Thoughts on Umbridge (long) (Was: Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 153009

Lanval wrote:
> <snip> 
> I don't think Dolores Umbridge the Person matters at all, to JKR or
the story. I see her as an allegory. For instance, in Thomas Mann's
"The Magic Mountain", the character of Lodovico Settembrini 
represents Humanism, while his constant sparring partner Leo Naphta 
represents what might be called Religious Radicalism. To me, Umbrigde
represents Fascism/Totalitarianism, in all its creeping menace, made
all the more dangerous because of the banality of her appearance. 
Every child knows that when one encounters a monstrous slitty-
nostrilled, red-eyed, madly cackling chap in a graveyard, it's time to
be Very Afraid. But Umbridge, who looks "like someone's maiden aunt"?
Who collects pictures of kittens?
> 
> I grit my teeth every time I read one of her decrees. 
> 
> We see the very worst of her before we even encounter her as a 
character. Then we perk up a little at Hermione's unease at the
introductory speech. And then it begins, slowly, but surely, a little
 freedom taken away here, a new rule in effect there. Soon it's too
late. Umbridge has too much power, And then, once she's in total
control, open revolution is the only way.
> 
> Not sure if JKR intended this story arc as a Lesson to Remember. But 
> if she did, she did it brilliantly, IMO. <snip>

Carol responds:
While I agree that there's a lesson here and that Umbridge is an
allegorical figure never intended as a two-dimensional character, let
me get one small disagreement out of the way before I present my own
half-formed thoughts on the subject. Harry thinks she looks like
"someone's maiden aunt" until he sees her from the front and
recognizes her as the witch from his hearing, someone who clearly
wanted him to be convicted of underage magic. And even before he knew
where she stood with regard to his own personal education and welfare,
he thought that she looked like a toad with a fly (the silly little
bow) unwisely perched on her head. He expects her to speak in a croak,
and the sweet little girl voice, like the polite little "hem! hem!"
signals fake niceness from the first.

Granted, she's not meant to be a terrifying figure like the slit-nosed
monster Voldemort, but she's certainly meant to be revolting from the
start. The pink cardigan and "Alice band" and kittens are all part of
a little-girl image that contrasts absurdly with her pouchy eyes and
wide toadlike mouth with little pointy teeth. (A toad with teeth?) The
absurd contrast between her appearance and behavior verges on the
comic, like the caricatures of politicians in political cartoons, and
yet it's never truly comic because we know from the first that she's
out to get Harry. (I suspect, as I said in another post, that she's
manipulated Fudge into viewing both him and DD as dangerous to the
MoM, but I've already stated my views on that topic.)

We next see her at Hogwarts, giving a speech full of "waffle" with
"important stuff" hidden in it: "Progress for progress's sake should
be discouraged" and whatever is undesirable in the curriculum is to be
"pruned." Hermione arrives immediately at the correct conclusion: "The
Ministry is interfering at Hogwarts."

We've already seen JKR making digs at politics and bureaucracy via
Fudge (who is nevertheless, IMO, a more human and sympathetic
character than Umbridge, however weak and foolish and easily
manipulated he may be. I rather liked him in "The Other Minister,"
where he's forced to concede that he's been deluded). But something
more is going on here: not politics as usual in the WW but politics
entering the educational system, bureaucratic control of the
curriculum. Umbridge (rhetorically) asks Hermione is she's a
"Ministry-trained educational expert" (OoP Am. ed. 242), implying that
she herself is such an "expert."

I'm not British, so I'm not on solid ground here, but I wonder whether
JKR, who took some sort of course in teacher training before teaching
French in Scotland, is covertly critiquing either the state-controlled
British school system or the educational theory that passes for
teacher training in some places. (I could talk about my own "training"
to teach when I received my B.S. in Ed. back in the 1970s, but that's
ancient history and I'm an American. IMHO, matters have become even
worse here--sixth graders  of my acquaintance can barely read and
think that Afghanistan is in South America--but I'm more interested in
whether there's a connection with trends in British education.

