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

[lanval1015]

No: HPFGUIDX 153098

> 
> Carol:
<SNIP>
> 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.)
> 

Lanval:
Yes, it's true that we see through Umbridge's fake niceness very 
soon, and perceive her as revolting. Though I still think that her 
appearance, while bizarre and anything but endearing, still gives a 
false sense of 'harmlessness' to most of the students, who know 
nothing of her behavior at Harry's trial.


Carol:
> 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?)

Lanval:

The title Umbridge takes on may well have been intended by JKR to 
make the connection to Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor, though she may 
have only picked it for the general association with the Inquisition 
that most readers (the older ones, anyway) would draw from it, 
without having any specific literary character in mind. But it's an 
interesting idea.

 

Carol:
 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.)

Lanval:

This strikes me as perhaps more likely. While Squeers and Umbridge 
are somewhat different in approach (and it's been a while since I've 
read 'Nicholas Nickleby',but I'm extremely fond of Jim Broadbent's 
portrayal of Squeers in the most recent movie version! *g*) and 
intent, the use of Umbridge-as-satire of educational systems' various 
ills is certainly possible, and would not have gone over people's 
heads. Especially the swipes she takes at 'theoretical approach'.
 
Carol: 
<SNIP>
> And there's the whole matter of teaching defensive *theory* instead 
of
> practical defense. <SNIP> 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*.)


Lanval:
Well, being that satirizing the RW by showing some of the wackier 
side of WW is one of the funniest aspects of the books, I would 
certainly think this to be true.


Carol:
> 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?


Lanval:
No, clearly not! :)

I agree that the there are traces of the Grand Inquisitor/the 
Inquisition in general, as well as some of the sadism of Squeers 
evident in Umbridge... and precisely because of this association 
with characters of that type, I believe that Umbridge, while an 
allegory of Bureaucracy from Hell, pointless educational waffle, 
the "dumbing down" effect... ALSO stands for something far more 
sinister, and on a larger scale. Umbridge, to me, is all about 
absolute control, about complete ruthlessless to achieve that end, 
and the danger of going completely overboard. Such as torture, and 
even murder. The similarity of certain historical and political 
movements to Umbridge's 'taking over Hogwarts' cannot have been 
unintentional, IMO.

So... Umbridge, an allegory within an allegory, then? Hogwarts as an 
allegory of society in general?

Thanks for your thoughts, Carol! Sorry I can't come up with a more 
detailed analysis, Memorial Day kind of got in the way.

>