Villainy

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 109456

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" <naama_gat at h...> wrote:
> 
> Immortality (of various kinds) has been sought by most religions. Why 
> do you suddenly find Voldemort irrational for wanting it? 
>
Kneasy:
Really? I thought it was immortal *afterlife* they were all panting for.
  
> Naama:
> I'm not sure where you got your numbers from. In any case, I don't 
> see the relevancy here. A successful coup doesn't necessarily invovle 
> mass killings - well targeted political assasinations may be far more 
> effective. And when Voldemort takes over the WW, the Muggle world 
> won't present a problem. It is part of the Potterverse logic that 
> Muggles and their technology are practically powerless before magic. 
> Voldemort doesn't need nations to grovel before him - just the 
> wizards of each nation. 
>

Kneasy:
13 muggles
Quirrell (arguably)
Bertha Jorkins
Frank Bryce
Barty Crouch Snr
Cedic Diggory
Broderick Bode (probably)
Sirius Black (probably)

The Potters don't  count; that happened before the books started.

You'll note that there aren't any "well-targeted political assinations"
and none apparently planned. If he actually wanted hordes of Dark 
Magic capable hench-wizards he'd be recruiting at Durmstrang, not
in hiding in the UK. In fact, if he was all that powerful, he wouldn't
be in hiding at all. 

Voldy couldn't take over a whelk stall let alone a society. He's thrashing
about achieving absolutely nothing. Every time he pops his head
above the parapet he gets it handed to him. He's a loser. And that
is exactly the point I'm trying to make - he is NOT credible as the 
most evil, sneaky, extremely powerful, Dark Magic wielding terror
merchant in the WW. 
 
> Naama:
> I find it a bit strange your talking of *imagined*childhood slights. 
> You are talking still of Tom Riddle, right? His father abandonment 
> was not imagined, was it? He did actually let his own son grow up in 
> an orphanage, neglected, loveless and possibly actively abused. 
> 

Kneasy:
Tough. Means little. How many rejected orphans start a war? Or is
it just the magical ones? 

Naama:
> And what *could* cause a lust for world domination? I mean, most 
> people want power to some degree, but over the entire world? Can you 
> really imagine a healthy, sane person setting world domination as his 
> life's goal? I disagree also with your dismissive "ersatz pop 
> psychology." I read some of Alice Miller's impressive analysis of 
> Hitler's and Stalin's life, and IMO there's nothing ersatz about it. 
> I found it  extremely persuasive. 
>
Kneasy:
Hitler and Stalin were opportunists. They each filled a power vacuum,
replaced ineffectual political leaders, in Stalins case because Lenin
was ill and dying. Both of them were part of the political process
*before* showing what their true agendas would mean. Both of them
had a recognisable, tracable political development. It was most
definitely not "Nobody loves me; I think I'll take over the world."
Voldy is an object lesson in how not  to succeed.
 
> Naama:
> You have a supernatual world, with supernatural beings in it - what 
> real sense does it make if it isn't, on some level, metaphorical? HP 
> (and any good fantasy story) doesn't really make sense if you fail to 
> interpret it, on some level, as a morality play. Voldemort is not 
> only an evil human being, he is also Evil. And you can't make a bad 
> man into Evil if you give him understandable/credible motivations

Kneasy:
Read  Solzhenitsyn. He makes the point that you can, because a truly
evil person believes he is doing things for the best - he's saving his
country from a terrible fate etc. etc. He cannot see that the ends he
envisages do not justify the means used. Hence fascism, communism,
the Terror after the French Revolution. All of  them were intended to
be *beneficial* to the society. But the price to be paid was extortionate.
Voldy doesn't care about anybody except Voldy.