Evil is not something you can deal with lightly. (was: Draco's Crimes & Misdemeanors)

[heiditandy]

No: HPFGUIDX 51576

Evil is not something you can deal with lightly. 
JKR, February 16, 1999
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3822242,00.html)


I think I first must admit that I haven't followed the "ever so evil"
discussions to date to the level of knowing exactly what definition of
*evil* we're working from but if I'm to accept Cindy's, well, then... 

Isn't every single character in canon, other than possibly Eloise
Midgen, ever so evil? And how does one (like me) who allows
author-interpritation of my read of canon mesh this with Cindy's post?

> After all, "evil" is rather broadly defined, isn't it?
> 
> Evil is defined as "Morally bad or wrong; wicked.  Causing ruin, 
> injury or pain; harmful.  Purportedly bad or blameworthy.  
> Characterized by anger or spite; malicious." (emphasis removed).

Causing ruin, injury or pain? Ron, during the Yule Ball
Purportedly bad? Harry, going to Hogsmeade
Blameworthy? Lupin, who didn't take his Wolfsbane
Characterized by anger? McGonnagal, taking points from Harry, Hermione
and Neville

Well, now that everyone is clearly ever so evil, am I the only one who
thinks that the above definition is overbroad and a gross
oversimplification if it's used to determine that one has an "evil
nature", as Cindy put it?

I certainly don't want to go on the slippery slope that says there is
"no good and evil..." but I think that those who say that Draco *is*
evil simply because the dictionary says so have already gone there. If
being malicious is evil, then those of us who think that Dumbledore did
that last minute award of points to punish the Slytherins would have to
put him into the Already Evil camp as well, simply because we think that
he did so out of a desire to cause distress to another. That's one
component of being malicious, according to Merriam-Webster. 

If evil is so broadly defined, then everyone has done something evil.
And therefore, does that mean that everyone is evil?

No, I can't look to the definition for what is and is not evil in JKR's
universe.

I have to look to her books, and almost as importantly, to her
interviews (because I am not of the school that disregards such things).


"I am dealing with evil - I am trying to examine what happens to this
community when a maniac tries to take over". 
Her books also deal with the "reality of how evil it is to take a human
life". "If you are going to write about those kinds of things you have a
moral obligation to show what that involves, not to prettify it or to
minimise it." 

"I had to consider how to depict an evil being, such as Lord
Voldemort..."

I think she'd be discomforted by our tossing around this overbroad
definition of evil, because it really minimizes the true evil of
Voldemort, that maniac trying to take over, that "evil being". And I
can't suss the definition of evil as being akin to maliciousness or
blameworthy or spiteful or even, absolutely and all the time, morally
wrong (although I do concurr that something morally wrong can be evil -
it's just not an "always" situation). 

**Do you absolutely have a sense of how evil it is to take another
person's life? Yes, I think in my book you do. I think you do. I think
you see that is a horrific thing. I have enormous respect for human
life. I do not think that you would read either of the deaths in that
book and think, yeah, well, he's gone, off we go. Not at all. I think
it's very clear where my sympathies lie. And here we are dealing with
someone, I'm dealing with a villain who does hold human life incredibly
cheap. That's how it happens: one squeeze of the trigger. Gone. Forever.
That's evil. **

And that's where I'm drawing my definition of *evil* from, when I look
at JKR's books. To do otherwise would feel as wrongheaded as trying to
examine wizarding clothing choices by thinking that a jumper is a dress.

Alla wrote:
> I've seen some grown-up 
> Dracos, who proclaimed on the streeets, wrote in the newspapers that 
> all problems in the republics of the former Soviet Union are because 
> of "mudbloods" (oops - because of jews).
> I followed closely the discussion on this list whether Draco is a 
> racist. I did not trust myself to post back then yet, but I can't 
> call him anything else except "racist". I think that being given a 
> chance he will stop talking and start acting (killing muggle-borns). 

Oh, I never said I thought he wasn't spouting the racist things he'd
heard at home; he certainly is (although I do feel that at least in CoS,
he doesn't know how insulting the term "mudblood" is - I thnk Lucius
used it as a synonym for Muggle-born, and I don't think it ever occurred
to Draco to use it otherwise, before that). 

I think the really relevant-to-this-discussion part of Alla's post was
the reference to "grown up" Dracos, and her notation that he's still a
child. He is, and he's a child who, the subtext of the books implies,
hasn't had any opportunity to interact with Muggles and Muggle-born
witches and wizards - do we really think that Lucius would allow such a
thing? He's grown up in a house with a *sometimes-homicidal* father
who's abusive to the "staff" and given that we haven't seen any
indication of wizarding primary schools, I think it's likely that he's
spent very little time with other kids, who would give him perspectives
on things without pre-screening by Lucius. 

So when's he had a chance to learn to be otherwise? 

So far, he hasn't. No, not even from Dumbledore, who certainly never
took *any* opportunity (other than arguably his speech at the end of
GoF) to educate the students in the importance of saying no to evil, or
of fighting aganst it. 

As Marina wrote, " It's possible that he still hasn't fully understood
the implications of the ideas he regularly spouts.  But he's rapidly
approaching the point where "but I didn't understand" ceases to be an
acceptable excuse."

He's approaching it, but he's not there yet. And IMHO, I don't know that
he can get there without actually having a personal decision to make -
to (as Bel and others have said) torture and kill someone, which, of
course, I don't think he'll be able to do, given that he's walked away
from, or avoided starting, confrontations before (Hogsmeade, Yule Ball,
when Hermione slapped him). I completely agree with Bel when she said,
"it's one thing to be a thoughtless, insecure bully. It's entirely
another matter to be a murderer." It's a line he hasn't crossed yet (and
I'm not really sure where you saw him doing his damndest to get Buckbeak
killed, Marina - it's clear that Lucius is doing the work there -
Draco's not even present at the execution, and given that he was on the
campus anyway, I'd expect him to be if he was completely content with
participating in it to that extent). 

Cindy wrote, "[s]upporting Evil (and conversely failing to support the
forces of good) is in itself Evil." Is one supporting evil when one
doesn't speak out against it, given the opportunity? Is one supporting
evil when one doesn't take advantage of having maliable minds, and at
least trying to educate them by teaching ethics? This goes back to the
recent (current?) thread on Dumbledore's point-award at the Leaving
Feast (btw - fascinatng ideas people have posted that everyone knew in
advance but that Draco was in denial!) - did he lose a magnificent
teaching opportunity there, a chance to explain to the students what
would've happened had Voldemort obtained the stone? Or even that he
tried to kill eleven year old Harry in the process? I know he says that
what happened is "all over the school" but that doesn't mean that the
full importance of that, as a showing of Voldemort's evil, is something
the ickle firsties are discussing, or processing. 



heidi


Btw - marina, I'll explain offlist later today about the fanfic - you're
making a jump to Lucius there that you shouldn't be making, and that I'm
not sure where you're getting from the text I posted.