Villainy

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 109560

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> --- 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.
   
What's the difference? Remaining for all eternity your own self - 
isn't that what immortality is? Besides, if you look at Christian 
eschatological accounts, it's about the (also) resurrection of the 
body, not just the immortality of the soul (which is eternal, 
anyway). 

> > Naama:
>. A successful coup doesn't necessarily invovle 
> > mass killings - well targeted political assasinations may be far 
more 
> > effective. 

> snip>
> 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. 

True. I thought you were talking about VWI. 

>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.

It is specifically said that Voldemort fears Dumbledore. Indeed, we 
see that Dumbledore, apparently without breaking much sweat, beat 
Voldemort in their duel. The story is about Evil trying to take over, 
not Good trying to overthrow established Evil.
> 
> > 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? 

Well, change "magical" to "charismatic" or "politically talented", 
and yes, it's true. Lets put it differently, how many talented, 
charismatic people become crazy, cruel dictators? 
> 
> > 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.


As far as I know, Solzhenitsyn didn't write fantasy stories. *Of 
course* in real life people don't set out in a self-conscious way to 
be Evil. That's precisely why historical figures don't collapse to 
metaphores. Even Hitler didn't intend to be evil - he sincerely 
believed that ridding the world of Jews was necessary; that he was 
doing it for the good of the German nation. JKR, however, is writing 
a fantasy story. In Voldemort she is trying, I think, to do something 
very interesting: have a typical supernatural Evil figure, who 
doesn't have supernatural origins (like Sauron). This is someone who 
used to be a regular human being, and through deliberate choice 
became Evil incarnate. By having an unremittingly evil figure like 
him (who hasn't a single good, human impulse, as you point out), she 
marks out very starkly the all-important theme of choice. 

I think what I'm trying to say is that you can't have a completely 
evil figure who is *not* single-dimensional (in other words, a 
caricature). I agree with Neri (I think) who said that JKR is 
interested in Tom Riddle, not in Voldemort. Also for the reader - how 
interesting is it to look at a painting that is just black paint? 
However, for the metphorical, symbolic level of the story to work, 
she does need a totally evil figure. 


Naama