This chapter continues Rowling’s depiction of the Ministry of Magic under Voldemort as Nazi Germany in miniature. There is now a commission to register, interrogate, de-wand, and imprison (or worse) muggle-born witches and wizards. Muggle-born Ministry employees are denounced and purged. Indifferent workers prepare anti-muggle-born propaganda pamphlets. Everyone keeps their mouths shut and heads down. The only sign of resistance is a secret prankster causing Death Eater offices to rain.
The Commission, Umbridge, and Propaganda
The name of the The Muggle-Born Registration Commission is interesting. Why call it that and not “The Mudblood Registration Commission?” By using the term “muggle-born,” preferred by non-purebloods and others not biased against muggle-borns, the Ministry cloaks its new nature a bit longer. This enhances people’s uncertainty about what has happened and lures muggle-borns into complying with the orders to register and show up in the hope of appeasing the Ministry and showing compliance with the new laws. Similarly, Jews during the Holocaust were lured into complying with directives to show up for “relocation East” and similar blandishments that resulted in their deaths.
Umbridge is the personification of the Nazi passion for order and record-keeping, eager to get going once Mafalda Hopkirk (polyjuiced Hermione) shows up. Her pamphlet-making minions hate her as a boss but wonder indifferently if she’ll spend all day “interrogating mudbloods.” The pamphlet, entitled “Mudbloods, and the Dangers They Pose to a Peaceful Pureblood Society,” shows a simpering rose (pureblood) surrounded and threatened by nasty evil weeds (mudbloods). The pamphlet is reminiscent of Nazi propaganda depicting young ladies and children as “threatened” by Jews, who were falsely portrayed as evil and repulsive.
This demonization of the other led the Nazis to murder millions of Jews from all walks of life regardless of fame, fortune, or talent and regardless of age. Similarly the Death Eaters reduce all muggle-borns to their “blood status” regardless of their magical power or accomplishments. They care not what talents Hermione Granger or Mary Cattermole or Lily Evans or Ted Tonks or Dirk Creswell or Justin Finch-Fletchley may have, what contributions they have or could make to society, or that their children may be half-bloods. Instead “the brats of mudbloods do not concern us.” The irony is that at the very head of every pureblood family tree, at some point in the distant or not-so-distant past, the first person in the family to acquire magic was a muggle-born.
The Eyes Have It
There is a contrast of eyes in this chapter. Harry sees Mad-Eye Moody’s magic eye stuck in Umbridge’s office door, gazing “blindly upward, frozen.” Rage “reared in him like a snake” similar to his feelings in Order of the Phoenix when he feels like a snake “rose up inside” him when he briefly locks eyes with Dumbledore after Nagini’s attack on Arthur Weasley (OOTP 481). Harry rips the eye out of the door. When he opens the door, he feels like he’s stepped back in time, for Umbridge’s office looks just like her office at Hogwarts and the sticky note on her poster expresses her continuing desire to punish “Undesirable No. 1.” The flashbacks to fifth year are repeated later outside the interrogation chamber when Umbridge casually abuses her power and threatens the man interrogated prior to Mary Cattermole with the Dementor’s Kiss if he doesn’t stop struggling, just as she sent Dementors to give fourteen-year-old Harry the Kiss to get him to stop saying that Voldemort had returned.
Harry doesn’t think to create a copy of Mad-Eye’s eye to leave in its place and later its disappearance is discovered, alerting the Death Eaters that there is an intruder in the Ministry. In contrast, when Hermione steals Slytherin’s locket from around the unconscious Umbridge’s neck, she makes sure to leave a copy so Umbridge will not know that the real locket was stolen. The spell she uses, “Geminio,” means “twin” as does Tom’s name. She is making a twin of a twin, although the fake locket is not a horcrux. In an additional irony, the locket will eventually open to have two eyes, not one. The locket’s two eyes, hinted at here with the twinning of the horcrux, represent evil, whereas Mad-Eye’s single eye represents good, single, all-seeing vision. (For further discussion of the eyes of Deathly Hallows, see John Granger’s book, “The Deathly Hallows Lectures.”)
The First Nazi Dark Wizard
In Umbridge’s office Harry gets a glimpse of Skeeter’s “The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore” and sees a picture of Dumbledore with (as he later learns) Grindelwald. Grindelwald preceded Voldemort as evil Nazi dark wizard and terrorized wizarding Europe “For the Greater Good” during the same time period as the actual Nazi Germany and World War II. It is thus appropriate that Harry first sees this photo while at the Ministry.
Both boys in the photo are teenagers. Dumbledore has “elbow-length hair” and a “tiny, wispy beard.” Grindelwald’s “golden hair fell in curls to his shoulders” and he has a “gleeful, wild look.” The boys have their “arms around each other’s shoulders” and are “laughing immoderately.” To my mind the description of the photo is suggestive of Dumbledore’s possible homosexuality (which Rowling has asserted in a talk, which I know is not canon). While this possibility is not essential to the story, it does make it easier to understand how Dumbledore’s infatuation with Grindelwald may have led him to willfully blind himself to Grindelwald’s flaws and to the evilness of his ideas. (For a more extensive essay regarding Dumbledore’s alleged gayness see Karen Kebarle’s essay in “Hog’s Head Conversations.”)
The Weasley Express
Harry leaves Umbridge’s office after reading Arthur Weasley’s secret file and hiding from Thicknesse. The elevator ride down brings him three Weasleys, first Ron, who is soaking wet (foreshadowing perhaps his wetness after rescuing Harry from the pool in the Forest of Dean), then Arthur, who gives Ron helpful advice on how to stop the rain in Yaxley’s office, and finally Percy, who gets off at the next level as soon as he sees his dad. When Harry tries to get off the elevator, however, Arthur stops him, irate that Runcorn (whom Harry is polyjuiced to impersonate) turned in Dirk Creswell for being muggle-born. It is a new experience for Harry to see Mr. Weasley glaring at him with such dislike. It (along with the earlier newspaper article saying Harry is wanted for questioning in connection with the death of Dumbledore) is parallel to what Snape experiences that year as headmaster, with the other teachers hating him for killing Dumbledore and being a Death Eater while he is unable to reveal the truth. Harry’s attempt to warn Mr. Weasley that he is being watched fails as Mr. Weasley perceives the warning as a threat.
He Brought Them Out of Darkness
Harry’s role as Savior of the wizarding world is foreshadowed in the dungeon scene. Although “the cold, and the hopelessness, and the despair of the place laid themselves upon Harry like a curse,” Harry, using only his strength of mind and no patronus, resists the dementors by thinking of Hermione and Ron who need him. It is a kind of warm-up for the darkness and despair of their camping trip soon to come and for Harry’s ultimate journey into the Forest Again.
Further in the role of Savior and perhaps evoking Psalms 23:4 (“Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me”) and 107:14 (“He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and broke their bands in sunder”), Harry walks invisibly with Mary Cattermole into Umbridge and Yaxley’s interrogation chamber so that she will not be alone and, after stunning Yaxley and Umbridge, produces a brilliant stag patronus to fight off the dementors, guide Mrs. Cattermole and Hermione out, and then lead the rest of the muggle-borns to freedom. The detainees are at first dazzled by the light of the patronus but rally quickly to help each other escape.
Harry’s stag patronus guiding them out also foreshadows Snape’s doe patronus guiding Harry to the sword in the pond in the Forest of Dean.
Into the Darkness
The end of the rescue falls apart as the real Reg Cattermole arrives and Yaxley realizes that Polyjuice Potion is being used. Harry displays quick-wittedness in taking advantage of whom he is impersonating to get the fireplaces left open for escape and uses muggle dueling (punching) to shift the focus to the Ministry worker who had been trying to follow orders in the first place. Fortunately, everyone gets away. Unfortunately, Yaxley (as we learn in the next chapter) hitches a ride on Hermione’s robes and Hermione cannot shake him until after she has taken them to the front step of 12 Grimmauld Place, destroying its security. The chapter closes with them whirling away in the suffocating darkness to parts unknown.
Red Rocker on 
Fricka on 
professor l on 
Rhonda on 
Tom on 
Loading ...
{ 214 comments… read them below or add one }
What a thorough re-cap of the chapter Lily Luna!
I always thought it interesting the line of questioning that Umbridge persues during her ‘interviews’ with muggle-borns. The idea that muggle-borns have stolen magic seems so preposterous to me – I think it really speaks to the fear of the people under the new rule that they buy this explanation as to why muggle-borns pose such a danger to the pure-blood community. You would think that there would be a lot of reports of stolen wands at the very least if this was actually how muggle-borns obtain wands.
I love that you mention Harry drawing strength from images of Ron and Hermione to help him pass the dementors. I think this is not only foreshadowing for their journey in the tent and Harry’s decision to enter the forest, but proof of what Dumbledore has been telling Harry all along: that his ability to love is his greatest power.
Wow – Lily Luna that’s a terrific post about the horrors going on in the ministry. I like your section “The Eyes Have It”. I have never read any of John Granger’s books – so I confess my embarrassing ignorance on the subject of the eyes. I want to learn more about it if anyone cares to illuminate me on the matter.
I also was intrigued by your “He Brought Them Out of Darkness” talk. Though I completely see your use of the 23rd Psalm, I don’t witness any lessening of Mary’s fear because of Harry’s presence. She fears as she should when put in the clutches of Umbridge. However, the fact that Harry had to endure the Dementor’s without the benefit of a patronus, by sheer will, struck me more spiritual. The fact that he rebukes this fear bare-fisted and uses Light of the Patronus rang true to me more of the 27th Psalm of David. (I hope I don’t sound like a religious dork posting this) -
The Lord is my light and my salvation;
whom shall I fear?
The Lord is the strength of my life;
of whom shall I be afraid?
When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes,
came upon me to eat up my flesh,
they stumbled and fell.
Though a host should encamp against me,
my heart shall not fear:
though war should rise against me,
in this will I be confident.
For in the time of trouble he shall hide me in his pavilion:
in the secret of his tabernacle shall he hide me;
he shall set me up upon a rock.
The last verse there being the beginning of the “Tent Marathon”.
Last – I was wondering – why does Hermione have trouble with the Patronus spell? And is it mention in canon before? I can’t remember!
Thanks for the great post!
Joivre, Hermione’s difficulty with the Patronus was mentioned in OOTP. I think even Ron got his Patronus before Hermione did.
As for religious dorkiness, well, I’m the one posting as revgeorge.
Great article, Lily Luna, even though I’ve really only had time to skim through it. Won’t be able to comment more in depth till tomorrow night. Out of town all day.
Thanks revgeorge – I shall now feel comfortable basking in all my religious dorkiness.
So it was mentioned in OOtP – I’ll take a look-see. But still – why? She can do anything! She’s the greates witch of her age. Why the Patronus?
Hermione represents a very logical, cerebral kind of knowledge. It’s not that she’s not emotional, but perhaps the idea of needing to rely on emotion to do something otherwise academic (cast a spell) doesn’t quite jive with her book-smart approach to witchcraft.
Just to note the correct Chapter title is “The Muggle-Born Registration Commission” (not Magic is Might, which was last chapter). Somehow the correct chapter title got lost in the translation from Word to WordPress.
I don’t claim to be any sort of religions expert whatsoever. While the two I cited struck me, as you pointed out there are others that also are a propos. True Mary doesn’t draw comfort from Harry’s presence, but he does act as a guardian to her and shows her the light in a sense.
When Harry taught patronuses in the last DA lesson in OOTP Hermione did not seem to have any problem with it. She did have trouble with it when she was trying to help Harry by the lake in POA though at that time she had had no instruction in it and was simply trying to copy what Harry was saying. I can’t think of any instances where she needed to cast a patronus in HBP– can anyone else?
However the DA lesson was not a true test b/c there were no dementors or boggart-dementors draining her strength. It appears that when real dementors are around Hermione has more difficulty forming her patronus, but she IS still able to do it after a few tries, which as Lupin said in POA is still quite an accomplishment.
It would be interesting to speculate on what Hermione hears when a dementor draws near. By the time of this chapter, the main traumatic things that have happened to her are 1) the troll attack first year, 2) the fight in the Departmentof Mysteries in OOTP where she was seriously injured by a dark curse, 3) the battle during the flight of the Seven Potters when Voldemort tried to attack her and Kingsley, and 4) fleeing the Burrow as the Death Eaters attacked.
Of course, Harry was kind of joking when he said the Patronus was the only spell Hermione had trouble with. A joke wouldn’t necessarily be the truth. He was perhaps trying to relieve the tension both for Mary & for Hermione. ‘Cause now that I think of it, I think you’re right Lily Luna about Hermione having trouble with the spell when under assault by Dementors & never having used that spell before & her use of it in practice during DA lessons.
You could possibly add to those reasons, her doubts & fears about her relationship with Ron & also her fears for Harry & the task he faces.
Yes!I can definitely see the booksmarts interfering in a way with the fact that her humaness must be displayed. And it would be interesting to know Hermione’s thoughts when Dementors are near. She is a natural-born worrier and that could get in the way. These are all reasons I never thought of before. It helps me understand it more. Thank you.
In regards to the Patronus Spell in specific – I wonder if Hermione has performance anxiety. She doesn’t have it with any other spell. Having performed live many times – I know the feeling well. Every musician has one piece of music that should be in their repertoire, it’s not hard, but for some strange reason – they always flub up on it. No matter how hard you practice that one certain piece of music and no matter how well you can do something on your own – or how much you think about it intellectually – it’s quite different when the pressure is on. It’s the whale for Ahab. It’s human and out of our control. And I think Hermione likes control. Not that she’s a control-freak, but I think it’s a factor maybe.
But you don’t go on a maniacal life consuming quest to hunt down that piece of music & stab it to death with harpoons? Right?
But you’re quite right. Hermione does have performance anxiety and test anxiety. She certainly has problems with Defense Against the Dark Arts. She can’t defeat the Boggart in Lupin’s test & she gets an “A” or Acceptable on her OWL DADA.
But most of the time she is pretty cool under fire in the real world. Especially in DH. I’m thinking in particular of the scene in Godric’s Hollow when Nagini pops out. Hermione manages to cast confringo and then also is able to apparate in mid-air falling out through a window, taking Harry along as well, while Voldemort is rushing across the room toward them.
So, it’s interesting that she has trouble with the Patronus in the MOM. I mean, is she better when she just does or reacts as opposed to when she has time to think about something?
Sorry about the focus on Hermione’s patronus. I do actually have some other thoughts on the post.
OK – that was a five minute laugh out loud for me revgeorge.
Hermione may have trouble with patronuses, but she saved the day twice in this chapter by her quick thinking. First, when she made a copy of the locket, thereby preventing a possible premature realization by Voldemort that Harry et al. are after horcruxes. And second, when she apparated away from No. 12 Grimauld Place to get away from Yaxley.
The repeated analogy between anger or rage and a snake rising up in Harry, and the accompanying allusion to Voldemort, is puzzling to me.
Because the two incidents are very dissimilar. In Order Harry may be feeling a little irritated at Dumbledore, but the anger that rises up in him is mainly Voldemort’s, who is actively trying to take over Harry. In Hallows the anger Harry feels is a normal, understandable anger. I don’t think any religion preaches tolerance, understanding and love when you see the eye ball of your friend nailed to the door of your enemy (especially an enemy who has tortured both you and your friends).
Is JKR trying to say that anger is bad? Or is she saying that anger is bad for Harry because it makes him vulnerable to Voldemort?
What is she saying, exactly?
I think Harry’s anger in this case, is a refusal to accept social injustice. It is the basis of all revolutions and is necessary for all change in the political power structure. The Americans used it during our Revolution with the snake symbolizing independence from tyranny.
In 1994, Shane MacGowan released a song called “The Snake with Eyes of Garnet”. Ms. Rowling has mentioned The Pogues among other Irish and English quasi punk bands before that she has listened to. This song uses the Snake as one who “cannot be tortured” – I wonder if Ms. Rowling was thinking of this sometimes when writing these chapters.
Last night as I lay dreaming
My way across the sea
James Mangan brought me comfort
With laudnum and poitin
He flew me back to Dublin
In 1819
To a public execution
Being held on Stephen’s Green
The young man on the platform
Held his head up and he did sing
Then he whispered hard into my ear
As he handed me this ring
“If you miss me on the harbour
For the boat, it leaves at three
Take this snake with eyes of garnet
My mother gave to me!
This snake cannot be captured
This snake cannot be tied
This snake cannot be tortured, or
Hung or crucified
It came down through the ages
It belongs to you and me
So pass it on and pass it on
‘Till all mankind is free
If you miss me on the harbour
For the boat, it leaves at three
Take this snake with eyes of garnet
My mother gave to me”
He swung, his face went purple
A roar came from the crowd
But Mangan laughed and pushed me
And we got back on the cloud
He dropped me off in London
Back in this dying land
But my eyes were filled with wonder
At the ring still in my hand
If you miss me on the harbour
For the boat, it leaves at three
Take this snake with eyes of garnet
My mother gave to me!
And if you miss me on the harbour
For the boat, it leaves at three
Take this snake with eyes of garnet
My mother gave to me!
If you want to hear him sing it -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDJrt7unKUI
By the way, Mangan was a drunken Irish poet who alligned himself with Irish independence and was a contemporary of Yeats. Joyce also writes about him.