Before I continue along this line, looking at Umbridge herself in the
classroom, let me note that she reminds me of two diametrically
opposed characters from literature, Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor, who
believed that the mass of people could not think for themselves and
had to be led and cared for like sheep (anyone who tried to persuade
them to think for themselves was a troublemaker who had to be killed
for the public good--Harry's detentions, anyone?) and Dickens's
Wackford Squeers, the sadistic schoolmaster who "teaches" the boys at
Dotheboys Hall by providing them with useless and inaccurate
information and beating or starving them into submission. The Grand
Inquisitor believes that he's acting for the good of the common people
by maintaining their ignorance and dependence on him and others like
him; Squeers is a caricature of a schoolmaster whose name and
appearance are darkly comic, as Umbridge's are, who sadistically
abuses his pupils for his own advantage without giving them the
education their parents or guardians are paying for. (Obviously there
are differences here, but Dickens is satirizing a certain type of
school that really existed in his time in the hope of calling public
attention to the abuse, and I'm wondering if JKR is doing something
similar with Umbridge.)

If anyone is interested in following up the High Inquisitor/Grand
Inquisitor parallel (surely the name of her office suggests a
connection?), the Grand Inquisitor dream scene from "The Brothers
Karamazov" can be read here:

http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/existentialism/dostoevsky/grand.html

and an analysis pointing out its key elements can be read here:

http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/existentialism/dostoevsky/grand-analysis.html

To return to canon, Umbridge treats the students as if they were
kindergarten children, saying in her opening speech how happy she is
to see their "happy little faces," making them say "Good afternoon,
Professor Umbridge," suppressing discussion, and punishing dissenting
opinions with detention. (I'm surprised that Hermione didn't at least
have points docked for her criticism of the text; Harry's detentions,
however, relate to the more important issue of contradicting the
official Ministry doctrine that Voldemort has returned. Such "lies"
must be punished, and cruelly.)

And there's the whole matter of teaching defensive *theory* instead of
practical defense. Not only does the textbook, "Defensive Magical
*Theory*" by Wilbert *Slinkhard*) contain no practical information on
casting spells, Umbridge has the students read it in class (surely
they should read the books outside class and at least discuss what
they've read?) In marked contrast to Snape in HBP, she tells them to
put "wands away" and tells Hermione that she "can't imagine any
situation arising in her classroom that would require [students] to
*use* a defensive spell" (242).

Obviously such a class (in contrast to Snape's) is worse than useless
in preparing students to confront Voldemort and the Death Eaters, and
is intended to perpetuate the official Ministry position that LV is
not returning. But I'm wondering is it's also a caricature of
educational theory, or theory in general. The textbook is as boring as
Professor Binns' lectures; the words slide through Harry's brain
without making any impression (240). The three goals of the class,
which remind me of the "behavioral objectives" I was supposed to
formulate in creating a lesson plan back in those useless education
classes I took in the 70s, reveal the uselessness of the theory
they're learning, particularly the third one: "Placing the use of
defensive magic in a context for practical use" (340). "Placing "use"
in a context for "use"? What? Come again? Do these words mean
anything, or are they just a circular waffle? (Which reminds me of the
title and author of one of the first-year textbooks, "Magical Theory"
by Adalbert *Waffling*.)

So: allegory, caricature, satire, attacks on bureaucracy and the type
of "education" (indoctrination) that expects students to be attentive
little children passively absorbing approved theories and principles,
possible connections to Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor who wants to
relieve the masses of responsibility so that they can remain happily
ignorant and punishes (kills) troublemakers who raise doubts in their
minds. What does it all mean? Does the depiction of Umbridge have any
relevance to educational trends in the UK or the "dumbing down" of
education? Surely it's more than a plot device to get a bureaucrat
into Hogwarts to thwart the students' practical training in DADA and
usurp control through her increasingly invasive decrees.

Or are we just supposed to hate her because she's mean to Harry?

Carol, hoping that someone will respond given the length of time she's
spent composing this post!