Purely evil

[ginnysthe1]

No: HPFGUIDX 118443


Khinterberg wrote: 
This quote has interested me for some time now.

"Q. Tom Houseman asked, "Do you think that anyone in real life is 
truly wholly evil like Draco Malfoy and Voldemort?"

A. Rowling said, "My instinct is to say that probably not, but I 
can't answer that question without ruining the series for you." 
Rowling said that in future books she will attempt to show "why 
Voldemort is who he is."    [from the Star-Ledger, Newark, NJ 16 
October 1999]
 
Is she telling us that neither Voldemort nor Draco are completely 
evil? I like to think so, because it would make the plot and 
character development so interesting.  I'm not a fan of black and 
white goodness and evil, and I like to think of this quote as showing 
us, the fans, that Jo doesn't either, even for her "evil" characters.

Azriona responded:
I kind of think it could go either way.  I mean, if JKR said "Why, 
yes.  There are people in life who are purely evil from Day One and 
that's that", then you'd have the possibility that Draco or Lucius or 
Voldy are pure evil.  ...  If you had JKR saying "No, no one can be 
pure evil" then you've got fans who say "Look!  There's hope for 
those three yet!"    Either way she answers, she's toast.

Carol responded:
The problem for me is in the wording of the question, which *assumes* 
that Draco (a boy of sixteen in the next book) is already purely evil 
like Voldemort. Admittedly, Tom Riddle was already purely evil at 
fifteen or sixteen, releasing a basilisk with the intention of 
killing Muggleborns, and at sixteen or seventeen, murdering his own 
family, but I don't put the bullying, badmouthing Draco in the same 
category--yet. He has yet to make the choices that Tom made, or even 
the decision to join the DEs.

The question also relates to real life, but JKR has turned it around
to relate to the books. I think she's leaving room for what we already
know is her view: No one is born evil, not even descendants of Salazar
Slytherin with the ability to speak Parseltongue programmed into their
genes. Voldemort is partly the product of circumstances but mostly the
product of his own wrong decisions. IMO, there was still some hope 
for his redemption even after he put the memory of himself into the 
diary to continue "Salazar Slytherin's noble work," but once he cast 
that first Unforgiveable Curse, murdering a parent or grandparent in 
cold blood, he was beyond redemption. It will be interesting to see 
whether JKR agrees with this view.

As for real life, which is what the question actually relates to, I'm
not sure whether she would consider someone like Saddam Hussein or 
Osama bin Laden wholly evil. (I do, but her politics and values don't
always correspond with mine.)

Kim now:
I think I read in one of the books written about the series, probably 
The magical worlds of Harry Potter : a treasury of myths, legends, 
and fascinating facts, by David Colbert, that JKR doesn't believe in 
pure good or pure evil.  Though maybe it was his interpretation of 
JKR and not based on a quote from her.  But if it's true that that's 
how she feels, I suppose that it would apply to her view of real life 
as well as of the characters in her books.

However, as Carol says, the question as Tom Houseman worded it seems 
to be implying ahead of time that Draco and Voldemort *are* wholly 
evil.  But in JKR's answer it's not clear if "probably not" is to 
Draco and Voldemort being wholly evil or "probably not" to anyone in 
real life being wholly evil (or "probably not" to both possible 
aspects of the question).  I agree though that she answered as she 
did so as to not give away the end of the series.  Personally, I'm 
glad she's keeping it to herself.  I'd like all her surprises to stay 
surprises!   

I think JKR's probable (and my own actual) view that no one in real 
life can be completely good or completely evil makes sense, partly 
because it allows the chance for redemption to anyone, even to 
someone who has behaved in a totally evil manner for most of their 
life.  That view also follows the tenets of many religions, which 
appear to allow "sinners" of all kinds to evolve to the point, even 
very late in life, where they see the error of their ways and ask for 
forgiveness from the higher power and/or from those they have 
wronged.  Of course, they have to mean it when they ask for it.  No 
bluffing allowed.  ;-)

Then again, there's that sticky area, "point of view," that is, 
wholly evil *to whom*?  It's amazing to realize that some people 
think a mass murderer like Bin Laden is good, but it's still a fact 
that there are clearly lots of people in the world who do.  It's the 
problem with all fanatics unfortunately, that those on each opposing 
side see their side as all good and the other side as all evil.  But 
I don't think real life is ever that black and white, and that's what 
makes fanaticism in real life so dangerous.  FWIW, here's a wacky 
example of my point: I think my cat is good (not pure good, of 
course, she's a cat after all).  But to a mouse, my cat is evil (at 
least that's my idea of what a mouse would think of my cat).  So 
who's right, me or the mouse?  Or are we both right?

Then there's a question that's worth considering (IMO):  Just what 
defines a *wholly* evil person?  Someone who kills directly, once or 
many times, with cruel and evil intent?  In that case, Voldemort is 
wholly evil.  But perhaps only if you freeze his actions in time...  
What if he turns himself around (of course I don't think it's highly 
likely in his case, but it is possible) and gives up his evil 
crusade, will he still be *wholly* evil?  Is a person wholly evil 
from the sum total of their life, a life which may have eventually 
turned from evil to good; or from the sum total of the *acts* in 
their life (that is, do the evil acts in their life cancel out the 
good acts)?  And how about thoughtlessly killing large numbers of 
people indirectly?  Is that as evil as killing one or more people 
intentionally and directly?  Are there any limits to the personal or 
collective responsibility for evil acts?

There are more spin-off questions from those, but my head is spinning 
too much right now...

Cheers, Kim