Terrific post, Lily Luna! I particularly loved your comment that Harry gets to feel (when seeing Arthur in the MOM) the way that Snape feels after Dumbledore’s death.
I wonder if Hermione’s stutter, as it were, in producing her Patronus in the MOM was in part caused by the fact that she was Polyjuiced at the time. A Patronus is a particularly personal spell, probably the most personal we’ve ever seen, given that it relies on the emotions and memories of the caster. If you’re Polyjuiced, certainly you take on the physical form of the “victim,” while retaining your memories… but could there be a bit of bleedover into the emotional side of casting a Patronus?
Just a thought…
And btw, I was never more angry at Harry than when he took Mad-Eye’s eye out of Umbridge’s door. What a truly stupid thing to do! I think Mad-Eye would have been furious at him for doing it.
Nice recap, Lily Luna! You certainly saw much more Nazi-ism in the chapter than I did.
You say, “Umbridge is the personification of the Nazi passion for order and record-keeping,” but I saw Umbridge as the personification of a bureaucrat. She makes rules and laws and revels in enforcing them. She is power hungry, but not for pure, unbridled power like Voldemort desires, but for the structure, ordered power of a bureaucracy. She likes the hierarchy, especially when she is near the top.
When the shift in power occurred from Fudge to Scrimgeour, I assume Umbridge dropped Fudge’s line and switched to Scrimgeour’s immediately. And then to Thicknesse’s. I get the impression that she doesn’t so much care about what the aims of the organization she’s serving are as much as about how much power she wields within the organization. She wants to be noticed, she wants to be envied, she wants to be respected. I still laugh at the line in OotP where she more or less accuses McGonagall of wanting her position. She just doesn’t understand how anyone could have motives other than hers. She’s a political. She’s always playing the game.
Derek D, I love your comments about Umbridge. This is always how I saw her character as well – to her, power is defined through her role within the government. Each time we see her, she is a parrot for the current party line (“Voldemort is not back”, “Muggle-borns are dangerous”) using her supposed belief in these messages to put herself in a position where she can be noticed, envied, and respected (as Derek D so eloquenly puts it).
Until his appearance at the beginning of the Battle of Hogwarts, I always thought of Percy as a mini-Umbridge. He too parrots what those in positions of higher beaurocratic power are saying in order to place himself within those circles of power. I don’t think he necessarily believes in the message, but his respect for the rules and the law always seemed to blind him to the moral issues behind those messages.
Sorry for the double post.
Just wanted to address Red Rocker‘s comments in #14. I always thought that the snake rising in Harry in OotP was not actually Voldemort possessing him, but rather another sign of the piece of Voldemort’s soul in Harry awakening and reacting. This is completely subjective, but I always pictured JK’s use of the snake descriptor in OotP (on re-reads after finishing DH) to be almost literal – as if the piece of Voldemort’s soul in Harry takes the form of a snake, writhing and twisting inside him. On the other hand, Harry’s snake-like anger in this chapter is more metaphorical. I, as a reader, didn’t get the same sense of venom in Harry’s anger at Umbridge in DH as in the OotP scene. I’m not sure that we can say that the message here is that anger is bad, or even that it makes him more vulnerable to Voldemort, since I don’t see any connection with Voldemort when Harry rips the eye fron the door. I think that what we learn from these two scenes is that Harry is driven by his emotions rather than logic. It is only when Harry leanrs to control his emotions that he is able to overcome Voldemort (e.g by controlling his Voldie-visions he is able to use them to learn what he needs, but is no longer being manipulated or controlled by them). I think the repetition of the snake imagery is a subtle reminder that we all have some Slytherin (and the other Houses too) in each of us. Ultimately it is what we choose to bring to the surface that determines what House we are in.
(Sorry if this post kind of went all over the place…)
Good point about Percy, aerisflowers. I actually had thought about him as I was posting about Umbridge, but wasn’t sure whether or not he was the same or different from Umbridge. I wanted to say that Percy was a legalist while Umbridge was a bureaucrat, but I’m not sure how true that is. And there can be a lot of overlap between those two terms anyway.
I wonder what Umbridge did after DH. Did she try to claim that she was imperiused or trying to bring the system down from the inside? Did she try to tow Kingsley’s line? I don’t really think she got far. She made too many enemies.
I like to think Umbridge was handed over to the centaurs!
She was found guilty of crimes against witches and wizards and sentenced to 25 years in Azkaban. Azkaban was a much better place than it had been before the war since it was no longer staffed by Dementors. Umbridge shared a cell with Alecto Carrow. She was haunted by the sounds of hooves in the hallway late at night. No one else ever acknowledged hearing them, not even her cell mate, Alecto (although Alecto was often given more privileges than the other inmates on the cell block). Umbridge eventually went a little batty. After her release she opened a tea shop that served Veritas tea. She also invited her customers to sign her guest book, using her special pen. Her regulars included Aberforth (who often brought a short, smelly friend with him), the house elf Winky, and her former cell mate, Alecto, for whom she concocted a special Cruciatus cake: one bite equals fifteen minutes of agonizing pain.
Really? Where did you hear that and did you get the recipe for that cake?
Red Rocker, I hadn’t realized (until now!) that you have an aspiring future in HP Fan fiction. Very good friend.
Moody’s eye and all the eye symbolism is one of my favorite sections in the book.
Retrieving Moody’s magical eye from Umbridge’s door was also a risky and impetuous decision by Harry, but his emotions overruled his logic, and he was simply unable to leave any part of Moody in Umbridge’s possession. This also provides a necessary closure for Harry, allowing him to later bury at least a small portion of Moody. One gathers that the eye’s loss from the outer side of Umbridge’s door will not hinder her spying on her subordinates; the eye, staring fixedly, seems to only provide camouflage for the small telescope inside the office door.
Harry glimpsing Dumbledore’s image in what he momentarily believed was a mirror in Umbridge’s office may be a subtle reference to the familiar-looking blue eye he has been seeing in the mirror-shard, although it is unknown yet whose eye this actually is. The original magic mirror, before it was broken, was described as about the size of a small book. It is probably the combination of the size, plus Harry’s half-belief that the eye in the mirror-shard is Dumbledore’s, that leads him to briefly mistake the book for a mirror.
Rowling’s description that Umbridge’s cutesy kitten decor appears just as it did at Hogwarts may be a subtle clue that, despite Umbridge’s traumatic experience with the Centaurs, we can expect to see the same vile woman as in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.
A wee correction to Revgeorge’s comment #11 – Hermione got an E (Exceeds Expectations) on her DADA OWL, not an A.
I think Hermione is more quick-thinking and flexible and uses a broader variety of spells than Harry when fighting, the qualities that Snape extolled in the first DADA class sixth year. She thinks quickly on her feet and knows a lot more spells than Harry. I was surprised that he didn’t know relashio when trying to free Mary Cattermole.
Derek D (comment 17), the Nazi obsession with recordkeeping WAS uberbureaucraticness, and Umbridge at least in this chapter is the personification thereof (I doubt however that she kept a log of all the students she used the cutting pen on at Hogwarts or that she used it at all).
With regard to the cutesy kittens, I’m reminded that in OOTP it was one of those kittens’ resemblance to Mad-Eye Moody that warned Harry not to drink the potentially Veritaserum-laced tea Umbridge was pushing on Harry!
I’ve never understood about Umbridge and the kittens. Is it like Hitler’s fondness for dogs? Or is it to emphasize her spinster-status?
I did appreciate the kitten/Mad-Eye warning in Order though. A lot like Stephen King.
Thanks for the correction, Lily Luna. I knew that Hermione hadn’t received the highest grade possible; I just confused “A” with “E.”
Red Rocker, I have always taken the kittens to emphasize her spinster-status, but also to emphasize her status as a cypher. Plates of kittens, bows in her hair, etc. really just seem so stereotypical and cliche that they say to me that she has no personality at all. She feels that she needs to have hobbies and interests because they’re expected of her, so she just goes for the most banal and uncontroversial ones possible.
Honestly, if she weren’t so evil, she would really be nothing. Just a personification of the Ministry.
To me, Umbridge’s love for kittens and cozy decorating is not so much a symbol as a touch of absolute perfection in Rowling’s character design: It shows that Umbridge sees herself as innocent, innocuous, loving, and acting in everyone’s best interest. This, of course, serves to make her actions all the more heartless and evil– in her mind, her enemies must be truly terrible to fight against a sweet lady who likes kittens!
This is actually a frequently observed characteristic of abusers and other thoroughly evil people in the muggle world as well. Some of my friends who have studied (or survived) the phenomenon of Spiritual Abuse found the character of Umbridge hauntingly familiar.
Eric, that’s exactly how I see Umbridge – I couldn’t have put it better myself! Her love of kittens and pink frills makes her seem all the more sinister because it hides everything she actually is below the surface.
Spinsters and Kittens – Oh my!
Spinsters and Kittens – Oh my!
Those bad Spinsters? Hobbies, crafts, painted plates, bows, pink, crocheted doilies, lavender sachets and sweeeeet baby, mewing, kittens? All signs of Spiritual Abuse!?
I politely disagree.
First, who even uses the word “Spinsters” anymore? It derogatory to women everywhere. So to that – I politely say “Ugh”. And actually we don’t know for sure if Umbridge has been single her whole life.
Yes, the devil can be charming. Death personified can be handsome. Voldemort is a polite gentleman. Delores’ first impression is sweet and delicate. Hannibal, the cannibal is erudite and refined. Goebbels was cultured and educated. It’s all the more shocking when they open up their maw and show their bloody sharp fangs. It’s a literary device that reaps a lot of benefit for the author.
But if sweet single women who love kittens and precious decor are spiritual abusers, then I had better run for my life. Because the church I attend is teeming with them. They really fooled me – being nice and donating food to the poor, praying with all their might, sending me cards when I’m sick, bringing the Eucharist to the home-bound, baking brownies and having bake sales for the poor in Tijuana. Boy! Thanks for the tip off!
If some single women love kittens.
and
If some single women are sadistic monsters.
then
Some single women who love kittens are sadistic monsters.
and
Some single women who love kittens are not sadistic monsters.
You may substitute spiritual abusers for sadistic monsters.
PS I know that the word spinster is old fashioned. It’s also stereotyped, and not at all complimentary, harking as it does to an age where marriage was a woman’s ultimate goal, and a spinster was, by that definition, an ultimate failure.. But it seemed to me that JKR was falling back on the stereotype. Which really made me wonder if she knew someone who collected kitten plates whom she really disliked.
Of course, the above syllogism isn’t strictly true.
It’s possible that the subset of single women who are sadistic monsters may all fall within the subset of single women who love kittens, in which case:
all single women who are sadistic monsters love kittens.
It’s also possible that the subset of single women who love kittens may all fall within the subset of sadistic single women, in which case:
all single women who love kittens are sadistic monsters.
I guess the real question is the relationship between kitten love and sadism. If there’s perfect correlation, and you love kittens, then you’re out of luck. But in that case your marital status, and your sex, will have no bearing on it.
I kind of agree with Joivre and kind of disagree. The idea of spinsterhood, while outdated nowadays, was still fairly common & accepted until recent times, if you consider the ’70′s & ’80′s to be recent. I had teachers in both elementary school and high school who would’ve been classified as spinsters.
But it’s probably stretching it to say with certainty that Umbridge is a spinster. For one, we don’t really know much about the relationships of many people in the Potterverse. For one, I can’t imagine Cornelius Fudge as Minister of Magic being unmarried, but we’re never told his marital status. We don’t know much about the marital status of most of the teachers at Hogwarts. The assumption is that most of them are unmarried, although by JKR’s own statements, teachers could be married, like Neville was.
I think lots of things aren’t mentioned simply because Rowling has no reason to mention them. If it was important that we know that Fudge was married to Eleutheria Tutbridge, from a very prominent old family with lots of money & social pull, and that this helped him become Minister, then Jo would’ve told us. But I think most things are not important or pertinent for us to have the background information, like the marital status of Hogwarts teachers, although marital status does turn out to be important with Snape & Dumbledore.
So, I think the big question is, how can we get our hands on Jo’s notebooks & notebooks full of background information? Failing her putting out the Scottish Book, we can only hope one of her children comes to see Christopher Tolkien as a role model to follow.
Anyway, I think Umbridge is married. Not to a person but to an institution. She’s married to the Ministry of Magic and her devotion and love is given to its service.
I think Derek D is probably fairly accurate in saying that: “Plates of kittens, bows in her hair, etc. really just seem so stereotypical and cliche that they say to me that she has no personality at all. She feels that she needs to have hobbies and interests because they’re expected of her, so she just goes for the most banal and uncontroversial ones possible.”
Just want to add that I (and I’m sure Eric, to whom I was replying, also) was not saying that all women who love kittens are evil. Definately not! I do not think that love of kittens is a sign of a spiritual abuser, or an evil person. However, I think that Umbridge (in this one specific case) is using the kittens and the pink frills to put a harmless spin on her actions. This may be unconsciously done – she may really truly love kittens – but the effect is the same. She presents herself as a woman who loves innocent and sweet kittens, so whatever her actions, she too must be sweet and innocent (hence the high, girlish voice the simpering giggle and the polite ‘hem, hem’).
I think that you are right also to point out that the young Tom Riddle is also smooth and charming. However, I think that this is more than just a literary device designed for the shock-factor. I think that there are a lot of evil people out there who get away with evil things because they outwardly present ‘normal’. Things would be a lot easier for the real-world police if every evil person looked like snakey-Voldemort post-resurrection! I do not think that every person who is charming, who looks innocent etc is actually evil on the inside (my Grandma collects plates and has pink frilly furniture and she’s far from evil:)). I just think that there are a lot of real world examples of characters like Tom Riddle and Umbridge.
I think it just goes to show that you cannot simply take things for face value.
I am trying to imagine an evening at the Umbridge’s household:
Mr. U: Dolores, supper’s ready.
Mrs. U: Don’t bother me, dear, I’m too busy trying to come up with new ways to torment the little monsters.
Where it all falls apart for me is her patronus, which if I recall correctly, was a cat. Which says to me that she really does love cats. Which would be a redeeming feature. Which bothers me, because I prefer my evil unredeemed.
Red Rocker, there is another possibility, which is that your two sets of single women do not overlap at all, in which case,
no single women who love kittens are sadistic monsters and
no single women who are sadistic monsters love kittens.
Since neither is true with respect to Umbridge, then we exclude the possibility that the two sets do not overlap. However, taken as a standalone logic statement and disregarding real or fictional world “evidence,” your original formulation was incorrect!
Cats: someone else who the students generally hate has a cat: Argus Filch. And as per SS it was the dearest wish of every student to give Mrs. Norris a good kick!
With regard to pink toad, she seems to be another example of what Mr. Weasley meant at the Quidditch World Cup when he tells the boys “that is why you should never go for looks alone” after the beautiful veela turn into ugly, angry bird-heads throwing fistfuls of fire. Or put another way, the outside can disguise the inside. Umbridge uses her frilly girly affectations in an attempt to project a feminine, kindly image (and I think she is trying to convince herself as much as anyone else), but underneath is a soul of evil and, like the veela, the ugliness shows through to those she is wronging who see her as a toad.
One idea I forgot to mention in my write-up is what interaction there may have been between Umbridge and the locket. At one point in a prior chapter the trio discuss whether Umbridge has been possessed by Voldemort via the locket and conclude it wouldn’t make any difference because she was already so evil. I wonder whether it might go the other way, whether the bit of Voldesoul in the locket was able to grow more powerful by feasting on her fears of “half-breeds” and perhaps her inner fear that she is not pretty or feminine (hence the outer display to try to convince herself otherwise?) and on her evil. This may in turn have made it easier for the soul in the locket to overwhelm and weaken Harry, Ron, and Hermione.
I also wonder just how long ago Umbridge got the locket from Mundungus: was it recent, during Harry’s sixth year (eg when he attacked Mundungus in Hogsmead), or even earlier, before Harry’s fifth year when Kreacher took the locket back when Sirius tried to throw it out? If it was before Harry’s fifth year, perhaps that is why his scar hurt when Umbridge touched his hand during detention.
I wouldn’t say that Umbridge’s cat patronus partially redeems her. There is no sign she actually owns or loves a real cat (unlike Filch whose love for Mrs. Norris gives him a bit of redemption). I would say rather that her particular cat patronus reflects her personality: smug and taking pleasure in playing with and tormenting her prey before killing them, like a cat would a mouse.
Oh, and may I point to another evil cat-lover: the head of SPECTRE whose name temporarily eludes me but which I’ll probably remember as soon as I post this.
@Lily Luna: Ernst Stavro Blofeld.
I do not know the name of his cat.
Flopsy.
Wasn’t Flopsy the name of the Big Cheese’s stuffed rabbit in the Naughty Dentist skit by Monty Python?
See, that’s why I love this site.
Big Cheese: I’m glad you could all come to my little … party. And Flopsy’s glad too, aren’t you, Flopsy? (he holds rabbit up as it does not reply) Aren’t you Flopsy? (no reply again so he pulls a big revolver out and fires at rabbit from point-blank range) That’ll teach you to play hard to get. There, poor Flopsy’s dead. And never called me mother. And soon … you will all be dead, dead, dead, dead. (the crowd start to hiss him) And because I’m so evil you’ll all die the slow way … under the drill.
