Evil Is As Evil Does (WAS Evil is not something you can deal with lightly. )

[Cindy C. <cindysphynx@comcast.net>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51587

Heidi wrote:

> 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? 

<snip>

> 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


True, there are many characters in canon who have done things that 
are malicious, harmful, hurtful or spiteful.  Are those characters 
evil?  

The answer, I think, is that you have to look at the whole character 
to the extent that we can do so within the confines of canon.

Was it evil of Hermione to slap Draco?  Let's say that it was.  Is 
Hermione an evil person?  No, I don't think so.  The reason is that 
her isolated acts of evil are far outweighed by her acts of good.  I 
could list them here, but we all know what they are -- everything 
from saving Sirius' life to helping Harry prepare for the tasks to 
helping Neville.  On balance, Hermione is not evil in my mind 
because her acts of good far outweigh her missteps.  As no one in 
real life or in HP is perfect, then examining the whole character is 
the logical way to separate evil characters from good ones.

I reach the same conclusion regarding McGonagall, Lupin, Harry and 
Ron for the same reason.

And then there is Draco.  We've talked a bit about Draco's mean, 
spiteful, hurtful, racist conduct.  

But to get the full picture, I'd like someone to list for me the 
*good* acts Draco performs *in canon.*  I don't mean ambiguous acts 
that, with just the right spin, could maybe just maybe be 
interpreted as possibly good.  I'm talking Draco clearly choosing 
good over evil.  Helpful over harmful.  Kind over spiteful.  
Thoughtful over insulting.  Compassion over rejoicing at the 
misfortune of others.  The one thing I have heard folks cite as 
proof of Draco's upstanding character is that he told Hermione to 
keep her bushy head down -- even his one allegedly good act is 
tainted with a healthy dose of spite.

My reading of Draco is that he is currently a 14-year old evil 
child.  He *might* change, but that's not saying much in his 
defense, really.  Mrs. Lestrange *might* change.  Heck, Pettigrew 
*might* change, and Pettigrew's life debt to Harry is foreshadowing 
that Pettigrew will very likely change -- but he is currently quite 
evil.  *Might* change just isn't much of a defense to a charge that 
one is currently evil, if you ask me.

And if the best folks can think to say about you is that you are 
young and so *might* change your evil ways some day, that isn't very 
helpful in proving that you're not evil right now.

Heidi:

> 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).


Are you saying that JKR believes that evil is limited to murder?  
And if so, are you saying that means that only characters who are 
shown to have killed someone are evil?  

If I'm following you here, are we saying that JKR would say that 
because Mrs. Lestrange tortured the Longbottoms and left them alive 
means she is not evil?  

Even if I go along with that for a minute (accepting first that JKR 
would believe such a thing and second that her statements in 
interview snippets are probative here), that really doesn't help 
poor Draco very much.  Say JKR would say that Draco is not evil 
because he is young and hasn't killed anyone.  OK.  Then Draco is 
spiteful, malicious, racist, angry, hurts others, takes pleasure in 
their misfortune and doesn't ever do anything good.  Whether we use 
the label "evil,", we wind up in exactly the same place, do we not?

I'd be very surprised if JKR is among those who thinks that people 
who are spiteful, malicious, racist, angry and take pleasure in 
hurting others are not evil.  I'm thinking that sounds like evil by 
the definitions of most people.

See, what I'm objecting to, I think, is a certain straw-man feeling 
I get from the "Draco is not evil" argument as it is being presented 
here.  In other words, it seems that the argument is that Draco is 
not evil because it is possible for him to be *more* evil.  This 
seems entirely beside the point.  I would say, for instance, that 
Mrs. Lestrange is evil.  Now, had she murdered the Longbottoms after 
torturing them (or murdered Neville), then she would be even more 
evil.  But the potential for additional evil doesn't persuade me 
that someone is not evil for what they have already done.  That 
Draco could be more evil -- that he has not "maxed out" his evil -- 
just isn't persuasive to me.

Heidi:

> 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.

I'm not sure I'm following you here.  Are you saying that JKR's 
interview snippets that seem to be discussing the murders in GoF and 
Voldemort mean that evil in the Potterverse includes murder *only?*  
Why should we adopt such a strange and artifically constrained 
definition of evil for our purposes here?

I mean, if we need proof of an unjustified murder to declare a 
character evil, then a whole lot of characters most of us would 
agree are evil are going to walk.  Lockhart.  Lucius.  The DEs in 
the graveyard.  Grindewald.  Crouch Sr.  

Heidi:

> 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). 

Although I respect your interpretation, there really isn't much in 
the way of actual canon to support it, IMHO.  After all, we don't 
know what Draco was told at home, really.  

But there is something in canon to suggest that Draco knows full 
well what he is doing when he hurls a slur -- he never apologizes.  
That is one way a person can avoid the impression of doing evil -- 
taking steps to rectify the hurt that has been caused.

Not Draco, though.

Heidi:

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

Who knows?  

But I really think that if a child like Draco consistently performs 
evil acts and never performs good acts or attempts to mitigate the 
hurt he has caused, the child is evil *regardless* of his home 
environment.  I can only think of two grounds to excuse the evil 
acts of a child:  being too young to understand the consequences of 
his actions, or being mentally ill in such a way as to impair the 
child's ability to know right from wrong.  Since Draco is well past 
the age when a child knows right from wrong and since no one has 
claimed that Draco is a mental incompetent, I'm thinking he should 
be held accountable for his actions.

>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." 

Yup, that's true.  Bullying and murder are two different things.  
Draco is not a murder.

Yet.

Cindy -- who would like a great big helping of Redeemable!Pettigrew 
but who can't quite stomach NotAMurderThereforeNotEvil!Draco