Bad characters (Dudley/Draco)

[serenadust]

No: HPFGUIDX 38348

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:
 
.> 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.


But how do we fit in Crouch, Sr.'s final struggle to warn 
Dumbledore? I can't see any element of self-interest there.  In 
fact, his attempt to set things right is what ended up getting him 
killed (by his own son, no less).  I think if he were *all* bad, he 
would have headed for the hills to save his own skin instead of 
risking the trip to Hogwarts.  Truly, he's the only one of the "bad" 
characters who seems to be rather complex and for a seemingly minor 
character, pretty well-rounded.

  

Barb continued:
 
> 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 have to admit that even though I dislike Dudley, I've begun to 
pity him.  In GoF he has really started paying the price for Vernon 
and Petunia's poor parenting skills.  He's grotesquely obese, having 
to live with an absurdly severe diet (after never having any limits 
set in his life, before) and truly terrified of wizards and magic.  
He's developed some vulnerability and it's apparent that his life 
isn't going to be any bed of roses.
In contrast, Draco Malfoy just seems to get more vile with every 
book.  People do argue that he had a moment of vulnerability in the 
bouncing ferret incident, but he richly deserved what he got from 
fakeMoody IMO, since he was caught trying to curse Harry from behind 
(a truly nasty, cowardly act).  Although, I could see Draco as a 
Dudley-type in SS/PS, I just don't think the comparison holds up by 
the time we reach GoF.


Barb again:

 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.
 
I agree than Voldemort & many of the other villains are quite one-
dimensional.  However, I have hope that L. Malfoy and some of the 
others who haven't even been revealed as villains will be given some 
depth and development in future books.  It's just that, since we are 
naturally closer to the good guys, we're bound to see more sides to 
them.  After all, it's Harry's story, and as an 11 - 14 year old 
boy, he's not likely to go looking for ambiguity in the people he 
dislikes.

Jo Serenadust