Arthur: lt’s one o’clock.
Big Cheese: So it is. Lunch break, everyone back here at two.
Talk about your sadistic monsters! Poor wittle bunny wabbit!
To get back on topic a little…
Lily Luna, Interesting comments about Umbridge and the locket. I think it’s likely that the locket would have fed off her desire to shun “half-breeds”. However, I wouldn’t want to put all the blame for her actions on the locket and none on Umbridge herself. I think the demonstrated in OotP what a truly horrible person she is without the influence of of the Voldesoul.
I don’t have DH in front of me at the moment, but I vaguely remember that Harry has trouble performing the Patronus Charm when wearing the locket (I could be remembering completely wrong here). If that is true, it’s interesting that Umbridge can produce a patronus while under the locket’s influence.
Lily Luna, great job! Your Nazi parallels are really excellent and you brought more to the table than the usual stuff.
I’ve been watching the newly reimagined “V” series (I like it, very different from the cheesy ’80s show). Last night’s Episode 2 was a fantastic portrayal of paranoia, re who is alien and who isn’t (there is no vocal differential, as in the original, and the aliens have been on Earth for decades). Who is safe and who is not? My partner? My husband? My next-door-neighbor? My boss? My priest? The episode was quite tense and intense, and it made me think of WizWorld in DH.
Good catch on the fact that wizardry had to orignate somewhere and that the forefathers/mothers of present day WizWorld were magic-gifted Muggles.
Umbridge is a fantastic portrayal of mundane, everyday evil run amuck. See M. Scott Peck’s People of the Lie for further elucidation.
I think Umbridge’s love of kittens and frills is analogous–the sweet-appearing girl with the heart of a viper; the whitewashed tomb. Rowling may have used this analogy to demonstrate debased human hearts–how evil can masquerade as innocence. We do know Umbridge loved her plates; we don’t know that she would actually tolerate a live kitten, which can drive a person who loves structure and rules bonkers. I’m guessing those plate kittens were the only ones in her life. But they make her feel good about herself as a normal, loving person and keep her self-deceit in full-throttle. Although I doubt she’d ever see the truth about herself; no, she would always be a misunderstood victim.
The fact that she has a cat Patronus is quite interesting. She associates cats with her most happy memory. Wouldn’t I love to know that backstory!!
And, in “V”, people were getting captured and tortured, with “magic” illusions. Shades of the Ministry!
I love Eric’s point about Umbridge seeing herself as good. I do think that she is a character who sleeps soundly, even smugly. However, I think revgeorge’s fanfic is a good example of how easily one can picture her self-deception slipping into insanity. In fact, it is much easier to picture her insanely keeping up her delusion than to imagine her feeling remorse or repentance.
To bring up another issue in this chapter I think Harry’s actions are a fascinating straddle between heroic courage and foolish recklessness. I love Harry when he retrieves Mad-Eye’s eye and when he starts blasting ministry minions in the courtroom. But I am also shaking my head thinking “Oh no, Harry. You’ve blown it.” If he had taken a little time to cover his tracks in Umbridge’s office the entire miserable camping trip could have been avoided. Similarly, the courtroom scene could have been catastrophic for many more people than Harry. It is just luck, and a bit more audacious bravery from Harry, that lets them escape.
The discussion of what makes Umbridge tick and the discussion of the Nazi parallels to the Ministry of Magic reminds me of Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil”. I know that she [Arendt] has been criticized for trivializing the actions of the bureaucrats that carried out the jobs of rounding up and transporting the Jews to the concentration camps. However, I think that there is more than a grain of truth there. Great evil can be done by a bureaucrat who mindlessly and automatically carries out his tasks without thinking of the consequences of his actions. It certainly appears that it was a small mental step for Umbridge to take from her actions in OotP to her task of questioning “mudbloods” and sending them off to whatever doom [Azkaban?, death?] awaits them.
Well, I’m starting to notice pattern here. Red Rocker says something that I have a knee-jerk reaction to and then the wheels start turning in my brain and I do an about-face. Or at least a right-face.
“I’ve never understood about Umbridge and the kittens. Is it like Hitler’s fondness for dogs? Or is it to emphasize her spinster-status?”
“But it seemed to me that JKR was falling back on the stereotype. Which really made me wonder if she knew someone who collected kitten plates whom she really disliked.”
Technically, if we’re going to really delve into derogatory stereotypes, I would like to think Ms. Umbridge would be an old maid. Spinster is a term for a single woman of child-bearing years and the thought of the possibility of Ms. Umbridge pregnant is simply to frightening for me to bear. I prefer to think she has crossed the hormonal bridge.
I am realizing that I tend to want to ignore certain stereotypical descriptions in parts of Ms. Rowling’s book. Why? I’m going to be honest, I love the books so much and I dislike these hurtful clichés so much that I want to turn my face from it. I don’t want to believe that Ms. Rowling is anti-feminist or weight biased. I also believe the characters in her books are genuine to Ms. Rowling herself.
But my problem is some of Ms. Rowling’s characters by description of weight or style are simply boilerplate for me. Quick, easy speak for a much more complex personality. (There – I’ve said it out loud and I might get into serious trouble for it.)
I want to relate a story on why it makes me sad. I have a dear single woman friend and she and I adore each other and have much in common even though we have different tastes in decorating – mine more modern stark minimalism and hers being cozy feminine. I appreciate her style and her home is immensely interesting to me because of the detail of ornamentation. I never thought it was banal. Well, we both went to see OotP together and when we saw Umbridge’s office she immediately commented on how cute it was. But my heart fell a little as she discovered how evil Umbridge was and how similar their tastes were. Here it was. Her style diminished to fodder for a simple mind to digest quickly.
I did my Master’s thesis on the inherent anti-semitism of Wagner’s Der Ring des Nibelungen. In almost twenty hours of this huge cycle – there is not one mention of Judaica. However, it’s there in the description of Mime and Alberich. There’s no mistaking it. But I still go to hear it. Why? Because I love the music. Does this make me a hypocrite? Yes. I’m afraid it does.
Perhaps knowing what I know about these descriptions of both and rejecting them in real life somewhat absolves me. I don’t know.
This post makes me very uneasy.
Joivre, a brief for your defense. It does not make you a hypocrite to love Wagner’s music. I know that Wagner himself was anti-semitic and Hitler loved Wagner’s music. These are reasons enough for Wagner’s music to be anathema in Israel. However, I think that it is possible, and proper, to separate the music from the composer. I have seen quite a few Wagner operas at the Met in New York, including a whole Ring cycle, and I have not detected any anti-semitism in any of these performances. I have also watched the whole Ring on DVD’s, while following along with the text of Ernest Newman’s The Wagner Operas . I detected no anti-semitism here, either.
I admit, that compared with most of the people who post on this site, I am not much of a literary critic. But I have long been aware of Wagner’s anti-semitism so I think that I would have detected it in his operas if it were clearly there. I would be interested in reading your master’s thesis, if it is available, to see if there is more than the description of Alberich and Mime that led you to argue that anti-semitism is inherent in the Ring.
This is a far cry from a discussion of DH, but the points you raise are interesting.
BTW, is your current avatar a picture of Maria Callas?
Very interesting discussion here, about Umbridge. I see her as a counterpart to the Witch in Hansel and Gretel, who lives in a house made of candy, which is essentially a trap for children. In the story, Hansel and Gretel do not recognize her as being evil at first–it’s only when they are in her power, and she has revealed her plans for them that they realize that. I see Umbridge’s choice of decoration in the same light. Who would ever suspect a middle aged woman who wears pink and simpers like she does to turn out to be a sadistic torturer? This, of course, does not mean that every woman who likes to dress in pink, or surround herself with frills and cutesy plates is an Umbridge at heart. Joivre, that was a very interesting story you told about your friend who has similar decorating tastes to the scenes shown in the OOTP film. I hope she does not think that having similar tastes makes her evil. It isn’t our choice of decor or dress that determines whether we are evil or not–it’s how we choose to treat other people. I also agree with what’s been written about the banality of evil. What’s more banal than kitten plates, and the rest of the “cozy cottage” style that Umbridge uses in her office? I think it’s also a part of her character that she does not appear evil to everyone. To Fudge, she’s probably the perfect secretary, simpering over every decision he makes, and working her utmost to carry his wishes out. Remember Percy Weasley’s writing to Ron that Umbridge was “a charming woman”? To those she sees as being on the same side, she never has to reveal what lurks beneath the surface. It’s only the ones at Hogwarts whom she regards as the enemy that she reveals the true monster within. This is a valid presentation of a evil person, as we can see, both from fiction and reality. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, The BTK killer– all of these figures were charming on the outside. The BTK killer even worked at a church! (That’s how the police finally tracked him down–he was using a computer owned by the church he worked at). Ted Bundy lured women to their death by being charming and seemingly harmless. The point is, and I’m echoing an earlier post here, that evil takes on the face of banality to fool the populace at large. There’s at least a subconscious, if not conscious realization by the evildoer that to reveal his or her wickedness openly might lead to repercussions. So he/she covers that up, so as not to get caught and punished. When that kind of person happens to get placed in a position of power, it’s a lot easier to begin to let the devil out, so to speak.
Joivre, I disagree with you: I don’t think that Umbridge is post-menopausal. I also think that she is a woman of robust appetites, but I prefer to keep the door closed on that particular bedroom.
Question: was it the book-Umbridge who said she hated children, or the movie-Umbridge? If the latter, then we have yet one more attempt to explain part of her pathology. It’s not a bad guess.
I remember defending JKR of the crime of easily resorting to stereotypes by arguing that her stereotypes were so richly detailed – and satirical – as to acquire the status of caricatures. I compared her to Dickens in her ability to draw up these entertaining caricatures of humanity. If a few eggs get broken in the process – if she makes fun of people who collect kitten plates and knit unwanted sweaters for their relatives for Christmas – then that’s part of the process, isn’t it?
I’m also thinking that personal style is a thing that’s easy to mock. Trends come and go, and yesterday’s trends become today’s joke. What really bothers me in JKR’s caricatures is that characters whom she mocks on matters of personal style are more likely to be female than male, to wit: Umbridge, Molly Weasley, Fleur, and to a certain extent, Luna. Which says to me that with all the freedom to create her own mores and standards, she still falls into the rut of defining her female characters almost as much by their appearance as by their actions.
But no author is perfect. Which is one of the reasons why reading involves a lot of sifting for me: I separate what I like from what I don’t, and concentrate on the good stuff.
As for Herr Wagner, I am blessed in the fact that I don’t care for most of his music (well, except for the Liebestod) so I don’t have to wrestle with his outrageous anti-Semitism.
Red Rocker, I’m not sure I agree that JKR is more down on female than male in matters of style. Lockhart, Diggle, Xeno, and to a certain extent Snape are all defined strongly by appearance.
Joivre, I certainly don’t intend to imply that because a woman may like china plates and kittens while being a spiritual abuser, therefore china plates and kittens are signs of spiritual abuse! One might as well say that since Hitler was a painter, therefore all artists are genocidal monsters. Rather, knowing such an evil man appreciated good art (on whatever level) somehow makes him all the more disturbing, as we find malevolence where we’d expect to find warmth and comfort. The “abusive pattern” I alluded to is not so much liking kittens as seeing oneself as completely sweet and innocent while oppressing others. Fricka’s analogies of the witch’s candy house and the charming serial killers are excellent. In Scripture, doesn’t the devil disguise himself as an “angel of light”? That doesn’t make angels bad; it makes the devil deceptive– perhaps even self-deceived.
Charlie, you (and Joivre too) might appreciate C. S. Lewis’s essay “First and Second Things,” in which he gleefully points out how the Nazis were able to co-opt Wagner’s mythos only by more or less completely missing the point of it. They are on record describing Hagen (!) as the hero of Götterdämmerung. [Google Books link]
By the way, I think I neglected to say this the first time, but splendid exposition on this chapter, Lily Luna! I must confess to always getting a certain little vicarious (and vindictive) thrill when Harry blasts Umbridge and leads the Muggle-borns to safety.
I think it’s safe to say that Wagner was totally redeemed by the use of his music in What’s Opera, Doc.
Dearest Charlie – you are my new friend! You guess correctly on my avatar – ’tis Divalicious Callas. Regarding the Ring cycle – yes, you are right, not one mention in 20 hours. That’s what made it interesting to me. There’s a music scholar from Cornell U. who lectured on the topic and I’m attaching a link to his site. There is no absolute proof of anti-semitism in the cycle. And there have been many attempts to show it – all shot down by people like me who love the music and don’t want to think that it’s a marathon of propoganda. But like a lot of subtle prop. – you either believe it’s there or you don’t. You have to also look at the vocal range and style of Mime and Alberich in comparison to other works more documented and established as representing Jews in the music of that era. It’s a bit like Triumph of the Will – a film that is hailed as the world’s greatest propoganda – but denied that it is by the artist. Either you believe it or you don’t.
Larry Solomon – http://solomonsmusic.net/WagHit.htm
And yes Eric – I’m an all or nothing gal and I jumped the gun. I completely see your point and thanks for the info on Lewis. I will seek that out for sure!
Revgeorge – this thread has been a stream of consciousness for me –
Kittens
Flopsy
Rabbits
Dead
Wagner
Kill da Wabbit! (my first foray into Wagneriana at age 5)
RR – Yikes! Umbridge as sex kitten has popped into my filthy mind. I need to take a shower.
Interesting idea that, to separate the music from the composer.
I think it’s possible. For me, at least. I admire and enjoy the music of Strauss, the “ap0litical” Nazi. Also Beethoven, who was not a nice man – to his sister-in-law for sure but also probably to whoever else he didn’t like – but wrote incredible music.
But I think there must be limits to the extent that one can seperate the artist from the man. I’m thinking of Michael Jackson and Roman Polanski, and also other famous directors who sexualize young girls. And then there’s Sean Connery and his views on beating women, and Mel Gibson and his views on pretty well everything. Although the latter doesn’t pose much of a dilemma as I can’t think of anything he’s done which I admire.
When I Googled Strauss, I found this quote from Arturo Toscanini:
To Strauss the composer I take off my hat; to Strauss the man I put it back on again.
People being what we are, a lot of hat taking off and putting back on is necessary.
Red Rocker, I guess the most interesting question in the world to me personally is “Can Art be moral?”.
I never saw that quote from the Tosc before! Wise man. Comparing him to another favorite nazi conductor at the time, Herbert Von Karajan, proves Toscanini the better man. By the way – Karajan’s Liebestod is to die for! No pun intended.
Joivre , thanks for providing me with the link to Solomon’s Wagner and Hitler . I read it, and I am almost sorry that I did. Wagner’s music will never again be the same for me. While I knew about Wagner’s anti-semitism, I had no idea just how virulent it was. Also, I had no idea that he intended it to be reflected in his operas. I will still enjoy Wagner’s music, but there will now be a slight uncomfortable feeling about it.
Oh no Charlie. Say it isn’t so. That makes me sad. His music is so beautiful. Read Red Rocker’s last post again. I think you can separate the man from his music.
Here’s my favorite soprano as Isolde. Glorious!!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McfFXDQSKms
Joivre – that performance by Jessye Norman as Isolde is beautiful. Thanks for the link.
I suppose that we should get back to Harry et al. now, but this is fun!
As long as we’re discussing “politics, religion, and Wagner,” I should take the opportunity to bring up Daniel Barenboim. Perhaps you classical music buffs recall the uproar when Barenboim (himself ethnically Jewish) broke with tradition and conducted Wagner’s music in Israel. Here is a fascinating article with some extremely relevant quotes to the discussion– I’ll spare you the cutting and pasting, but do go read it if this rabbit-trail is interesting to you.
I’d also note that, while the quotes from Wagner in the Solomon article are undeniably abhorrent, the article conspicuously neglects to touch on other aspects such as Wagner’s personal respect and friendship with Jewish musicians such as Heinrich Porges and Hermann Levi, who even conducted Wagner’s operas at Bayreuth. Certainly Wagner was a complicated personality, to put it mildly!
Great link, Eric,
I know you didn’t want to cut and paste, but I think this passage by Barenboim is worth quoting:
First of all, there is Wagner the composer. Then there’s Wagner the writer of his own librettos—in other words, everything that is tied to the music. Then there is Wagner the writer on artistic matters. And then there is Wagner the political writer—in this case, primarily the anti-Semitic political writer. These are four different aspects to his work.
For my part, I can ignore the last three, and look at the first: the musician. But like I said, Wagner the composer just doesn’t do much for me.
But at the same time, if a regime had murdered millions of my people, I could easily do without the music they co-opted to enhance their ceremonies. Especially if the composer had gone on record to villify the contributions of my people – Jewish friends notwithstanding. In fact the phrase “some of my best friends are …” is most often used in defense of some kind of bias.
Joivre you ask the interesting question, “can art be moral?”
This makes me think of a few decades ago when it was revealed that tobacco companies owned a great many popular food brands. So if I buy this coffee, is it immoral, as tobacco kills? And, even if the owning/managing company is clean, what about the personal morals of the people who own or run them, or work on the lines? I decided that if I knew who produced all the products I buy, my conscience likely wouldn’t allow me to buy anything.
