Them evil characters (was Cynicism and Betrayal)

[David <dfrankiswork@netscape.net>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51306

Dicey wrote:

> 39470 is Elkins's convincing "outing" of McGonagall, but it's hard 
to
> say whether Elkins has her tongue firmly planted in cheek or if she
> thinks she's onto something.

I don't really have anything to add to that post, but, since today 
seems to be the day of sharing initial PS impressions, I was 
suspicious of her from the start.  Considering that at the time I 
had no idea the book even *had* concealed villains, or that it was 
part of a series, that was a bit unusual for me.
> 
> > David, cooking up his evil!Hermione theory
> 
> Do we have one of those in the archives, folks?  ::flips through
> them::  Nope!  Don't believe we do!

I thought not.  Now I have a small puzzle here.  Logically, I think 
the extreme case of perversity would be an Evil!Harry theory.  Up 
there with that Christie in which the narrator is the villain (I 
won't give the title for fear of spoiling).  But emotionally - it's 
OK to be emotional here, isn't it? - I feel that Evil!Hermione would 
be *more* perverse.  To wantonly concoct an anti-Hermione theory 
would be almost, well, *capricious*.

Why, I don't understand.  Is it that Evil!Harry is a sort of simple 
mirror reversal of everything in the values of the books, so it all 
cancels out on some level?  Just call good evil and evil good and 
you get the desired result with minimal effort?

Is it that the text in fact gives us some indications that Evil!
Harry is a constant possibility?  After all, that is the obvious (if 
IMO not at all the only) interpretation of the Hat's musings on 
him.  It is my favoured understanding of Snape's treatment of Harry -
 that as an ex-DE he sees some of his own childhood traits in Harry 
(as possibly he also did in James) and is moving to suppress them, 
possibly unwisely but with serious if anxious intent.  It is on 
offer from the Dementors too: join us and you can hear your mother.

Of course, that is different from the Evil!anybody theories that 
posit that the subject has been evil *all along*.  But perhaps the 
vague awareness that Harry could turn to evil in the future makes 
such a theory have less emotional impact.

Hermione, on the other hand, feels really hard to paint as evil, in 
either the future or the past.  Will her willingness to exert 
emotional blackmail corrupt her entire soul?  Implausible.  Will her 
resentment of Fleur blight her life with bitterness forevermore?  
Unlikely.  Will her impatience with those who don't immediately 
share her high moral standards result in dessicated contempt for all 
around her? I cannot say.  Will she dabble ever more deeply in 
magical cosmetic surgery, until she has undergone so many difficult 
and dangerous magical transformations that nobody will recognise the 
brilliant student who became Head Girl at Hogwarts?  I think the 
world should be told.

David