Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 114932


Alla wrote:
> <snip>
> I understand what you are saying though that we have not seen much 
> of Voldemort's evil deeds, therefore it is hard to have strong 
> feelings about him based on the story itself.
> 
> I agree with it. I also said earlier that I am absolutely NOT 
> impressed with JKR portrayal of Vodemort.
> 
> He strikes me as a cartoon kind of villain, because  we are only 
> being told about his deeds, not shown. He is not scary, he is 
> annoying at most.
> 
> I keep hoping that we will at least see all gruesome details of 
> Godric Hollow murder in order for me at least be dsifusted with 
> Voldemort for that.
> 
> I think Renee said that her main gripe with series is that JKR 
> portrays evil in the "good" guys much better than "bad " guys.
> I think I agree.
> 
> Snape's "evil" side is portrayed perfectly,at least enough for me to 
> have VERY strong feelings about it. At the same time, I keep hoping 
> for his redemption at the end.

Carol responds:
I agree that Snape is a much more interesting--and much less
evil--character than Voldemort. I also agree that so far Voldemort has
been by and large a cartoon villain. (I count the first chapter of GoF
as a partial exception; he was actually a bit mysterious there, and
the unusual point of view--Frank Bryce's--also added interest. And the
spell that resurrects him later in GoF is gruesome and clearly shows
how selfish and cruel and evil he is. But the graveyard scene returns
us to Cartoon!mort. (Jenner in the Disney film "The Secret of NIMH,"
anybody?)

One problem, maybe, is that JKR has chosen to make him snakelike,
barely human--unlike Diary!Tom in CoS, who fooled me on a first
reading into thinking he was a sympathetic character (at least until
the Hagrid/Aragog scene). Another problem, maybe, is that wand
violence is so bloodless. Horrible as a Crucio is, you can get up and
fight again after surviving one (or at least Harry can). And AKs
(except at Godric's Hollow) leave no mark. We've heard about people
being blown apart by DEs ("We only ever found bits of him," Moody says
about one of the Order members--Benjy Fenwick, I think), but the only
deaths we've actually witnessed so far, Cedric's and Sirius's, have
been swift and painless.

I'm certainly not craving blood and gore. I can read about the
American Civil War or the Crimean War if I want that (and I don't).
But still, so little has happened. Voldemort has possessed Quirrell
and made him drink unicorn blood. He's drunk Nagini's "milk" as a
perverted, monstrous infant. He has tortured and killed Bertha Jorkins
(off-page), killed Frank Bryce, ordered the Imperioing or kidnapping
of various people, crucio'd some DEs, crucio'd and tried to murder
Harry. I may have missed something, but still he's more of a Mafia don
or a serial killer with a gang of thugs than an evil overlord. And for
all of OoP, he thought of nothing but getting the Prophecy (and
controlling Harry). A pretty scary nemesis for a fifteen-year-old boy,
but no match for Dumbledore in terms of real power or intellect. DD
may not be able to destroy him, but he could easily turn him into a
snake and keep him in a cage till Harry is ready to face him. (I
know--DD is too noble to do that, and it would be only a temporary
solution. But my point is that LV is too easily defeated. He just
isn't scary.

Anybody have thoughts on this, or am I just stating the obvious?

Carol