Art is the creative spark of God within, and artists are human, with human failings. Some morally bad/ambiguous people will produce sublime art (and be disregarded for their personal views), and good, even wonderful Christian people will produce meh (and be embraced simply because they’re Christians).
Hitler tried to appropriate everything for the glory of Germany, thus nicking Mozart. And anti-Semitism was a given in European thought through most of its history, so that will be reflected in some period artists’ work.
Does that make their art “bad”? Do we boycott beauty produced by a flawed creator? Is there any other human kind?
I agree about separating the art from the artist and I love the Tosc quote…and What’s Opera, Doc?, too. And speaking of rabbits, I had a favorite stuffed one I called Thunderbuns.
Your comment popped up, RR, while I was posting. I’m not defending anti-Semitism in art, by the way. And I understand why such an artist would be rejected by the Jews. We each have our own tolerance level for what we will accept or reject and that should be respected. I certainly wouldn’t go out and by records by serial killers or artists completely repugant to me.
A quote that came to mind re: much of the above….
“For a Christian to say, ‘I will not have anything to do with the great and worthy works of artists whose lives were not good’ is to fall into the impiety of questioning the wisdom of God in bestowing the gifts of grace where He will.” — Frank Gaebelein
It’s always a complicated issue….
I look at Wagner as a kind of Musical Grindewald. When Dumbledore says to Harry in the station – you don’t know how his ideas inflamed me – I understand Dumbledore well. Wagner’s music was meant to inflame – it’s powerful, beautiful, sublime, seductive. But most of all dangerous.
And regarding Maestro Barenboim, I think he doesn’t understand – that telling his Israeli audience that it was going to be a democratic performance, by merely asking them if they wanted to hear it was once, patronizing and reeked of gall. The audience did not buy tickets to hear Wagner in the first place and second by putting the audience members who were offended on the spot by forcing them to walk out in front of the others seems that he was intent on humiliating them for their opinion.
That’s just my humble opinion.
And how curious that God bestowed a beautiful iridescent sheen on the dung beetle…. Good quote, Janet.
Arabella – your posts came up as I posted mine! Interesting about governmental appropriation of art. There is one moment in Schindler’s List when after a search and siezure of a Jewish family and home, a nazi sits down and starts playing Bach on the family’s piano. The snake rose inside me. I would not allow them to steal my BACH!
Interesting discussion–I wish I’d been able to get in on this before now. Excellent summary, Lily Luna, and quite the conversation starter! I think this chapter contains poignant examples of some of Rowling’s most powerful themes.
Arabella, I think it is possible to pervert art. Wagner, for instance, achieved inconceivable artistic heights. Yet his inexcusable bigotry perverted what he attained–and, as Joivre hinted, would later be used to inflame atrocity. It’s an interesting question, though, whether his music actually incited antisemitism, or merely reflected a cultural bias to which he was prone. Anyone know the answer to that?
It’s interesting that the Nazis had a policy on fairy tales. (Jack Zipes discusses it in some detail in his writings.) They considered them important parts of ‘Aryan culture’ (ironic, since many Germanic fairy tales have Semitic and Asian roots!), and dictated them for use in indoctrinating children in the Nazi agenda. Their interpretations, of course, sound perverse to us–the blonde princess needs to be rescued from the tyranny of her swart half-human master by armed force and brutality. That’s because they are. But they recognized the power, not just of story but of the traditional stories, to sway opinion.
Interestingly, Zipes mentions that at the same time, Marxist theorists were predicting the rise of new fairy tales. They said that proletariat would create stories based on their experiences as an industrial working class. Pans and hammers and machinery would come to life, would find voices, and there would be wonder in the enchanted factories and hidden alleyways. Again–fairy tales considered as powerful voices for social purposes.
I don’t think that’s happened yet, sadly, on the broad scale. I do think that JKR understands this potential and responsibility, and thus the themes of ch. 13 pervade her writing.
Joivre–tell them to keep their grubby Nazi paws away from the piano! Bach isn’t theirs!
(Bach, actually, is an excellent example of the beauty that should, can, and does come out of German culture. It’s not all Wagner.)
Mr. Pond — Interesting point from Zipes about the rise of new fairy tales, with “pans and hammers and machinery” coming to life. You say you don’t think that’s happened? Ah, but I would say it has.
What do you think R2D2 is, and C3PO? And Data, the Brave Little Toaster, Lightning McQueen and friends, Wall-E, the Iron Giant…. We could all keep the list going.
Now, whether those new fairly tales reflect Marxist ideology… well, that’s another issue, and one where perhaps the Marxists’ predictions failed. But they sure got part of it right!
And of course, I meant to say “fairy tales” in the above post, not “fairly tales.” My bad. Apologies.
Excellent point, janet, and right on the mark, I think.
There have actually been quite a few decent German-speaking composers. Bach and Haydn and Mozart and Schubert and Beethoven and Mendelssohn and Schumann and Brahms and Strauss and Mahler come to mind. IMHO, Wagner doesn’t make the A team (Bach, Mozart and Beethoven), nor the B team (Haydn, Schubert, Brahms). Maybe the C team – he’d look good standing next to Mendelssohn and Mahler.
I’m not convinced that music is that closely related to culture – except where the composer specifically borrows from the melodies and rythms of a given culture (as did Liszt or Dvorjak, say). I think the composers I listed above were influenced by different schools of music but most of all by their own inner muses. But yes, there were an awful lot of German-speaking musical geniuses; more so than any other language group. And while many of them might have been privately anti-semitic in their views, almost none of them were vocal proponents of the anti-semitic / pro- German nationalistic fervor that fed the Nazi ideologists (not sure about Schumann – he was batty enough to say anything)
My point: Wagner was not a typical German composer although to misquote Strauss, he might just barely have been a “first-class second rate” composer. I think he gets more press than he merits, just because his music was co-opted by the Nazis. And is then co-opted by would-be rebels like Barenboim, just to make a point.
Anyways I’m going off to listen to a Bach Suite for Cello: #1, Part 1, played by Pablo Casals just to clear my head. Join me if you like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhcjeZ3o5us&feature=related
Mr. Pond, of course perversion of art happens all the time. Consider Robert Mapplethorpe’s photographs, porn, the Saw film franchise…and a certain Christian artist who has reduced his talent to the crassest commercialism possible. Where there is money to be made or an agenda to spread, it will happen.
Red Rocker, I’ll take the Brandenburg Concertos. But thanks for the link, I’ll check it out; cello is my favorit instrument.
Hmmm, Arabella, you interest me strangely with your oblique reference to the “certain Christian artist”. You couldn’t by chance mean a certain man whose initials are T.K. and who styles himself as the “Painter of Light,” could you? If so, I’ve finally found someone else who thinks his forays into all areas of commercial enterprise are indeed symptoms of a “crass commercialism”.
Anyway, if I could get back a bit to the chapter in DH we have been discussing, I think that Umbridge does fit the description of being self-deluded into thinking that she and Fudge are on the right side of the issue and Dumbledore and Harry are in the wrong. A small bit a self-delusion may not be an entirely bad thing, but on the scale that Umbridge has it, it makes her dangerous. As for her marital status, I had always thought of her as determindly single, but after reading some of the posts here, I’ve reconsidered a bit. We do see her, after all, through the Harry filter. Although she may look like a “toad” to him, that is undoubtedly colored by his first encountering her at his trial. For all we know, she could have been somewhat cute when she was a young lass, and even if she weren’t exactly pretty, her coy mannerisms could have been seen as making her attractive at that time. Many women do not age particularly gracefully, especially when they cling desperately to the same hairstyle and dress that they wore when in their salad days. In Umbridge’s case, if I may make another literary analogy, it’s a bit like the picture of Dorian Gray. What we see in OOTP is the revelation of the character who’s probably been present for years, but was covered up with her “cute” little mannerisms and pink ensembles. *shudder*
My vote is for Umbridge being single. The picture of the man on her desk is Fudge, not some random (or not so random) Wizard husband. She’s married to the ministry.
… Great. Now I’m picturing Umbridge as a nun.
I wonder if Umbridge is self-deluded. “Delusion” has a mental health problem tinge to it and that would give Delores a loophole morally. I question whether she is a bureaucrat simply towing the party line as opposed to a more active involvement with Voldemort’s rise to power. As Lily Luna pointed out that very Drittes Reich virtue of record keeping – surely she is in the know that everyone is of mixed blood including herself. Also I think she likes the feeling the locket gives her. I suspect that Delores Umbridge might just be the Goebbels of the outfit.
Fricka! You make me giggle. You are so right! When it was pointed out to me that perhaps there is a (ahem-hem) concupiscent side to Delores, I shuddered at first too. But – (and let me declare my hetero girl side now just in case this I give a mistaken impression with this) I could see her being sexy in a coquettish-fetish sort of way with her slight avoirdupois and chin-down/gaze-up Naughty-Miss smile. But I think I am seeing more Imelda Staunton than the toad.
Well, I’m sure I grossed everyone out on that one!
Mr. Pond where have you been hiding? Please comment more often! And yes, Bach belongs to the world. Thank God. It’s intersting that it was Mendelssohn, from a prominent Jewish family, who was the one who rescued and championed the greatest German composer in all history from forgotten obscurity a hundred years after Johann Sebastian’s death.
What a god-like performance from Mr. Casals, Red Rocker. I certainly heard it before – but never saw that video. Thanks for the link.
Joivre, I have to agree with you about Umbridge not necessarily being self-deluded. I also hestiate to give her any kind of moral loophole. I think that she is very aware of the situation and of the loose morality of her actions. I know that the line is much more understated in the book than in the movie, but I’m thinking of the scene when she convinces herself that it would be forgivable to use an unforgivable curse on Harry to extract ‘information’ from him regarding the weapon that he, Ron and Hermione have supposedly been building for Dumbledore. (Sorry, can’t quote as I’m at work and don’t have the books with me).
However, I’m not sure that I would go as far as to say that she had active involvement in Voldemort’s rise to power. I don’t think that she really cares who is in power, or what he/she believes, just as long as she too is in a position of power within the administration.
Aerisflowers, I agree. Umbridge is a self-serving, obsessed bureauocrat who manages, like cream, to always rise to the top. What makes her especially disturbing is her bent for and enjoyment of cruelty, both subtle and overt. For example, it’s as if the detention scars on students’ hands are her trophies. How she loved bullying people at those sham trials, and popping them off to the dementors and Azkaban.
Yes, Fricka, I was referring to that artist. I see this year he has collapsible Christmas trees madly covered in soulless Kinkaidia.
Thanks, Joivre. It’s also interesting to note than the Nazi’s outlawed Mendelssohn’s music.
Red Rocker, I do think that you may be just a bit harsh on Wagner musically. In one sense, he was an early version of some of the best rock stars–what he was doing really was incredible, cutting edge, and he had the misfortune of knowing it.
And in another sense, it occurs to me that Umbridge may actually be a scaled down Hitler. Or at least, she has Hitler-like tendencies. Hitler considered himself to be the model of virtue, the impeccable modern man. He was a teetotaler. He patronized the arts–thus his fascination with Wagner and the great Italian painters. (Neville Chamberlain commented on the extent of Hitler’s art collection.) But, of course, many of the Nazi art treasures were stolen from the Jewish community.
Fricka, spot on with Umbridge failing to age gracefully. I think part of her repulsiveness–and part of JKR’s brilliance in the characterization–is that she should be likable. She thinks she is. And, as Joivre has pointed out, many if not most ladies who like kittens and nice tea things are wonderful people to know. For Umbridge, however, her niceness and her cuteness has become simpering, silliness, a front to the calloused attitude that will sacrifice anything–humanness included–for ‘the greatest good’, viz., what’s good for her and her career goals.
In terms of her marital status, I wonder if she isn’t the Ministry’s equivalent to Bellatrix? With an unhealthy, possessive fascination for Fudge first, and then Voldemort?
An interesting thing about Umbridge is that from an administrator’s standpoint, she’d be an excellent employee. She gets things done. She makes improvements, streamlines processes, saves money. Just from looking at her quarterly reports, she’s an impeccable, even commendable, administrator. I’ve worked for people like that–and you can’t challenge their abuses because, to the higher-ups, they’re doing everything right. You don’t like progress or something?
So JKR shows, brilliantly, that ‘faster, better, cheaper’ is NOT the be all and the end all of administration. (I’m thinking specifically of the scene when Umbridge tries to make Trelawney redundant, and Dumbledore intervenes.)
Excellent diagnosis, Mr Pond. You are an invaluable additon to the Pub.
The Ministry’s equivalent of Bellatrix– insightful and intriguing. Bella worships chaos, Umbridge order (the perfect control freak). They both are cruel and delight in it, and like to get rid of their enemies in frightening ways. Both think they’re working for the greater good.
However, Umbridge is more valued than Bella, because she’s more efficient (the perfect employee, as you pointed out), whereas Bella is a constant disappointment to LV. Umbridge isn’t the tool Bella is (of course Bella is a loon). And Umbridge is more flexible than Bella and that’s why she’s a Ministry success.
But both are slavishly devoted to their leaders (in Umbridge’s case, whoever it is). And both make life hell for everyone.
Arabella, Just wondering if you could clarify what you mean by Umbridge is more valued than Bella – do you mean by her employer? If so, I agree, she is far more successful than Bella in implementing whatever directives she is given. However, I’m not sure I agree with you that Umbridge isn’t a tool. I think she is very much a tool, but the difference between her and Bellatrix is that Umbridge adds her own, shall we say, flair to her instructions.
Mr Pond, I somehow can’t quite agree that Umbridge has a fascination with Fudge the man. Although they do hint at the possibility in the movie, I’m not sure there is textual evidence. I believe that it is the power that she can hold by remaining loyal to him and his cause that motivates her. Same with Voldemort. Regardless of her personal opinions (on politics), I think she enjoys the power she wields as a loyal supporter of the new Ministry policies put in place under his rule.
Mr. Pond, excellent point on Wagner being a proto rock star. Robert Pattison (no, not that guy– note the absent ‘n’!) has a book on this subject entitled The Triumph of Vulgarity, tracing the parallels between Rock and Romanticism. I’ve not had a chance to read it myself, but it comes highly recommended by one of my music history profs. Amazon link. In many ways–intense emotionalism, subjectivism, narcissistic overtones, magnetic personalities, pantheistic or anarchistic philosophy–rock is indisputably a logical step in music’s evolution from Beethoven via Wagner (about whom I should probably stop talking already). And let’s not even get started on Liszt…
Back on track here. I’d say any “fascination” on Umbridge’s part in Fudge’s direction is mostly because of the power that comes with his position–the closer she is to him or vice versa, the more clout she can have. She’s the kind that would “kiss a lot of bottom to get to the top.” Put anyone else in the spot (Scrimgeour?) and she’d behave just as sycophantically. It’s not personal; it’s business. Not that she’d see that much of a line between the two.
“Self-deluded”… well, probably not in the sense of outright mental illness. But the psychologists tell us that we can all go to surprising lengths to avoid entertaining the notion that (horrors!) we might be wrong. To the extent that our pride doesn’t allow us to admit that we could be mistaken or flawed, we start rewriting the rest of reality accordingly. Once you suppress the cognitive dissonance, the rest is terribly easy.
Totally not connected to anything directly, here is a story about another very nationalistic composer who was also cutting edge, but was the antithesis of a rock star. Frederic Chopin spent all of his adult life in France, but remained devoted to the land of his birth, Poland. He asked that when he died his heart be removed from his body.
His sister later took it in an urn to Warsaw, where it was sealed within a pillar of the Holy Cross Church on Krakowskie Przedmie?cie, beneath an inscription from Matthew VI:21: “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”
Makes me shiver.
Aerisflowers, I meant Umbridge is valued by her master, whereas Bella isn’t. Umbridge isn’t the crass tool that Bella is. She moves methodically, flexibly and opportunistically to gain the highest prominence, while Bella, static in her crazed passion, is emotionally manipulated. Umbridge works directly with administrative bureaucrats; Bella works directly with an unstable socio/psychopath.
Eric, what you said.
Great discussion everyone. Keep it up!! Keep it going!! Especially since I’m no where near being ready to write up the next chapter!
This thread is not quitting! And it’s FUN!
Red Rocker – Growing up with a first generation Polish mother you can imagine what a hero Chopin was in my household. Well at least, until I researched his letters. (don’t tell Charlie!)
And about Schumann – he may have been bipolar, but I used to think he was one of the good guys. Poor Schumann was sweet and supportive to every new composer he met and heard. He started the Neue Zeitschrift fur Music (Journel of New Music) and wrote articles about all the new composers praising their works, such as Brahms and Wagner – and Wagner hated him for it. However, yes, he and Clara made disparaging remarks about Jews as well.
I still love their music but when I discovered they both wrote anti-semitic remarks in letters and diaries (their words were not as outrageous as RW – but is there really a fine distinction regarding the matter?), it really bummed me out. Man!
Ah – but Beethoven. Never. Not once.
At 90 comments and still going, we’re getting a lot of mileage out of Chapter 12. Mind you, we’ve had a major meander into Wagner and the perversion of art, and some totally frivolous discussion of Umbridge’s sex life – or lack thereof.
