y...> wrote:
> > Cygnus, replying to Barb:"Very interesting, and I agree with 
> > your basic premise that JKR's 'good' characters are more rounded 
> > and real than her bad ones."
> > 
> > I don't agree. JKR gives us a number of evil's faces, and 
> > exemplars of what she clearly sees as the great evils and 
> > sicknesses:
> > 
> > Out-and-out sociopathy: Voldemort, Lucius Malfoy
> > Prejudice and self-righteousness: the Dursleys
> > Gluttony: Dudley Dursley
> > Cowardice and self-absorption: Gilderoy Lockhart
> > Moral cowardice: Fudge
> > Coldness: Crouch Sr.
> > Schizophrenia: Crouch Jr.
> > Conflict/Redemption/Jealousy/Rage: Snape
> 
> But with the exception of Snape and, to a lesser degree, Crouch 
> Sr., how many of these are really complex characters?  How many of 
> them engage in any moral conflict, or show significant good traits 
> to balance out the bad? The Dursleys, Lockhart and Fudge are 
> basically caricatures.  Voldemort is your standard Evil Overlord, 
> and Lucius is your standard Snotty Aristocrat archetype.  And 
> Crouch Jr. is a couple of monkeys short of a barrel.  Now, I find 
> all these characters to be great fun to read about; but not 
> necessarily because of their complexity.

That was my point precisely.  I was not trying to classify "types" 
of "bad" characters.  The folks I term "bad" characters are people 
we've never known to do ANY good at all.  I still contend that 
Crouch, Sr. has never done anything good without an ulterior 
motive.  He put his son away even with inadequate evidence for the 
sake of his career (even though this did turn out to be the right 
thing to do).  He engineered the switch between his wife and son, 
which was categorically the WRONG thing to do and cannot therefore 
count as a good act.  He can't even treat Percy Weasley civilly.  
I'm not trying to say there aren't degrees of evil; there are.  But 
the problem with all of these characters, no matter their degree of 
evil (and it's true that I neglected to include Lockhart and Skeeter-
-they definitely fit the bill) is that they have absolutely no 
redeeming qualities.  None.  There is nothing nice that can be said 
about them.  This is not true of Snape, or Sirius or Lupin.  Even 
Ron-bashers must admit that he has his redeeming qualities. <g>

It is true that the Dursleys are caricatures; but as far as that 
goes, ALL of these unredeemable people are caricatures.  That 
includes Draco, the caricature of the bully.  He's the wizarding 
world version, just as Dudley is the Muggle world version.  He has 
different ammunition in his arsenal than Dudley, but they're kindred 
spirits, and there's absolutely nothing nice that could be said 
about either one of them at this point.  I just wish JKR could have 
found a way to create villains--from the merely annoying Lockhart to 
the archvillain Voldemort himself--who seemed more real and less two-
dimensional.  The good characters are generally well-rounded and 
realistic.  Clearly she's able to do it.  It may have been a 
conscious choice to avoid making any of the major or minor villains 
sympathetic; I don't know.  I suppose I'm just saying that that 
choice saddens me, as I think the texture of the books could be even 
richer for more depth in these portrayals.

--Barb