Elkins' Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. (But not sympathetic)

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 124674


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "northsouth17" 
<northsouth17 at y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" <naama_gat at h...> 
> wrote:
> > Seeing as the DEs are the equivalent of the Nazi SS or Gestapo, I 
> > don't see how they could be depicted as other than totally black. 
> <snip>
> 
> Well, the Nazi's were human too. Hitler was nice to his dog. 
(Though 
> I think he might have poisoned it eventually.) Right from book 1 we 
> had some grey charecters, like Quirrel (evil through weakness) and 
> Snape (nasty *and* good) This continues on, both with more 
characters 
> that are neither here nor there, and with our side growing 
> progressively murkier. 

In these books, Evil is not a priciple or power that is external to 
humans (compare to Tolkien, for instance). In these books, Evil is a  
quality of humans, a potentiality of human beings. It is internal. 
So, saying that the Nazis were human, means nothing. Humans can be 
good, humans can be bad, humans can be some of both. In this scheme, 
the poles - utter Good, utter Evil - can be demonstrated only as 
concrete human beings. The DEs are a group *dedicated*, deliberately 
and consciously, to the doing and spreading of evil: they advocate 
and carry out murder, torture, violence, subjugation, 
discrimination, ... are they nice to their dogs? to their wives and 
children? If they are, it makes them - as it does Hitler - more 
horrific, because it doesn't allow us to demonize them, to see them 
as other than human. They are human AND evil - thus demonstrating 
every human being's capacity for evil. 

> 
> If Voldemort is total darkness, than I suppose Harry or DD must be 
> all light - but they're not. Harry is a teenage kid, with anger and 
> hormones and ocassional nastiness. He's not saint. Niether is DD, 
who 
> does make mistakes. 

The story structures DD as the Light pole, not Harry. And not being 
infallible has nothing to do with moral goodness. DD's mistakes arise 
from natural, unavoidable limitations - he is neither omniscient nor 
omnispotent. He is, however, pure of intent and utterly benevolent. 

 
> 
> > As for Lucius, far from needing an opportunity for redemption, he 
> > functions in the story as the paradigmatic DE. <snip> he is 
> > THE proponent of the pure-blood ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> <snip>
> > Draco's roll is exactly the same, on the level of Hogwarts - he 
is 
> > the paradigmatic Slytherin, embodying all of its worst qualities 
> <snip> can't be redeemed without the story 
> > losing ... structural integrity? balance? something important, 
> > anyway. You can reasonably redeem a character who teeters, who is 
> > betwixt and between the poles of Good and Evil - not the poles 
> > themselves.
> 
> The poles, if such exist, are defnitely Voldemort and DD/Harry. If 
> all of LV's followers were as evil as he was, he wouldn't be that 
> dramatic. I don't know about Lucius, but Draco is very much betwixt 
> poles. *He hasn't ever done anything evil!* how could he possibly 
be 
> the paradigm of evil, even in a Hogwarts context? 

He has done plenty of evil - in the context of Hogwarts: bullying, 
cheating, bribing, lying. Is it really insignificant that almost 
every time we see him, he is trying or succeeding in hurting 
somebody? 



Naama