Let’s try a different tack.
Anyone here familiar with work on the authoritarian personality? Wikipedia tells us:
The authoritarian personality is an influential theory of personality developed by University of California, Berkeley psychologists, Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford in their 1950 book of the same name. The personality type is defined by nine traits that were believed to cluster together as the result of psychodynamic, childhood experiences. These traits are conventionalism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, anti-intraception, superstition and stereotypy, power and “toughness,” destructiveness and cynicism, projectivity, and exaggerated concerns over sexuality.[1] In brief, the authoritarian is predisposed to follow the dictates of a strong leader and traditional, conventional values.
Subsequent research showed that only three of these traits correlated with each other: conventionalist, authoritarian submission, and authoritarian aggression.
Describes Umbridge to a T, I’d say.
BTW, Adorno et al were survivors of the Nazi regime, and were trying to understand – as much for themselves as the rest of the world – the roots of anti-semitism.
Oh and Aerisflowers and Arabella – yes, I see your point on Umbridge’s ambition. She’s a bit of an enigma to me. Sometimes I can’t see the inner-forest for all the kittens with her and I get confused as to where her true allegiance lies. And you’re both right – it’s probably with herself.
Anti intraception? I had to look it up and this is what I found – and from Adorno no less – here’s the link to (and I love this title!)
The Bureaucracy Made Me Do It: Understanding Agentic Shift in Bureaucrats
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/0/4/5/1/pages204513/p204513-4.php
“those qualities into ones own ego allows an authoritarian to enhance his/her self-concept. Questioning the authority would violate the status quo and is avoided. When the authoritarian is confronted by individuals that do question the authority’s order, they may turn to aggression as a defense. The Authoritarian Aggression is the desire to punish, condemn and reject those that question the authority of the organization. Submission and aggression work hand in hand in support of the status quo. The worker must be submissive to authority and if they are not, it is the obedient submissive’s job to enforce or punish those that violate the norm. Anti-intraception is an attitude of impatience with and opposition to the subjective or what could be (Adorno, 1950). The Anti-intraception characteristic is really the desire of seeking to maintain the status quo. The status quo is objective and real. There is no need to seek subjective thought or imaginative resolution to problems. The solution is written somewhere in the policies and rules of the organization; if not the authoritarian can turn to a higher authority such as a superstition or myth. If the solution is not written, it is the job of the authority to decide, not the submissive. This relies on the hierarchical structure of the organization. The belief in superstitions allows the authoritarian an explanation for phenomena that is unexplainable. The most prominent belief is in God. God is a moral entity that has established written laws for all of mankind that must be strictly followed. The authoritarian believes the questioning of God’s authority is abhorrent and those that do should be punished in order to maintain the status quo. If the direct supervisor cannot explain or give reasons for an action, it is easy to rely on God or another superstition for rationale. Superstition may also be used to justify actions leading to conformity.”
I learn something new everyday on this site!
Quick response, Joivre, but remember that six of the original nine traits – anti-intraception, superstition and stereotypy, power and “toughness,” destructiveness and cynicism, projectivity, and exaggerated concerns over sexuality – did not pan out. The only traits which did were the conventionalism and authoritarian submission and aggression. The superstition (which is how Adorno et al equated with religiousness) trait was one of the ones that didn’t predict anti-semitism. In fact, in Hitler’s Germany, where all this came to a dreadful head, Catholics were less likely to be supportive of the racist dogma than non-Catholics.
The research on the authoritarian personality gradually turned into research on right-wing authoritarianism:
Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. It is defined by three attitudinal and behavioral clusters which correlate together:[1][2]
Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submissiveness to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness directed against deviants, outgroups, and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities.
Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the traditions and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities, and a belief that others in one’s society should also be required to adhere to these norms[3].
The terminology of authoritarianism, right-wing authoritarianism, and authoritarian personality tend to be used interchangeably by psychologists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism
A scale measuring RWA (Right Wing Authoritarianism) has as its first item:
Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.
This breaks down neatly into the three components:
People who strongly agree with this are showing a tendency toward authoritarian submission (Our country desperately needs a mighty leader), authoritarian aggression (who will do what has to be done to destroy), and conventionalism (the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us).
Again, I think this is a pretty close description of the attitudes Umbridge brings to her work. It even explains the kitten plates and pink bows: highly conventional aesthetic tastes, matching her support of the status quo.
Regarding the RWA scale – I predict three traits that did not originally correlate will surrepticiously appear in subsequent posts:
1. destructiveness and cynicism
2. which will lead to power and toughness
3. and will culminate in superstition
Red Rocker, I remember thinking immediately of Altemeyer and his RWA personality research when I first read Order of the Phoenix; you’re definitely not the only one to see Umbridge in that light. And I’ve often thought that Percy was another example of a high-RWA type, someone who was in danger of becoming another Umbridge. For that matter, Hermione in the early part of Year 1 seemed in danger of becoming another Percy!
Red Rocker, that is very interesting information on the authortarian personality and RWA traits. I agree with Steve that Percy was in danger of becoming another Umbridge, and that Hermione was in danger of becoming another Percy! Looking back in the books, it’s clear pretty early on that Percy is fixated on having power. Ron observes him reading a book in COS, the title(if I remember correctly) is Prefects Who Gained Power, and Ron tells Harry that Percy wants to eventually be Minister of Magic. There it all is, his master plan, when he was still quite young. As someone who works with college students in their first year who often have no clue as to what they want to do with their lives, I find this early committment on Percy’s part rather ominous. I think Hermione was saved by overhearing Ron saying she was ” a nightmare,” and the subsequent Troll incident, after which Harry noticed that she had become a bit more lax about rules, and “was the nicer for it.” This brings me back to the definition of the authortarian personality: the authors believed the traits that clustered together were the “result of psycodynamic, childhood experiences.” I think we are on to something here. It’s been discussed in other places about Percy’s being a middle child in a family of accomplished wizards, with older brothers who were all quite successful(well, perhaps he didn’t see Fred and George in that light, but it would have been hard to outdo Bill’s Head Boy Status and Charlie’s being a Quidditch Star!).This could have been the pyschodynamic fuse that lit Percy’s ambition. He wants recognition, but it won’t be enough for him to simply follow in his brother’s foot prints, so what’s he to do? He’s got to choose something pretty grandiose to even have a chance at standing out. I have to admit, the thought of Hermione being a potential Percy has merit, and I’ve had the thought that in first year Hermione, Pre-troll incident, we may very well glimpsing what a young Delores Umbridge was like as well.
*Must-go-lie down-now!*
I meant, “be glimpsing,” sorry!
Steve and Fricka, Hermione does have an undue regard for rules, but I don’t think it translates into an authoritarian personality. First of all, her respect is for the rules, not the people behind them. If authority doesn’t follow the rules, she is the first to say so. So she does not have the authoritarian submission trait. Second of all, she does not believe in the harsh enforcement of the rules. So she does not have the authoritarian aggression trait. And she definitely does not support the status quo in some important respects so she is not that conventional.
The behavioural evidence – her actions – shows that she is the exact opposite of someone who is prejudiced against minorities and willing to support the use of force against them. Hermione is a champion of minority rights to the extent of being a social activist. In her world she would not be a RWA, she’d actually be far left of centre, more so than any other character we meet.
If you want further proof, ask yourself what Hermione would have done if she were in Nazi Germany in the 1930s.
Regarding the comparisons between Hermione and Percy, I’m reminded of the scene in GoF when Percy finds out that Winky was suspected in the conjuring of the Dark Mark. Percy agrees that Crouch was right to dismiss Winky, but Hermione protests the unjust treatment and Percy is taken aback. “Hermione had always got on fairly well with Percy — better, indeed, than any of the others.”
Hey Tech gods – I can’t get to the previous comments. Everytime I click on the link, I get this. Also, would one of you be so kind as to explain to me how to use the html attributes below? (I wish we just had an idiot bar to highlight and click because I’m an idiot re these things).
“? Previous Comments button” When I click on it I get nothing, I am trying to access the older post /comments for this chapter. Does anyone else have this happen also?
Yes, Red Rocker and Joivre, it’s happening to me, too. We are in Ch. 13 purgatory!
It’s been like this all morning. By the way Fricka you mean R. Ross. So – Fricka – I noticed you had two comments that I can’t get to – what did you say!?
“Patience, n. a minor form of despair, disguised as a virtue.”
- Ambrose Bierce
Interestingly, I can access a few of the recent comments by using the RSS feed for this post: http://thehogshead.org/dh13-3902/feed/ in a feedreader.
But only a few, and every time someone adds a new comment, an old one falls off the bottom!
Joivre here’s how to use the html tags: for bold you type: (strong)text that you want in bold(/strong) but use the ‘less than’ and ‘greater than’ symbols instead of ( ). (The ones that look like a ‘v’ on it’s side)
I’m also having issues accessing the previous comments.
Whenever a post goes past 100 comments, the first 100 are separated. But in the past it was possible to view them. Don’t know what’s happened here.
I just e-mailed Travis and Korg to ask them for help.
Usually the posts that are in the 100s have their correct comment number – 101, 102 etc. Looks like these comments now are behaving as if they are the first couple for the post. They start over at 1.
At the top of the comment list there is a “Previous Comments” link. Click on that and you’re laughing.
Actually, if appears that you won’t laugh.
I’ll look at it more.
There you go.
Oh, these R.R. names! Sorry, I did mean R. Ross and not Red Rocker on that last post of mine.
I did want to discuss a bit what the “psychodynamic, childhhood experience” might have been that set young Delores Umbridge onto the path of becoming an authoritarian. However, I find my brain freezing over after writing that last sentence! Anyone else have some thoughts or theories on that?
Fricka – there is an interesting snippet about that in a google book online with the link below that I found. It talks about the damaged ego of children who are punished for unconventional behavior. The children then in turn project their aggression onto “social deviants” as a defense mechanism and is more acceptable to the authority figures or parents.
This reminds me of a snatch of a song by Sondheim, “Children Will Listen” – (cannot resist posting Mandy Patinkin in his young crisp glory. Oh and try to ignore that old man in the background.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a841zBsszQ
Careful the things you say
Children will listen
Careful the things you do
Children will see and learn
Children may not obey, but children will listen
Children will look to you for which way to turn
To learn what to be
Careful before you say “Listen to me”
Children will listen
Here’s that link to the Nelson book that goes into great detail.
http://books.google.com/books?id=J1qeQT4bkX0C&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=psychodynamic+childhood+experience+for+authoritarians&source=bl&ots=v8honyriTl&sig=IlEq18FVVevi7cRxvc42WsY-8hw&hl=en&ei=GyP_SsbnN4-QtgP9kYCICw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Nah, I think that Umbridge was always a petty tyrant. She’d make her dolls sit in ordered rows and wouldn’t let them go to the washroom when they asked. The dolls who whispered in class got their hands whipped and had to write “I must not be bad” ten-thousand times on the blackboard. That’s what gave her the idea for the “special pen” later on.
Just watched the video clip. Don’t know why Larry King is hanging around in the background.
Patinkin is totally hot.
OK, if I have to serious, this is what I’d conjecture.
We all make decisions throughout our lives about how we’re going to get our needs met.
Authoritarianism, the tendency to be hierarchical, conventional, and intolerant, has been implicated by research as an extreme feature of general right-wing ideology. The relationship between this ideological pattern and variables of personality and emotion was investigated in three studies. Studies 1 and 2 assessed personality traits in terms of the five-factor model, as well as right-wing authoritarianism, conservatism, and a battery of other political attitude measures. Study 3 examined the positive and negative affect of individuals with differing levels of authoritarianism. The results demonstrate that the authoritarian syndrome is primarily characterized by low openness to experience, and that it is unrelated to self-reported measures of emotion.
Sorry, I posted that before I finished it.
The last bit (which I would usualy italicize to show that it is quote) is from an article by Butler (2000) Personality and Emotional Correlates of Right-Wing Authoritarianism
What it means is that people high in RWA are characterized by being not very open to new experiences.
This is what high and low openness to experience look like:
Openness is a general appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience. The trait distinguishes imaginative people from down-to-earth, conventional people. People who are open to experience are intellectually curious, appreciative of art, and sensitive to beauty. They tend to be, compared to closed people, more creative and more aware of their feelings. They are more likely to hold unconventional beliefs.
People with low scores on openness tend to have more conventional, traditional interests. They prefer the plain, straightforward, and obvious over the complex, ambiguous, and subtle. They may regard the arts and sciences with suspicion, regarding these endeavors as abstruse or of no practical use. Closed people prefer familiarity over novelty. They are conservative and resistant to change.
So that’s part of what we have going on with Umbridge. And this is probably more the way she was born than how she learned to be.
I think we also have a bit of sadism that’s going on. And that part is probably learned. Here is one possible explanation how. Most of us tend to have a negative emotional and phyisological reaction to others’ pain. This is a negative experience. When it stops, we feel relief. That sense of relief can actually be interpreted as a positive experience. Sort of like hitting yourself on the head with a hammer – it feels good when it stops. A sadist is someone who hurts someone else for the physical sense of satisfaction he/she gets when the hurting and the resulting distress stops. It’s a learned connection. Mind you, it’s only a theory which would be hard to prove.
I think there is one more piece to Umbridge. The social dominance piece. There is a pesonality trait which is called Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) which reflects an ndividual’s preference for hierarchy within any given social system. We can see this clearly in Umbridge. I need to do some reading to see if it’s more innate, or acquired.
What it means is that people who are high in RWA are just not that comfortable with new experiences, they don’t seek novelty, and are much more comfortable with what they know.
Yes, but…
What causes such extreme aversion to openess of experince?
Fear.
I consider myself a pretty open person of average intelligence and yet, I hate flying. I understand and can even recite the Bernulli Principle but get me on a plane and the first thing I order is a medicinal martini. It’s irrational.
I won’t go skydiving. I fear it. To some people, they love the experience. I know the parachute will open and I will float down to earth safely. It is like torture to me. If the Nazis wanted information from me about D-Day, all they would have to say is “You will go skydiving!” and I would scream “The beach at Normandy!”.
What causes this fear?
PS The cd “Mandy Patinkin” released in 1989 is one of my favorite cds of all time.
Oh whoops – you posted when I posted and so I didn’t see your last post.
All: For the next few minutes, I’m going to look at the comments issue. I’d like to return to having comments separate out into pages when the threads get long.
Yeah, no idea what’s going on. I put it back the way Matthew changed it, and I’ll try to find a resolution to the problem at another time. Most likely something buggy with a plugin.
Is that Ryan Miller you got there? The guy with the 1.75 GAA?
Good, Travis, it’s good to hear that the fault, dear Brutus, lies not in us longwinded posters but in some buggy plug-in!
In the effort to give revgeorge more time to compose his upcoming chapter summary, I’m going to respond a bit to what Joivre and RedRocker have recently posted about the authoritative personality
( and yes, I double checked to make sure it was Red Rocker and not R. Ross this time!)
Joivre, that clip with Mandy Patinkin was great! The lyrics were appropriate to what we’ve been discussing, too. I also want to weave in what you wrote about fear. It occurs to me that one reason there were so many people who were cruel in WWII Nazi Germany could be that the parents were filled with fear. Perhaps Little Johann or Ingridwere not quite behaving in a way that could be seen as “normal”? They must be punished! The punishment would probably have been accompanied by a scolding that would make it clear that the behavior was not acceptable, whether it was Johann playing with girls’ dolls, or Ingrid wanting to be friends with that little Jewish girl a few houses down. Behind all the punishment would be the fear on the part of the parents that their family would come under scrutiny which would be at the best of times unwelcome, and at the worst, dangerous.
While I find what Red Rocker has written about the RWA personality interesting, it seems to me that once again, it must have roots in family origins. We don’t get to see Umbridge’s family in the Harry Potter series, of course, but it’s highly unlikely that she just grew up, like Topsy. I think there’s a real possibility that at least one of her parents was a control freak, and possibly both. How would little Delores best please them, then? By putting on stereotypical female behavior, which for her would include the simpering and use of charm to mask her true ambitions.
Openness to experience is seen as a pretty basic personality trait, expressed soon after birth. It can mostly likely be influenced by the environment, but the basic predisposition is probably hard wired. Here’s some evidence:
Openness to experience, like the other traits in the five factor model, is believed to have a genetic component. Identical twins (who have the same DNA) show similar scores on openness to experience, even when they have been adopted into different families and raised in very different environments.[10] One genetic study with 86 subjects found Openness to experience related to the 5-HTTLPR polymorphism associated with the serotonin transporter gene.[11]
Higher levels of Openness have been linked to activity in the ascending dopaminergic system and the functions of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Openness is the only personality trait that correlates with neuropsychological tests of dorsolateral prefrontal cortical function, supporting the link between Openness and IQ.[12]
Lest I sound like I’m demonizing closedness, Wikipedia tells us:
Openness tends to be normally distributed with a small number of individuals scoring extremely high or low on the trait, and most people scoring near the average. People who score low on openness are considered to be closed to experience. They tend to be conventional and traditional in their outlook and behavior. They prefer familiar routines to new experiences, and generally have a narrower range of interests. They could be considered practical and down to earth.
