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

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 51602

(This post doesn't address points made later in this thread as the bulk of it 
was written earlier today.)

Heidi:

>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?


As a guilty party who has taken part in a number of ESE threads, I am the 
first to admit that the word "evil" is used on this list in a number of 
different ways, according to the intent of the poster and their method of 
reading canon. I've used it myself in different ways.

On one level, it is used Ever-So-Flippantly, almost as a game. 
Because some of us are guilty of playing a game with canon, of taking perhaps 
to an extreme a subversive approach to the text, finding unlikely, but 
canonical evidence which could point to a character Not Being What They Seem. 
It's a fun intellectual exercise. I'd put Evil!Minerva into that category. 
It's certainly how she started out.

On another, the usage itself is still perhaps on the side of flippant, but 
the poster really *does* wonder whether JKR is pulling the wool over our 
eyes, whether there really *is* more to a character than at first appears.

On another, there is a subtext, even, to the charter of the Order of the 
Flying Hedgehog.
We know  of the atmosphere of paranoia which existed during VWI. Is this 
paranoia, this distrust of anyone we don't really know really not going to 
re-emerge once Voldemort returns?

On another, it's used Ever-So-Seriously, in discussion of the true nature of 
Evil in the Potterverse, as you do here, Heidi and as I have done myself.

Heidi (quoting Cindy and her dictionary):

>> 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?

Eloise:
I would draw a distinction between *behaviour* and *people*. I, too, am very 
reluctant to call *any* real person *evil*. But evil exists, it seems to me.
I would preface the quoted definition of evil by the words, "behaviour or 
actions which are..."

Heidi:
>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?

Eloise:
No. Just that all of us are capable of evil actions. 
Now the problem that I have is this. I have no qualms in saying that someone 
is a *good* person, but I am *very* sqeamish about saying that anyone is an 
*evil* person. 

Bit inconsistent, that.

You see, we tend to talk about people in shorthand according to how we 
perceive the majority of their actions. If I am prepared to call someone 
good, why shouldn't I call someone evil?

Well, I guess it's partly projection - I wouldn't like someone to call me 
evil based on my shortcomings, but it's also because it implies a judgement 
of someone else's soul, which I believe have no right to judge. Really, I 
have no knowledge of how *good* anyone else's soul is, either but I prefer to 
think the best of people.

Now with characters, as opposed to real people, I can draw a distinction. I 
don't mind calling them evil, up to a point, but really I'm only comfortable 
with it used in a superficial sense, either mischievously or in the sense 
that a particular character's net contribution to the Potterverse Good/Evil 
balance is negative.  

In discussions like this, however, I start to become uncomfortable. I start 
interpreting fannishly as Elkins would put it (as I probably do most of the 
time) and fall victim to some fallacy or other which means I start thinking 
of the character as a real person with a real soul that I cannot condemn. 
Although I have no qualms at all in agreeing that most of what Draco says and 
does is, if not deliberately evil, evil in its effects. 

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).


<snip JKR quotes and Heidi's commentry which I didn't want to snip!>

Heidi:
>JKR:
>**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.

Eloise:
I think that Draco's words potentially indicate that he holds life as cheap.
Voldemort is JKR's ultimate expression of evil, but he's not evil on his own. 
He needs the co-operation of others to impose his evil on the world. And 
right at the moment, Draco seems a pretty likely candidate to be one of the 
first in line to help him.

I think, as we have discussed before (notably in the Midnight in the Garden 
thread) that JKR's depiction of Good and Evil is complex. It doesn't seem to 
me to be a simple, clear-cut dualism.

On the one hand, we seem to be presented with a simple tale of Good vs Evil; 
we seem to be invited to take sides. On the other, we have no 'Good' 
characters in whom we don't find flaws, even Dumbledore, her apparent 
embodiment of goodness is flawed.

I find it rather interesting that according to interview JKR does seem to 
invest so much in Voldemort as the embodiment of Evil when it seems that 
little evils and little playing-into-the-hands-of-evil seem to permeate the 
books. What seems lacking is much indication that those she depicts as on the 
side of evil are as morally complex as those identified as being 'good'.  Th
is is why I prefer to talk of a Light vs Dark dualism (the Light side 
acknowledging the existence of good and evil, the Dark side denying it) 
rather than a simple Good vs Evil dualism. In this way, those on the Dark 
side who become enightened, such as Snape, naturally align themselves with 
the Light side. Joining the Dark side, as Quirrell did seems to involve a 
denial of morality leading to a subsequent lack of moral complexity in the 
character.

Heidi:
<>
>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. 

Eloise:
No. I would agree with that in essence. I suppose the House Point system is 
supposed to reinforce some moral standards, although Snape effectively 
negates that for the Slytherins. And the House system itself reinforces the 
traits which the the Sorting Hat identifies in the students.

The 'Dissing the Slyths' feast seems to me the same type of behaviour that 
(IMHO) allowed Snape to become a DE, rather than coming earlier to realise on 
which side his true loyalties lay.

Heidi:
>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 

Eloise:
Yes there is a line. But I don't think one can argue that one is a better 
person for not having the guts to do what one wishes to do.
I'm afraid that because of my background, I have great difficulty keeping 
Scripture out of these discussions. One of Jesus' harder teachings was 
precisely that *wanting* to do something has just the same moral import as 
doing the deed itself.

Heidi:
>(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). 

Eloise:
Lucius may be doing the work, but surely it was Draco who set the whole thing 
in motion, exaggerating the extent of his injury, getting his father 
involved, getting media involvement. He was certainly pleased at the planned 
outcome.

Heidi:
>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? 

Eloise:
Yes. I'm afraid so. As so often quoted round here,

"It is necessary only for the good man to do nothing for evil to triumph"

I do hold Dumbledore accountable.

<>

I think that Good and Evil are inadequate ways to describe the characters of 
the Potterverse. Well, I think they're inadequate to describe anyone, really.
I think the Potterverse is a place where Good and Evil exist, however, at 
least as far as the characters with whom we are ostensibly supposed to 
identify are concerned. 

Calling a character 'Evil' is often, IMHO, a shorthand way of describing 
their function.  'Evil' characters are those who aren't concerned with 
matters of morality, who put self interest before all else, who aren't 
interested in 'Choice', whose actions overall are more likely to tip the 
scales of the Potterverse towards the dominance of Evil over Good.

Where House Slytherin is concerned, I am hoping that JKR has some surprises 
up her sleeve. It does seem to me that there is at present a mismatch between 
a superficial Good/Evil dualism in which the reader is told who to root for 
and JKR's concern to show that the latter are far from being saints. This, I 
think is the reason why some people criticise the books for not giving a 
clear enough depiction of Good vs Evil. JKR knows that the world is more 
complicated than that, that people are more complicated than that. I hope to 
see some characters from whom we would expect the worse facing choices and 
making the right decisions. 

Where Draco is going, I really don't know. If he were a real person, I 
wouldn't call him Evil as (apart from my own scruples) it seems to me that 
given his upbringing and certain arguable inadequacies of the education he 
receives at Hogwarts he hasn't really been given a *real* chance to choose 
yet. But as a character, at present he seems firmly on the side of Evil.

~Eloise