Comparisons

[Barry Arrowsmith]

No: HPFGUIDX 89747

Browsing through past posts  there are a number that compare  
characters in the Potterverse with other individuals either fictional, 
or less often, real. This can be an illuminating experience; parallels 
emerge, aims and ideals seem to become congruent and insights can be 
glimpsed which may be relevant to the books we spend so much time 
discussing.

A  few months ago, BBC TV ran a highly rated and popular series called 
'Great Britons', an attempt to identify, by public vote the most 
important and influential Briton in history.
The public sent in nominations and the top 100 were  reviewed and put 
to the vote to determine the top 10. These were then examined in detail 
and another vote held to find a winner. In the top 10 were the likes of 
Shakespeare, Newton, Brunel, Elizabeth 1, Churchill; names that 
resonate through English and indeed world history. Included in that  
ten was a surprise candidate - Cromwell, regicide and dictator (in all 
but name).
Now who do you think he might be compared to?

For those who are not familiar with him (or rely on Hollywood or TV for 
their history), he was a man from an ordinary farming-stock background, 
was one of a group  that challenged the over-mighty power of the 
unelected ruling classes, formed the first truly professional army, 
defeated the forces of reaction, dissolved a corrupt and self-serving 
parliament (even though it had backed him) and tried and executed the 
king when it became obvious that he was reneging on the revised  
constitutional settlement. He  also received a *very* bad press both at 
the time and later. He was by no means perfect but more lies have been 
told about him than almost anyone else in British history.

Let us, as they say, compare and contrast.

We can only go part-way because the full tale is yet to be told, but 
parallels between him and Tom Riddle in the Potterverse seem obvious.
Humble beginnings, challenging an un-elected establishment, forming an 
army, seemingly backed by a corrupt Ministry -  that's the easy bit. 
Could apply to any number of historical figures, so let's look a bit 
closer to get a real feel for the man.

He first comes to our attention as the person who shops Hagrid and is 
ultimately responsible for his expulsion and loss of his wand. Many 
seem to think that this was unjust, but was it? Hagrid was rearing an 
Acromantula in his dormitory; a creature specified as Class A 
Non-Tradeable Goods, attracting *severe penalties* (my emphasis) for 
their trade or importation. It seems to me that Tom was performing a 
public service. True, the unfortunate demise of Myrtle must be seen as 
a grave error, but an objective examination of the event does make it 
less cut and dried. Tom did not breed or nurture  the Basilisk, that is 
down to S. Slytherin. It  was a fait accompli that had been lying in 
wait for anyone that accessed the Chamber of Secrets for the past 
thousand years. To argue that it is all Tom's fault is to believe that  
he knew in advance what  the Chamber contained and had the ability to 
fully control it from the first moment of contact. Is there any 
evidence to support that contention?

Godrics Hollow has been the subject of much discussion, but do we 
really know what  happened? I don't think we do. A Tom much changed by 
his travels and experiences calls  on the Potters. Then what? James 
dies, Lily dies (although we know that Tom did not attack Lily on 
sight, but asked her to move, for what reason hasn't been revealed) and 
Harry gets a scar. But what actually happened? We *don't* know. We have 
to take the word of Dumbledore who wasn't even  there and who  has 
produced no witnesses. So where did his tale come from? It all seems a 
bit fishy to me.

Later events are also open to reinterpretation; Quirrell died through 
the actions of Harry, Tom certainly didn't  kill him; Diary!Tom is not 
the real thing but a magical construct from Malfoy's hands - the real 
Tom was convalescing in Albania; Graveyard!Tom (GoF)  is a quite 
natural attempt  to eliminate an enemy sworn to destroy him. Same with 
DD at the Ministry. Deaths have been inflicted by both sides, and as is 
to be expected are subject to political and emotional spin by the 
parties in conflict.

So much of what we read seems to emanate from Dumbledore or his 
minions. Could it be significant that DD is a very influential 
personality in the existing regime? A regime that exists because of a 
corrupt Ministry keen to deny equality to those it disapproves of.
DD spouts words (oh, doesn't he just!) but you'll notice that he never 
actually does anything to bring justice to the oppressed.

It's all very  reminiscent of England in the 1640s. The one trying to 
bring about change is characterised as an evil monster, those opposed 
are determined to maintain their privileged positions come what may. 
They  fear that other marginalised groups (Giants, Goblins) may also 
seek a re-ordering of society. War is imminent.

To push the comparison a little further characters could be presented 
thus:
Tom - Cromwell (the lower order getting even)
DD  - King Charles (devious and untrustworthy)
Harry - Prince Rupert (charming but ruthless)
Fudge - Denzil Hollies  (parliamentary leader keen to stay at the top)

Fun, isn't it?

Kneasy