Nothing much would get done if it weren’t for the people who are low on openness: they’re the ones who make sure things happen regularly and on time.
Red Rocker, the very same. Statistically, the most critical goalie in hockey. Or probably more accurately, we have the worst backup goalies in hockey for the past several years running.
You could use some scoring too, it seems to me.
But Ryan Miller may be one of the most underestimated goalies in the NHL. We can only dream of having such a consistently stable, unflappable presence behind us as we play. What we could not achieve if that were so!
The genetic link to openness and to the fear of openness is interesting. I believe it. I also believe that Happiness is also genetic. That said – I like when Beethoven wrote “I shall seize Fate by the throat; it shall certainly not bend and crush me completely.”
Regarding openness and IQ – I would expect that. IQ can be developed. And since openness leads to curiosity which leads to study, hence more brain development, it would lead to higher IQ.
However, I would think that somewhere along the lines of Umbridge’s childhood, fear was brought into play. I looked up fear and found something interesting about fear and religion.
Fear and death
Psychologists have addressed the hypothesis that fear of death motivates religious commitment, and that it may be alleviated by assurances about an afterlife. Empirical research on this topic has been equivocal. According to Kahoe and Dunn, people who are most firm in their faith and attend religious services weekly are the least afraid of dying. People who hold a loose religious faith are the most anxious, and people who are not religious are intermediate in their fear of death. A survey of people in various Christian denominations showed a positive correlation between fear of death and dogmatic adherence to religious doctrine. In other words, Christian fundamentalism and other strict interpretations of the Bible are associated with greater fear of death.
It seems those that fear the most are those who adhere the tightest to dogma. Which is just was Umbridge does. People like Delores are probably in a vicious circle of fear and have are genetically predisposition to fear openness.
What I just wrote may make perfect sense – or it could be complete BS. I think I just might be ready for the tent in chapter 14 now.
PS thanks Aerisflowers for explaining the HTML tags. Now I feel like a grown-up.
I have to ask, for the sake of fairmindedness. Is there really no left-wing authoritarianism? Don’t we see rigidity and closemindedness there, too? And fear of ideas?
I don’t see these tendencies to be restricted to conservatives.
Also, people raised legalistically tend to gravitate as adults to the opposite; those raised in chaos toward rigidity, to feel in control. We might think about this re Delores.
Yes Arabella – you are right! Here a snip regarding what you are talking about –
Right and left
The “right wing” in right-wing authoritarianism does not necessarily refer to someone’s politics, but to psychological preferences and personality. It means that the person tends to follow the established conventions and authorities in society. In theory, the authorities could have either right-wing or left-wing political views.
Milton Rokeach’s dogmatism scale was an early attempt to measure pure authoritarianism, whether left or right. The scale was carefully designed to measure “closed mindedness” without regard to ideology. Nevertheless, researchers found that it correlated with political conservatism.[7] In a similar line of research, Philip Tetlock found that right wing beliefs are associated with less integrative complexity than left wing beliefs. People with moderate liberal attitudes had the highest integrative complexity in their cognitions.[8]
There have been a number of other attempts to identify “left-wing authoritarians” in the United States and Canada. These would be people who submit to leftist authorities, are highly conventional to liberal viewpoints, and are aggressive to people who oppose left-wing ideology. These attempts have failed because measures of authoritarianism always correlate at least slightly with the right. There are certainly extremists across the political spectrum, but most psychologists now believe that authoritarianism is a predominantly right-wing phenomenon.[9]
Although authoritarians in North America generally support conservative political parties, this finding must be considered in a historical and cultural context. For example, during the Cold War, authoritarians in the United States were usually anti-communist, whereas in the Soviet Union, authoritarians generally supported the Communist Party and were opposed to capitalism.[10] Thus, authoritarians generally favor the established ways and oppose social and political change.
There are examples I am sure from both sides. And as Academia is a left-leaning conglomerate, these studies and their findings could be given a slant. You decide on how to interpret it.
And also true about opposites. There are many children who don’t want to repeat the errors of their parents and consciously make that decision. And also those who buck at restraints.
I can’t help it.
Umbridge Puts a Spell on You
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hiv1jfXwqGI&feature=related
A Spoonful of Umbridge…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_MxTDHZ9E4&feature=related
Joivre,
Where are these “snips” you are quoting coming from?
heh, heh. Great clips there, Joivre. I’ve often compared Umbridge to Cruella De Ville, while for me Bellatrix is more like Maleficent. Disney gave us a truly scary witch(Maleficent) and a witchy woman(Cruella) while JKR gave us a b****y witch*(Umbridge) and an evil, insane witch(Bellatrix).
Brilliant clips, Joivre, especially the second one. Who would have thought that Mary Poppins and Dolores Umbridge were sisters under the skin? The similarity is so close that it both sheds a sinister light on Poppins’ implacable good humour and Umbridge’s benign view of herself. A picture – or a video clip – is worth a thousand scientific analyses. Bravo to whoever made the link, and bravo to you for finding it for us.
Korg, Joivre‘s snips are coming from the same source as mine: Wikipedia. I would have cited the same research if she hadn’t beaten me to the punch.
Mille grazie, Red Rocker. *big, flourishy, deep-to-one-knee, hand-to-heart, Diva-bow* Yes, I love the distortion of Umbridge visually in the Spoonful vid. It’s so perverse.
Sorry Korg, I’ll remember to cite my quotes from now on. I kind of assumed everyone knew where we were.
What I love about this site and in particular this thread, is that it meanders all over the place. I believe that these side trips enhance my understanding of a work. I think it reflects a beautiful collective mind.
No problems. Thanks for that.
I wanted to know who wrote the material and where it was sourced from to do any additional reading/checking.
While I was listening to the “Spoonful of Sugar” clip, I noted that there were several other Umbridge vids, so I listened to the “Devil Woman” one, with the song by Cliff Richards. Very apt for Umbridge also.
Just wanted to add my thanks to Joivre for the video links. It’s amazing what light can be shed on two completely different works when you combine them in thought-provoking ways. I really hadn’t delved too far into the world of fan made videos before this thread and Joivre‘s posts on the fan fiction palooza thread. Thanks for opening my eyes!
Also, you are very welcome for the html instruction!
A hardy thank you to all of you at the Hog’s Head Pub, I so appreciate everyone for your efforts all the contributions that make this a truly remarkable place on the web. There is no other place like it.
It took a bit of time to get caught up with all the comments after yesterday. “the real R. Ross”
Oy, Lily Luna, I’ve had an insane week (one opera I’m in just opened last night, I’m rehearsing another, and my day job has me swamped) so I came to read this late and am way too late for discussion, but I wanted to tell you that I really enjoyed your post and think that it was very elegantly written!
Diva_alix! Toi, toi, toi! I hope your reviews were magnificent! Too bad we didn’t have you commenting on all our Opera talk. You took a real, flourishy Diva-bow! Wow – you’re rehearsing another opera while still performing the first one? You must have iron vocal chords!
If I might be so bold as to ask you such a personal question on this public site – but what is your Fach? In bocca al lupo…
Wow, 142 comments – that must be some kind of record! Lots of great comments. Loved the discussion about Umbridge and authoritarian personality etc.
Thank you, diva Alix and everyone else for your kind comments about my post on Chapter 13.
142? Not even close.
http://thehogshead.org/is-harry-a-horcrux-7/
Well, it hardly seems to be over…
(And thanks for your kind words, Arabella.)
I admit my head always gets a little spun by personality-type talk. But from what’s been said about the nefarious Ms. Umbridge, I have to say it sounds spot on, particularly the bit about openness and fear.
In terms of her childhood, I suddenly remember the young Calvin, building grotesquely warped snowmen with Hobbes. He is, in many ways, the prototypical lonely child–escaping into make-believe worlds where he is clever and super and adventurous and independent. Where he can dominate and destroy, and live a life without defeat (unless he’s playing with Hobbes).
That puts in my mind the image of a prim, toad-like little girl, sweet to everyone and privately pulling the arms off her dolls, slowly. I suspect Umbridge was a far cry from the renegade Calvin, though she may have been a lonely child. (Thus her repressed need for ‘family’, show in the picture of Fudge on her desk, where other people would have pictures of their loved ones.) I suspect she was rewarded with attention when she was ‘smart’ and ‘grown-up’, a well behaved little prude. And neglected the rest of the time, creating a void that manifested in her cruelty to anything, everything, smaller and weaker. Her career goals are to overturn anything that threatens her idea of control. Viz, Dumbledore.
Okay, I better stop–I’m talking myself into feeling downright sorry for her! Wow…
Let me throw this question into the mix for us Hog Hounds to worry–what political party is Umbridge? (Remember, we’re talking UK politics, though allusions to the American scene are certainly welcome.) And was she put in office through popular ballot, or crony appointment, or combination of both?
And Lily Luna–hats off again to a magnificent post!
I was thinking that by all pulling together and thinking of the multitude of possible interpretations of kitten plates and pink boucle and Harry’s dress rehearsal in his role as Saviour, we could surpass the previous record, but then I took a look at the numbers and realized. That’s not going to happen.
But to be fair, that post was not only about the second most important question posed by the books (second only to the question: was King’s Cross real or did it all happen inside Harry’s head?), but also Deathly Hallows was released during that post. It actually bridged a crucial moment in history.
That post was real time. Everything else is remembering only.
I’ll toss another cat amongst the pigeons.
I think the person most like Umbridge is Snape, and I suggest they had similar backgrounds, chaotic and painful, with a lot of anxiety. Both grew up and put themselves into dedicated service to those who would give them a sense of identity and family. Both ambitious and wanting to prove themselves; both lacking scruples. Both are cruel and sticklers for rules. Cruelty makes them feel better about themselves; rules make them feel safe and right.
Although they end up fighting on opposite sides, they have a lot in common as adults.
Arabella Figg! You read my mind!!!! I was just going to post something like that. I’ll wait until I get home from work to expand. That was weird! Are you good at Legilimency?
If you get Snape into this mix – I alone could go another 100 posts!
Good, good. Keep it going. Will just be rereading Ch. 14 tonight during the football game. Will work on the post for it tomorrow in between preparing for Advent.
Mr Pond, I don’t know anything about UK political parties, but I don’t think it matters. She would have her position by appointment. She’s not someone who is in the limelight, she is the little toady who is pulling all the strings, the personal assistant who runs the whole show. She doesn’t strike me as being interested in popular support (as seen through her actions at Hogwarts), but just interested in the support of the Minister (unlike, say, Bagman who relies heavily on popular support).
I take the view that her politics are malleable. From Fudge to Scrimgeour to Thicknesse to (presumably) Kingsley, she toes whatever line the Ministry is taking (though I don’t think Kingsley would buy it) . If it were the US, she would work as hard as she could to stay on with Obama despite having been completely supportive of Bush. If she were in France in WWII, she’d jump from being a French bureaucrat to a Nazi collaborator and then join the Allies after they invaded.
Arabella Figg, regarding my previous paragraph, I think that is the difference between Snape and Umbridge (though you make great points about their similarities!). Umbridge is interested in power and will change her loyalties in order to keep it. Snape does not seem to have the same power-hungry streak, and thus his loyalties are deeper and stronger.
I agree, Arabella, Snape and Umbridge are frighteningly alike. In addition to all the traits you listed in your post, they both are bullies in their classrooms. Of course, Snape does end up teaching his students a bit about potions, but it’s really only the ones who have superior potions-making abilities to begin with who manage to do well in his classes, while those who might have some latent ability, like Harry Potter and Neville Longbottom, are bullied so ruthlessly that they are unable to perform well. In contrast, Umbridge does not want anyone in her DADA class to be able to do more than read from the book, as Fudge fears the magical abilities of the students might be later used against him. I also wanted to note that for Harry, this is his worst year insofar as taking classes is concerning, as he has heretofore done quite well in DADA classes, and only had to suffer through the one awful class(Snape’s). Now he has two horrible classes, and what makes it worse, one of the classes is one that he used to excel in. It’s no wonder to me, then , that two years later, Harry can’t refrain from taking Moody’s eyeball from the door to Umbridge’s office in the Ministry. Moody is one of the bravest aurors around, who has always represented those supporting Dumbledore in the fight against Voldemort, and Umbridge having Moody’s eye is like sacrilege.
What Derek D said. Umbridge is into power for its own sake and will shift her allegiance as needed. But somehow I can’t see her supporting Obama. That would be like supporting a – house elf. Can see her and Margaret Thatcher. She’d be right at home with Cheney too. And I can see her in Gitmo.
Dear Derek D – Oh yes Snape does have the power-hungry streak – just the same – if not more – than Umbridge. In fact he became worse than Umbridge – he gave his allegiance to the Dark Lord to the point that he had it burned into his skin! While Umbridge might belong to the Parteimitglieder – Snape was Albert Speer. And if had he not fallen profoundly in love with Lily Evans, I believe he would still be very high up in Voldemort’s Administration. And I don’t believe Snape’s time as spy before the prediction was benign. I think he was probably one of the worst offenders – after the initial remorse of the reason for his split with Evans, I believe the fact that she hooked up with James sent him over the edge, he was jilted, angry, powerless, and wanted revenge and dominion. He was a proactive part of that war, the right arm of Voldemort, and I don’t think he hung around keyholes spying all the time. I think he had a part in interrogation and torture. If I was captured and had to choose my interrogator – it would be Umbridge with her silly pens and bitch slaps. I know I’d be in serious trouble if I saw Snape walk through the door. I think witches and wizards who are good at occlumency are good at not seeing the humanity in front of them. Though on the other side in DH, Snape doesn’t blink when he sees Charity Burbage hanging upsidedown in front of him – which tells me Snape has seen it all before.
Nope – Snape was power-hungry in the worst way.
Also – I’m not really sure about this switching of allegiance with Umbridge. I think she genuinely likes and solidly endorses the ideas of Voldemort. Like Lucius, she may hide her true prejudices during peace time, but she slips into the party-line like a warm bubble bath when the Ministry falls. In fact, if there was no Voldemort and she was head of the Ministry – I think her administration would as racist as his.
Mr. Pond – (I love your moniker! You paradox, you.) I am afraid – I’m falling hook, line and sinker for this – Umbridge is an ultra-conservative Republican. Sorry Republicans out there!!!!! I’m sorry! But I’m anonymous here so what the heck.
Just a friendly reminder to tread carefully on political issues. There’s good conversation, and there are insults. Be certain your conversation is of the former kind, not the latter. Thanks!
Sorry Travis – Was I insulting with that last one? Didn’t mean to be!
I love Republicans. I want to kiss Republicans on the lips. 99.99999% of Republicans are good people. Some of my best friends are ultra-conservative Republicans.
Arabella, although it’s been some years now since I read Altemeyer’s books, this is what I remember. He did look for a “left-wing authoritarian” trait, but couldn’t find evidence that there was such a thing per se. However, he did find what he called a “wild-card authoritarian” trait; some people seem to just have an affinity with authoritarian behavior regardless of whether it supports the established leaders and ideology or the reverse. He suggested that (IIRC) some 1960s militant radicals might have had this trait.
I got some results by googling “wild-card authoritarians”, including this page which summarizes Altemeyer’s research. The hits also included some Google Books excerpts from Altemeyer’s own books. But as I said, it’s been a while since I’ve actually read them myself; does anyone out there have ready access to them?
Wasn’t calling anyone out in particular. Just advising caution
Always glad to oblige, revgeorge!
Yes, Fricka, I was including the classroom bullying as cruelty. And Joivre, you’re right on the money about Snape as interrogator. I’m pleased that some of you agree with me on the Snape/Umbridge similarities.
As far as Legillimency, I got my instruction kit in the mail the other day and have been putting it to great use. Heh.
Thank you, Steve, for the information on authoritarianism and ideology. In my experience, I’ve seen liberal groups be just as rigidly demanding of their devoted adherents to toe the party line as conservatives. Sadly, “All for the cause” camps solely in no ideology. I’ll have to read your link later.
Just wanted to say that despite the presence of many similarities, Snape and Umbridge have dissimilarities which make all the difference, and which indeed, make one a villain, and the other something of a hero.
Snape doesn’t physically hurt the kids. You will argue that the psychological and emotional harm he inflicts on the kids is as bad as the scars that Umbridge leaves. I won’t argue against that. But he doesn’t physically hurt them. The child protection people might shake their heads, but they wouldn’t remove him from his post. As well, he tries to protect the kids from physical harm. He saves Harry’s life a time or two.
Snape doesn’t serve a master. He serves a cause – a principle, if you will.
Snape may not be much of a teacher, but he tries to teach. He tries to teach the kids how to brew up effective potions and defend themselves against the dark arts. He tries to help by teaching.
Snape loves.
Snape dies for love.
Of course the first instruction, which I neglected in my haste to get to the good stuff, was to remember to spell Legilimency correctly. Oops.
Joivre Thanks. I’m a mezzo soprano, my fach is a high lyric mezzo (one of the mezzos with high Cs). Right now I’m singing Albine in Massanet’s Thais, which is a fairly small role, part of what makes it all manageable. I’m also playing Katisha in a slightly abridged version (but most of my music is in, woo!) of Gilbert and Sullivan’s “The Mikado” at the Dickens Christmas Fair, and squeezing in the alto solos in Haydn’s Lord Nelson Mass at the local Unitarian church this weekend.
