[HPforGrownups] Re: Rowling and Philosophy

[GulPlum]

No: HPFGUIDX 53636

At 05:58 12/03/03 , Sherri wrote:

<snip>

>Rowling tries very hard to show the yin and yang of  everyone.  All of her 
>good guys have faults, and most of her bad guys have some redeeming 
>qualities.  Except Voldemort.  I keep waiting for her to show us the 
>'soft' side of LV.  I don't think he will be redeemable, but I would like 
>to see him be human.

Actually, there is a parallel to Voldemort's irredeemably "evil" nature: 
Dumbledore's categorical "good" nature. Even to the point that although 
every important character in the books has thus far got angry or lost their 
sang-froid at some stage (or more to the point, *acted* on that anger), 
Dumbledore never has.

I really liked Tom's post and what he said. I'd like to add something else 
into the mix, though, from a conversation we've been having for the last 
couple of days over on the OT-Chatter list. I said there that I expected 
the subject to crop up here, but I didn't expect it to happen independently 
of that conversation. :-)

The OT-Chatter conversation came about because of an interview with Philip 
Pullman on UK TV on Sunday evening. One of his points, which I see as 
having bearing on the Potterverse and the present conversation, is that 
what Pulman (and JKR, though each has a different take on the stakes) 
depicts is not a battle between "good" and "evil", but a battle between two 
opposing visions of what is "good".

Riddle/Voldemort doesn't do what he does because he thinks he's evil, or 
because what he does is wrong. He does what he does because he thinks it's 
*right*.

Riddle/Voldemort (and Slytherin before him) believes that wizarding society 
should be strong. In itself, there is nothing wrong with that perspective. 
As it happens, Dumbledore (presented as Riddle/Voldemort's nemesis) 
believes the same thing.

It's in how that strength can best be achieved, and how to maintain it, 
that they differ. Riddle believes that strength lies in separatism, purity 
and superiority. Dumbledore believes that strength lies in inclusiveness, 
variety and an acknowledgement of our weaknesses.

Draco Malfoy believes in purity and the inherent rights of the wealthy. 
This is a result of knee-jerk prejudices. Harry instinctively believes 
those views to be wrong, based not on prejudices but on his experience. (To 
propose another Kantian dichotomy, Tom.) :-)

It's not coincidental that the first book, which by its very title is about 
immortality, opposes Riddle's desire to be immortal (as a result of which 
he had *chosen* to become Voldemort; my view as someone who understands the 
subtleties of French is that the name means "Flight from death") with 
Dumbledore's statement that "to the well-organised mind, death is but the 
next great adventure".

Is it "right" to want to overcome death? Is it "right" to accept it as a 
friend? Inherently, there is nothing wrong with either position, and we all 
would like to overcome death (that desire is at the root of almost every 
religion on the planet!).

The difference is all in the choices, and what price we are willing to put 
on achieving our desires. Voldemort's choices in overcoming death include 
killing not only impure people but the pure Unicorns. For Dumbledore, 
despite his statement, life is precious. Nobody has a right to decide to 
take another. Hence his dislike of the Dementors, which extinguish not only 
life, but the very possibility of it (the soul).

It is only the context which drives the reader to the unambiguous 
conclusion that Voldemort's desires and choices are ultimately evil; there 
is no indication that he *is* evil, it is his actions (and the beliefs 
which fuel them) which are evil. Dumbledore's desires and choices are for 
everyone to co-exist in harmony. The reader is drawn to conclude that this 
is the ultimate good.

--
GulPlum AKA RIchard, who had better shut up because this is becoming a ramble.