Grindelwald, Voldemort, and other dark folks

[ssk7882 <skelkins@attbi.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 52624

The Catlady provided a list of non-ideological reasons which 
might lead people in the WW to throw in their lot with Voldemort:

> Some are seeking wealth (their share of the loot), slaves, sex 
> (from the slaves), a paycheck, or just think they're less likely 
> to be killed if they're on the winning side (like Pettigrew). Some 
> seek a position of power ("Lord Voldemort will make me supervisor 
> of traffic enforcement for this town") which they can use to 
> "punish" the people they don't like. A Dark Wizard can offer 
> more than a Dark Muggle can, magic things, of which a potion of 
> immortality would be tops ... 

Immortality is the biggie, I'd say.  The very first book in the 
series emphasizes the temptation of immortality.  Harry's internal 
struggle largely revolves around his need to accept his parents' 
deaths.  Voldemort is "Voldemort" and his followers "Death Eaters."  
I really don't think that's all accidental.

To the above list, though, I would also add the restoration of ancient
class privilege, which I believe to be Lucius Malfoy's main interest 
in Voldemort and which I don't view as either purely ideological 
(although it can be framed that way) or as *precisely* the same thing 
as the issue of purity of blood (although the two issues are 
obviously closely related).  I believe that the exchange between 
Malfoy and Borgin in Knockturn Alley at the beginning of CoS serves 
to highlight issues which might have led so many members of the WW's 
older families to throw in their lot with Voldemort the first time 
around.

Ffred is more concerned with ideological issues, though.  He wrote:

> So where do you go if you are a wizard with political ambitions 
> for change? The only place seems to be into conspiracy. 

<slow smile>

Well...yes.  That really *is* one of the more troubling things 
about the developing backstory, isn't it?  It certainly is for 
me.  I find that the more we are told about the Ministry, and 
about wizarding society as a whole, the more sympathy I feel for 
the Death Eaters, particularly for those who signed on when they 
were quite young.  

It's hard for me as a reader to believe that all of them were as
cynical or as purely self-interested as Lucius Malfoy seems to be, 
especially given that each passing volume seems to paint the WW's 
status quo in darker and darker shades.  GoF gives us that sickening 
account of the WW under Crouch, tells us about an attempted genocide 
of the giants, and then provides, in the figure of younger Crouch, 
an example of a servant of Voldemort who, while he does seem to 
have been rather severely emotionally disturbed, is also presented 
as a highly idealistic personality type.

It gets harder and harder for me as a reader to believe that there 
were no misguided -- but nonetheless quite *legitimately* aggrieved --
 idealists among Voldemort's followers.  It would be very nice, IMO, 
if this really were a symptom of the series' transition from a focus 
on the concerns of childhood to one on the concerns of adolescence.  
Sadly, though, I strongly suspect that it is accidental, that JKR 
really has no idea just how well she's laid the groundwork for future 
examination of the problems of misguided idealism in her series.

Such a pity.

Of course, one can always hope.  To my mind, the introduction of 
Snape's old Slytherin classmates, certain aspects of their characters 
as depicted so far (Fanatic!Lestranges, hints of ambivalence in 
Avery), and the implied authorial promise that they will be brought 
into the plotline as figures of more importance in the next volume or 
two, all provide us with by far our best hope that JKR actually 
*might* be planning on touching on a few of these issues in later 
canon.


Elkins