I missed the Opera talk???!! Nooo! I’m so sad! It reminds me of an ongoing conversation I have with singer friends where we discuss which fach each character would be if HP was an opera.
I’ll try to read all these comments and contribute something soon, sorry for going OT traffic, I can resist digressing into singing geekery when asked.
Ha! Singing geekery?! You mean Prima Donna Parlance! What a wonderful Fach – all those fun pants roles plus my favorite – Charlotte in Werther. Uh-oh – now I’m going have to cast the entire Harry Potter Gesamtkunstwerke in my head tonight! I’m never going to fall asleep! Have fun with with your hubby, the Lord High Executioner.
fach
Either:
a method of classifying singers, primarily opera singers, according to the range, weight, and color of their voices
or a mountain in Wales, popular with climbers.
I’m guessing we’re not talking mountain climbing here.
Thank you, Red Rocker, for that definition of “fach”. I was wondering about that myself, but not wanting to expose my obvious ignorance.
In the future, Joivre, and Diva_Alix, you might include a sidebar definition for those of us who do like certain musical genres, but may not be familiar with the jargon of the inner circles. Thanks.
And revgeorge: You STILL haven’t finished that chapter summary? What –has the pastor been procrastinating??? ENERVATE!
Actually, it’s probably the electrician I’m waiting on who needs the Enervate. Although I can’t really blame him; he is coming over very quickly with short notice. But with waiting on him, I can’t really focus enough to work on the post this morning. Maybe this afternoon.
Yeah, Revgeorge – planning Advent? It’s going to happen whether you plan it or not. Just bring out the purple decorations, you already know the readings and besides it doesn’t start for 12 days.
Sorry Friendly Fricka – here’s some Diva definitions:
Gesamtkunstwerke – all-encompassing works. Coined by Wagner.
Toi, toi, toi – good luck backstage, said right before your first entrance.
In bocca al lupo… – the first part of a secret handshake between opera singers, tr. Into the mouth of the wolf…
…Crepi il lupo! – the second part of a secret handshake between opera singers, tr. May the wolf die!
Fach – mountain climbing
Diva Alix and I will try to restrain our inherant Diva Glory.
Regarding comment 161 – Whether Snape “hurts” kids or not is irrelevant to the point. Snape has given up Voldemort. He has rejected the racist cause that he used as an excuse for his outlet of pain and was a stage for him to perform powerfully. That’s the main difference between him and Umbridge. Look, if Snape really wanted to hurt kids, believe me, they’d be in a world of pain. Sometimes I have to remind myself when I see Snape walking around the school, that this is a man who at one time in his life showed no restraint with his power to hurt – strolling along with a bunch of kids. When Snape walks up on the catwalk to duel – Gilderoy is naively facing an ex-prize fighter for Voldemort with power to wipe him off the map of the Marauder’s Map for good with a flick of his wrist. And I still think Snape would like nothing more than to show his power. Sorry, for the Opera ref, but it’s like a dramatic soprano trying to sing a Purcell song. That voice wants to soar – it wants to cut through an entire orchestra – but put it in dynamic restraints with a harpsichord, and it hurts. It’s like driving a muscle-bound Porsche 911 GT3 to the 7-11 around the corner – it wants the autobahn. But hurting kids is not on Snape’s agenda – whether he’s on Dumbledore’s side or Voldemort. It’s small potatoes.
Umbridge has power to hurt kids and uses it – though her power intellectually and magically is small in comparison. Umbridge – for all her prim propriety has no retraints. But her voice is puny, made for the parlor, not a grand opera house.
Lily Luna, well done. Excellent analysis and excellent job opening up impressive amounts of discussion!
On the political side of things, which after reading some of the back commentary I’m honestly not sorry I have come late to–I think we have to be very, very careful about associating evil characters with particular parties, political figures, or even causes.
“Conservative” and “liberal” mean different things in different times (and places, for that matter). Likewise, “Democrat” and “Republican” have lost much of their original meaning, and people who might have been on one side for one reason fifty years ago may well be on the other side for another reason now.
There may be good men and women in positions of high political power, but I won’t pretend to say who they are or are not. I only know that I don’t trust any of the key players I’m seeing now to “do what is right instead of what is easy”.
I would associate Umbridge with, say, the Black Panthers who intimidated white voters in Philadelphia … or the Ku Klux Klan. Or the gay rights activists who assaulted a peaceful Christian prayer group in San Francisco last November … or the rhetoric of Fred Phelps’ group. And if she were limited to Muggle powers and wanted to off someone, I’m sure she would have been perfectly comfortable calling either the guy who shot George Tiller or the guy who shot James Poullion.
[All of whom I mention only to make a point, not to start discussion on the merits or evils of any of the cases.]
She enjoyed power, she enjoyed taking the law into her own hands, she had her causes but I honestly don’t think any of them particularly mattered to her except as a way to self-promotion and control over others. And that little aspect of human nature is not particularly confined to any group of people, regardless of which box they check in the voting booth.
Jenna–exactly. You extrapolated my point beautifully, and my hat’s off to you.
Sorry all, I didn’t mean to talk over anyone’s head with the singer jargon, I was sleepy and on my way to bed, but wanted to respond to Joivre’s questions and good wishes and got excited.
I’ve read some of the comments and I find the different perspectives on Umbridge really fascinating. In book 5 especially, Umbridge really does seem to believe that is benevolent, loving, and is doing what’s right. She seems to believe so much in the establishment that, like Percy, she thinks they could never be wrong. Still, as Phoenix goes on, and as we see in DH, she really, clearly does enjoy being in power.
As far as music and people like Wagner go, I think we can, and need to at times, separate the person from the work. Wagner, in my opinion, was a genius in a lot of ways. I really admire a lot of what he did with his music, and it’s had a huge influence on the history of music and composers that came after him like Puccini, Strauss, and Dvorak to name a few. His ideas about the gesamtkunstwerke, are really interesting. However, he was definitely an anti-Semite, believed that Germans were superior to everyone else, and had a very conflicted relationship to, and portrayal of, women (his librettos were also often, in terms of dialog, not that great). While I can see the characters Joivre mentioned as being negative stereotypes of Jews, I also think that we can, and often do, portray the characters in different ways from what he maybe intended. Also, the ring cycle is a really interesting use of Norse mythology, and, with the focus on people fighting to obtain the Rheingold/ring and the person who possesses it having to renounce love can make it a very interesting comment on capitalism and materialism(though Wagner certainly was no communist either). Unfortunately there are a few operas that have some very racist and sexist things in them, such as The Magic Flute, but have enough good stuff in them to redeem them, and the challenge is to perform them in a responsible way.
Another example I thought of in terms of books is The Education of Little Tree. A book pretty positively portaying Native Americans written by a member of the KKK!
Um, did we get onto this topic by expressing concerns about Rowling falling back on a problematic stereotype about older unmarried women with Umbridge? I lost track, hehehe.
Sorry for jumping back into the Umbridge discussion so late. Joivre, I’m interested in your comment #155 when you say,
“I think she genuinely likes and solidly endorses the ideas of Voldemort.”
I’m just wondering how and why you come to that conclusion, because I’m not sure that I would agree. I believe, as Jenna states above, that Umbridge doesn’t really care what set of rules she is enforcing – just as long as she is in a postion of power to be able to enforce them.
aerisflowers, I think most people, at least I do, get the idea that Umbridge would be sympathetic to Voldemort’s ideology from her practice of writing discriminatory laws, which usually work to the benefit of pure bloods, and also from her announced hatred of different species like the Centaurs. It’s clear she really isn’t that far off the mark from Voldemort & the Death Eaters point of view on racial purity.
Why doesn’t she join the Death Eaters then? I think it has to do with her love of order and government. That is to say, the authority that government provides for one’s actions and beliefs. Voldemort is, for the most part, a rebel. Umbridge isn’t into rebellions or things like that; she’s into order and structure. I would think that if Voldemort got himself legitimately appointed Minister of Magic and started promulgating his views that way, Umbridge would easily have been the perfect Undersecretary for him. In fact, she does become exactly that when the policies of Voldemort become legitimized under Thicknesse.
To put it in Dungeons and Dragons terms, Umbridge tilts very heavily towards the alignment of Lawful Evil. Other Lawful Evil people would be Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader.
This discussion about Umbridge’s beliefs and loyalties, with two different opinions held by Joivre and aerisflowers reminds me of something I was wondering about, and prodding the boyfriend for opinions about, the other day. Did Umbridge know she was really working for Voldemort in book 7 or not? If she did, she clearly didn’t seem to mind. If she did know, when did she become aware of it? While I can see Umbridge working to stay in cahoots with whoever was in power, regardless of their stance, I have absolutely no difficulty in believing that she really was a pure-blood racist. Her remarks about “half-breeds” make it very easy for me to make the jump to her believing about blood purity among human wizards.
And sorry for my ongoing italics in my last post all, I thought I caught everything in proof-reading, but apparently not. Most of my cerebral cylinders are maxed out it would seem.
Diva_Alex, I don’t believe most people, including Umbridge knew about the puppeteer behind Thicknesse…except for Order members and those who guessed. Those like Umbridge were allowed to operate under policies long denied and that was enough. Racism and persecution were embraced by WizWorld racists.
The Ministry was after Harry, but I’m guessing it was because he was rocking the world they wanted and was a magnet for resistance. As I understand it, Rowling doesn’t say if people outside the DEs knew. I’m sure Lily Luna can prove me wrong.
diva_alix, I don’t think Umbridge ever knew she was working for Umbridge. She doesn’t see the Big Picture, the closest she gets is seeing agendas. But she doesn’t know why those agendas are in place, or if they should be, she just enforces them. In DH, I think she heard the Minister talking about needing to promote pure-blood interests, etc. and so she creates laws and rules and programs designed for that agenda, but I doubt the question of why these things were happening and who might be behind it so much as entered her head, despite all the new DE employees.
I mean, really, why stop and think about why everyone’s concerned over one boy’s testimony when you can just send Dementors after him?
Travis & Jennar–my question about political parties was probably ill-advised. Sorry for skirting so near a sensitive topic. I have no wish to offend or disrespect anyone, and I will be more careful in future.
To be honest, I think the best assessment of Umbridge is, as several people have said, to see her as a toady appointment. JKR hints at that with her description of her. I think Umbridge would have sympathies with the BNP. (Do a quick google search on it, if you’re not familiar with the firestorm it’s been getting in the British Press and you don’t mind your blood pressure going up. That was what put the party question in my mind.) Or whatever the wizarding equivalent is — (DEC, Death Eaters Convention?). But yes, she would cater to whoever the ruling authority is at the time.
Joivre–sorry to disagree but I have to concede to Red Rocker. I don’t see inherent similarity between Umbridge and Snape. They have a similar weakness–love of power–but for different reasons.
Umbridge’s is the weakness of the bureaucratic mogol–power for the sake of self. Snape’s is the weakness of the artist–power for the sake of power. He is naturally creative, expressive–finding new ways of wizarding. Thus his unholy fascination with the instability of the Dark Arts–it is perhaps the only field in wizarding where someone like him, an artist rather than an academic, can still explore and create without the red tape of little Umbridge’s hovering over his shoulder. Snape is a wizarding bohemian.
His biggest weakness is his bitterness. The inversion of his love, really. I venture to say that if Snape hadn’t been so bitter over Lily, and if he hadn’t needed to be so close into Voldemort’s inner circle, he–not Dumbledore–would have become Harry’s hero. Part of the revelation of book 7, after all, is how much he and Harry have in common. And, at the end of the day, it was Snape, not Dumbledore, who defended Harry, saved Hogwarts, and outwitted the Dark Lord.
And I really don’t think he was a torturer. Is there even an instance in the books of him using the cruciatus curse? I think he would have been involved in interrogation because of his skill in occulmency. Remember, Snape is a more powerful legillimens than the Dark Lord himself. And the Dark Lord could read Grindelwald’s mind even when the other dark wizard was trying to deceive him. Snape doesn’t need to torture anyone to find out what they know.
Okay, that’s enough of my Snape defense for one day! I wonder if there are two distinct categories of HP fans? The ‘Snape is best’ camp and the ‘Dumbledore is best’ camp?
Mr Pond, not at all! I’ve raised speculative political issues like that more than a few times. I did a whole podcast on “How Would Harry Vote?” last year. Just wanted to reiterate the cautionary statement I usually make on politics and religion, since we have so many new commenters lately.
And, by the way, welcome. Very glad to have you here, and your contributions have been excellent!
Mr Pond, in my inital comparison, I was in no way disregarding Snape’s worthy attributes after he left “the dark side.” With that turn, his heroism began, despite his continuing cruelties toward his students, and Harry, in particular. One needn’t have a Snape vs. Dumbledore is best competition.
Your idea of him as artist vs. mogul is quite intriuging and opens new ways of interpreting his character. We don’t know what he did for Voldemort, but we know it couldn’t have been pretty. I have no problem thinking of him as so ambitious he would have done anything. And then, one marvels at his control, once he turns to Dumbledore.
I really enjoy your contributions here!
Mr Pond, I don’t think we have two strongly opposing camps about the virtues of Snape vs Dumbledore. I think most people can see the virtues – and faults – of each man. However, as with any political spectrum, there are extremists in each camp. I think I’ve seen more comments that are critical of Snape than of Dumbledore, although I have personally tried to redress the balance.
I second Travis’ welcome: I too enjoy your contributions to the site. And never more than when they are in agreement with mine. But being a contradictory soul, I want to add that the creative impulse doesn’t necessarily push wizards and witches to the dark side. Two of the most creative wizards we meet are FredandGeorge. And although they do cause some horrible things to happen in the name of fun, they don’t seem to have any truck with the Dark Arts. But yes, I’d agree that Snape’s interest in the Dark Arts does seem to be more along the lines of magic for its own sake than magic as a means to an end. He’d be the class nerd, as opposed, say, to the class bully.
One more thought on exactly what Snape might have done as Voldemort’s man. He gave the overheard portion of the prophecy to LV. He was only upset because it was Lily in danger. He didn’t care that James and Harry would die. If Voldy had chosen Neville, it wouldn’t have bothered Snape at all; in that case, he’d have been involved in three murders–Neville and his parents. So killing didn’t bother this young Death Eater.
Every character in the books have strengths and flaws, including Dumbledore and Snape.
I’m gone 24 hours and just look at all that has happened! Wow! I love it!
Well – let’s get busy.
Jenna – I take it you didn’t like my ultra-conservative-Republican remark.
And good for you on your response. But if you really wanted to hit home for me – you should have used this quote:
“In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”
January 16, 1963 – George Wallace, Governor of Alabama, 3 time presidential loser and DEMOCRAT! Ugh.
or this racist remark:
“I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state. The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.”
- Senator Robert Byrd, DEMOCRAT *rolling my eyes into the back of my head*
I could go on – but what’s the point. There’s idiots in every party everywhere.
You did associate Umbridge with a few fairly recent incidents – but true to my weird form I see them from the opposite direction. I’ll respect your remark stating you don’t want to discuss these incidents – so I’ll leave the bombs where you dropped them, undetonated. Well except to say that Umbridge would have been the white woman who called the police on two dudes posing, she would have been one of the prayer group prayerfully protesting same-sex marriage in the CASTRO district no less, Dolores doesn’t wear white sheets, Fred Phelps won awards from the NAACP for fighting discrimination but he’s a loon from outer space, and she would not have called either of the murderers, (give the woman some credit) she would have ordered their executions.
Isn’t it interesting how we can see so many things so differently yet love the same books? It shows how great Harry Potter is.
Mr. Pond – I love Snape profoundly. That’s why I’m hard on him. I love your explanation of Bohemian Snape. If you don’t mind, I shall appropriate it.
Well – that was quick.
I see the relationship between Umbridge and the Ministry (as the puppet of the Death Eaters under Voldemort) as being similar to the relationship between Filch and Umbridge. They gave her permission and perhaps even approval to do the things she’d always wanted to do, for the sake of law and order. If you’re following your heart’s desire, you are not too motivated to look closely into the agenda of those granting your wishes.
I hadn’t heard about the peaceful prayer group praying in the predominantly gay Castro district of San Francisco and getting swarmed for their efforts. I just read an article about it. The Christians sang Amazing Grace while the gays responded with We Shall Overcome. I’m guessing the two groups had very different impressions of what was happening. As do we here.
I second how interesting and great it is that so many different people with different beliefs have Harry Potter in common. Perhaps it’s evidence that in the end, we’re more alike than not.
I live in San Francisco and hadn’t heard about the prayer group protest or that it was in the Castro (there’s too much drama and political insanity in this city to keep track of it all). As an S.F. resident, people coming into the neighborhood from outside to protest the way people there live bugs me, but, if any violence ensued, that was wrong, and counter-productive also. There are too many people that I adore who were hurt by the, in my opinion unconstitutional, election results of a year ago for me to say much on that point without getting emotional, so I’ll stop there.
Joivre, to Byrd’s credit, though his views were certainly gag worthy, he does seem to have had a change of heart. At least based on his stance on recent geopolitical conflicts the U.S. has helped to create, and based on what Obama wrote in his book.
Aunt Marge is supposedly a caricature of Margaret Thatcher, and I wonder if there’s any of that to Umbridge. She’s a much more significant character than Aunt Marge, and really her politics are much closer to Nazism or fascism in general. If I had to associate her with a U.S. political party, I would still associate her with republicans of the Ann Coulter variety, with my very strong disclaimer that I’m not implying that the republican party or all conservatives are inherently Umbridge-like. As has been said, there are jerks in every political party, and people of every political ideology that are more concerned about power than ideals or justice.
In the interest of fair reporting, the Christian group in the Castro district was not there to protest. According to at least one member of their group, they were holding a regular prayer meeting (one they had held weekly for months). A bystander whispered to a gathering crowd that the group was there to protest the No on 8 campaign, and the attacks began. If it had been limited to a hymn, that would have been fine. The throwing drinks, the hitting and kicking, the stealing, the death threats, etc., were unacceptable.
The site I quote will certainly offend many here, but unfortunately it’s the one that contains the eyewitness account, and scholarship demands that I cite.
If anyone thinks I am particularly associating violence with any group of people, I refer them to my earlier comment.
A couple of people here have commented that it’s great that we can come to Harry Potter with different ideas, take different ideas from it, and all of us love the stories. Yes, this is great–until characters like Voldemort and Umbridge are used to demonize people who disagree with preferred ideologies, even Rowling’s preferred ideologies.
This is the single most frustrating aspect of Potter fandom for me, and yes, I find it very insulting and offensive. As diva_alix pointed out, in the end, I believe we are more alike than not.
I wonder if Umbridge is a toad for alchemical reasons? The toad is associated with the beginning of the alchemical work and the raw material of the philosophers’ stone. (By the by, in Pan’s Labyrinth Ofelia’s first task is to retrieve a golden key from a large toad. ) Umbridge is part of Harry’s alchemical process, but being toad-like also shows her own state of ignorance, I guess.
Jenna – you said,
A couple of people here have commented that it’s great that we can come to Harry Potter with different ideas, take different ideas from it, and all of us love the stories. Yes, this is great–until characters like Voldemort and Umbridge are used to demonize people who disagree with preferred ideologies, even Rowling’s preferred ideologies.
- and I agree with you completely.
However, in the interest of fairness – I very humbly and politely will point out that it was you who used Umbridge to demonize certain ideoligies you disagree with, not I. You dropped the issues and then said –
All of whom I mention only to make a point, not to start discussion on the merits or evils of any of the cases.
Which I very humbly point out is essentially intimidating any response and is clearly not a fair tactic in civil debate. I also will say that Ms. Rowling’s ideologies deserve debate and study in relation to her books just as Wagner’s does for his works.
There is no way I would ever want to insult you. I love you. You are my sister in love with these books and in faith. I respect your opinion. You possess great talent and ideas and I love reading them.
whoops – ideologies – I spelled it right once.
Also Mr. Pond- you are right about the Snape torture debate. I see now that Snape would have no need to use it since you correctly pointed out his formidable talent at legilimens. I think I drew that conclusion from his memories of zapping flies and his mental torture of Neville. Torture for informantation would be superfluous.
Woman_Ironing – that’s interesting about the signifigance of the toad and the alchemical. I did not know that! It’s raw material for the philopher’s stone? Wow – I learn something new everyday here! I googled it and found interesting stuff here about it.
http://www.jjkent.com/articles/toad-stone-legends.htm
Joivre, I blush to find my comments so misunderstood. I hoped, by referring to opposite cases (e.g., blacks threatening whites and whites threatening blacks, Christians showing intolerance to gays and gays showing intolerance to Christians), that it would be obvious that I had associated Umbridge with actions, not with ideologies.
Absolutely nothing in either of my comments was intended to demonize any person or group. My apologies to you and to anyone who took something else from my words.
Korg, I agree. I apologize for going around you to post this….
Thanks everyone for your warm welcome! I’m a newcomer to the blogosphere, if not to HP and other forms of fantasy lit, so it’s encouraging to know you like what I write. And I very much appreciate the diversity, creativity, and intelligence of everyone else here!
Jenna–thanks for clarifying your position. I think you pegged the question exactly. Umbridge is a nasty, rule-keeping bigot. The sort who can tragically turn up anywhere and tarnish any cause no matter how dear. Ultimately, despite my earlier question, I think her particular party is irrelevant. She could turn up anywhere there’s power.
As far as Snape goes–thanks Joivre! I love Snape. Snape is my hero (sort of). Hmm, I think I feel an article on ‘Snape as artist’ coming on — sadly outside the scope of this thread…
Woman_ironing: YES. Why did I not think of that toad connection? Very keen insight! And she herself is turning into a sort of Philosopher’s Stone–keeping, at least, the ideologies of the Dark Lord alive perpetually, in her actions and in teaching others to follow them.
Ah, Mr Pond, I see you have added a period to your name; given up on the Yanks, have you?
Further extrapolation on Snape as artist would be very interesting.
I agree with Mr. Pond, in that it isn’t necessary to play games guessing what real life party Umbridge would belong to. She’s a bureaucrat, so she would remain ensconsed in her position, no matter what party was in the ascendency. As at least partial proof of that, we see that she’s still at the Ministry even after Fudge has been forced to resign. And here’s another thing I note about her: she didn’t resign in protest to show support for him!
I join Arabella Figg in wondering about Snape as an artist. Of course, that first day he introduces himself to Harry and his classmates, he refers to the “. . .subtle science and exact art of potion-making.” Is that what you had in mind, Mr. Pond?
I guess no one like my ultra-conservative republican opinion.
I shall put my tail between my legs and hide under the bed.
Joivre No need to do that, we all are certainly not going to agree on everything. I think the concern here became that we’d strayed far from Potter, and were begining to foray into methods of communication that were unproductive as our emotions were getting strong. Politics is often a volatile issue because it has so much to do with how we live our lives and what we think will achieve the common good, so it’s easy to get emotional about it. I admit that I’m very liberal and have a capacity for shooting my mouth off. I often have to remind myself that it’s important to respect and try to understand other people’s opinions, however difficult it often is.
Onward we go! Rowling has definetely weaved alot of political commentary into the later Harry Potter books, and this one in particular is about how facism is able to slowly and quietly take hold. Maybe quietly isn’t the case in this chapter, but the fact is that the Ministry already had so many unjust laws in place, that it’s new policy was jsut further down a slippery slope, and everyone who was protected by blood status of some kind, either was happy, not particularly concerned because it didn’t yet effect them, or were afraid to speak up because they feared for their family’s or their own saftey.
I’m reminded of how when civil liberties are in question, some people say that it doesn matter because innocent people will have nothing to hide (from more invasive, government survaliance, etc). I think the situation that Rowling has created by book seven shows that when anyone’s rights are threatened, it weakens everyone elses.
In thinking about politics, I’m also reminded of some of Travis’s writing on how Potter can have both Fabian Socialist and Liberatarian readings, (Travis, I was going to email you after Azkatraz to ask you more about that, but then I read more about it in HP&I), probably has something to do with why people of so many different political walks find sometihng to love in Potter.
Diva_Alix – neatly put! I should have put a winking emoticon up there though – just goofing off.
(By the way – I hope this flies under the radar – but you’re in my old stomping grounds in SF. I did my undergrad at the SF Conservatory of Music and performed with Opera San Jose, SFO, Sacramento, and West Bay Opera back in the day before Europe. San Francisco is a garden of Eden for singers! It sounds like you’re having fun up there.
)
Joivre Sorry for my late response. If you’re a singer (and a singer from the area!), we really should talk, but not on here. You can find me on myleaky by the same name, or email me alixjerinic at gmail dot com or facebook by my name (in my email address).
I personally always thought Umbridge was ridiculed for her weight at school. Like Neville Longbottom she was bullied intensely and developed a fondness for cats because they’re elegant creatures whereas she saw herself as inelegant. Her intelligence and strong work ethic made her a favourite of the teachers and as such she always got along better with adults than she did with people her own age. Likewise adults had the power to punish the bullies who tormented her. This gave her a deep seated love of rules and authority. Being bullied left her with a hatred of schoolchildren. She wants to be near the top of the hierarchy not because she is egotistical like Voldemort, but because she simply feels more secure towards the top so that she can oversee everything that’s going on but she likes someone further up than her (Fudge) so that she doesn’t have to suffer the stigma if things go wrong.
Derek D raises an excellent point that Umbridge favours cats because they are uncontroversial. She has no personality. Were she not evil, she would be nothing.
And thus we have Dolores Umbridge, an authoritarian, bootlicking, power-hungry, cat-loving sadist.
Don’t get me wrong, I love cats. Likewise I hate Umbridge, I think she’s the most detestable character since Mason Verger. Nevertheless, I always try to think of a believable back-story for characters who interest me.
Likewise – Snape was bullied and instead of cats – he took on the Dark Arts. Likewise authorites could punish the bullies and maybe this was what he could do as a Death Eater. Same thing with Snape and Voldemort’s heirarchy.
And thus we have Snape, an authoritarian, bootlicking, power-hungry, sadist.
(Cats though, are very controversial. They don’t follow orders.)
The difference was that Snape loved. He really did have a brave and valiant heart.
Snape wasn’t just bullied though–he came from a broken home, with an emotionally abusive father. He wasn’t just wanting to punish bullies, I think. He may well have seen Voldemort subconsciously as a father figure, one who would allow his artistic explorations when Dumbledore would not.
Snape did love–Snape was in fact a great lover, a great artist, and one of the greatest wizards of all time (this implied in Dumbledore’s opinion, as well as based on external evidence). His tragedy that he was broken–broken and poorly healed. (He and Dumbledore had a lot in common, now I think of it.)
That may be why Snape could be genuinely cruel and relentless, whereas Umbridge is unfailingly petty.
I don’t see Snape as authoritarian, boot-licking, power-hungry or as a sadist.
I see him as an unappreciated artist who goes to the only patron in the kingdom who will reward him for his otherwise unrecognized genius. I also see him as an unrequited but faithful lover. He is a man of ability and strong passions, who is thwarted in all his goals, and has to spend the rest of his life wiping the noses of spoiled little brates who lack the capacity to understand what magic is really capable of. He is doomed to his fate through his own actions: he has to make reparations for his act of betrayal which led to the death of the only human being who loved him.
Do you wonder that he is bitter? He has it in him to do the right thing. In fact, he will do the right thing until he dies. But he doesn’t have to love the conditions of his sentence.
The word remorse comes from Medieval Latin remorsus a gnawing, from Latin remord?re to bite again, from re- + mord?re to bite
Remose literally eats Snape up alive from within.
In retrospect, you’re right about cats Joivre, that’s probably why I like them. However in terms of ornamental plates, one doesn’t really get less controversial than kittens. I think you’re wrong about Snape being a bootlicker however, he never backed down from anyone. Indeed, his bravery is one of his greatest traits.
Your theory of Snape seeing Voldemort as a father figure has merit Mr Pond, I think many of his followers saw him as such (though I think Barty Crouch Jr and Bellatrix Lestrange had a bit more on their minds!)
Barty? Really?
Did you ever see 3:10 to Yuma, another story about a charming psychopath and the nut-case who seeks to court him through murder and mayhem, played respectively by an excellent Russell Crowe and even more excellent Ben Foster?
One quote on politics that’s appropriate in any discussion: “Every political movement has an idiot element. If you can’t see the idiot element in your movement, you’re it.” –Mark Evanier
To me Umbridge is what’s technically known as a Spiritual Abuser. I’m not sure what you’d call her since she’s not in a church or a cult, but the pattern fits every possible way otherwise. Those who’ve studied this phenomenon (once woefully ignored, now starting to get a bit more press) can recognize all the signs. It stems from a deadly cocktail of desire to control others, an excessive preoccupation with external credentials, and belief that one is unfailingly in the right. Here’s what one website (with an exhaustive collection of articles on this subject, for those interested) lists as a few common characteristics of a typical spiritually abusive leader:
* I see myself as someone “special” who can only be understood by other “special” or high-status people.
* I require excessive admiration and feel entitled to special treatment.
* Others are expected to automatically comply with my expectations.
* I am preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends and associates.
* I read demeaning or threatening meanings into innocent remarks.
* I bear grudges and am unforgiving of others I feel have harmed me.
* I am quick to perceive attacks on my character or reputation that are not apparent to others and react angrily or counterattack.
* I am uncomfortable in situations where I am not the center of attention. [Hem, hem!--EP]
Sound like anybody we know? And (frighteningly) that wasn’t even remotely written with the character in mind. It’s a very real personality type.
Snape, on the other hand, is a spiritual abuse survivor, and very slowly recovering– deeply loving and left vulnerable, but distrustful and unwilling to show grace.
Yes, yes – Red and Mr. P – I see your points, bitter, broken home, oozing untapped yet stifled magical powers – I still don’t let him off easy. There’s a little stretch of time where he is a full-blown Death Eater. He knew what that entailed when he enlisted. It meant losing for good – any chance of reuniting with Evans. He chose the worst path one could take. He made a deal with the devil and then had to pay up. If calling someone My Lord isn’t bootlicking – if trading your soul for power isn’t power-hungry – if being second in command to the Dark Lord isn’t authoritarian – if forcing a child to look up his dead father’s name in a rolodex of wrong-doings isn’t the work of a sadist – I don’t know what is.
Agreed – there is remorse. There is bitterness. And I know very well the feeling of being an outcast (all musicians, artists, writers do), the pain of unrequited love, and the frustration of an artist unable to use their powers to their fullest potential. But I’m not going to join a local neo nazi opera house. Or perform for a group of skinheads.
But then again – I had a happy home life – I’m happy I’m here for my family – I was never really bullied as a child – and I was taught right from wrong.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m agreeing with you on major points – he was incredibly brave, loyal and heroic. I’ll even concede he was a great lover (oooh my). But like Ms. Rowling – I want to slap him hard.
The usual reason for calling someone “my lord” is because it’s expected in your social circle: he was just following the social norms.
About trading your soul for power: it doesn’t look like that at the start. At the start all you think is that you’ve finally found someone who appreciates all your fine qualities – and lets you play with toys the other side won’t.
Being second in command to the Dark Lord means everyone finally sees how smart and talented you are. It doesn’t necessarily mean you need or want everyone to toe the line or lick your boots.
Child and dead-father lose some of their pathos when their last name is Potter. Especially when Potter Sr. suspended you upside down so the girl you loved more than life itself could see that you didn’t use bleach-for-the-unbleachables on your undies.
Joivre please stop making me defend Snape. Any minute now I’m going to start quoting Catherine Earnshaw.
Heathcliff has better quotes.
“And I pray one prayer–I repeat it till my tongue stiffens–Catherine Earnshaw, may you not rest as long as I am living; you said I killed you–haunt me, then! The murdered DO haunt their murderers, I believe. I know that ghosts HAVE wandered on earth. Be with me always–take any form–drive me mad! only DO not leave me in this abyss, where I cannot find you! Oh, God! it is unutterable! I CANNOT live without my life! I CANNOT live without my soul!”
Exactly so.
Wow Eric P. I took a look at that website and wow! I had no idea what you were talking about – spiritual abuse. But I see it more clearly through that website. What a nightmare!
Some of the Warning Signs on that site include:
Do you feel that no matter how hard you try, the ‘good deeds’ you perform for your group or pastor are never quite enough? As a result of this do you often feel plagued with feelings of guilt?
Is questioning the group, or the group leaders, discouraged or frowned upon? Does the group you belong to believe that it is an elite and exclusive organisation which alone has ‘the truth’ and answers to life’s questions?
Does the pastor pour scorn upon, attack, and mock other Christian churches and their interpretation of the Bible?
Does the pastor give you ‘black and white answers’? What the pastor agrees with is right and what the pastor disagrees with is wrong.
Does everyone in the group believe exactly the same things (i.e. what the group leaders tell them to believe)?
Is there no room for individual belief, or opinion even in minor areas?
Are others in the group, who do not conform to the requirements of the movement’s teaching, treated with suspicion, and treated like second class members?
Do you feel fearful of leaving the group? Many cults use subtle fear tactics to stop members from leaving. For example, the group may imply that those who leave will be attacked by the Devil, have a nasty accident, or at least not prosper because they have left ‘the truth’.
I can see Umbridge in here.
Eric,
You’re masterful.
But I see Umbridge a bit differently. I see her more as a bully type. She only has the guts to do what she does when she’s got powerful friends. I think she knows she’s doing wrong and hateful things and dreads the day when she’s called to account. Its a different kind of evil to Voldemort who doesn’t actually think hes doing anything wrong.
Chilling but fascinating information Eric. The description of an abusive spiritual leader sounds very much like a description of a malignant narcissist which we know Voldemort was. Umbridge on the other hand seems like more of a sadist or sociopath.
Yes Red Rocker, Barty. When reading GOF, Barty’s relationship with Voldemort called to my mind Flanders around Mr Burns!
Joivre, why on Earth did you get rid of that lovely avatar. I believe it was Audrey Hepburn as Cleopatra?
I believe we’re looking at a boyish but muscular Olivier emoting more for the camera than for Oberon.
I don’t know, Korg– though certainly a bully and an abuser aren’t mutually exclusive, Umbridge doesn’t show many (or any) of the signs of a conflicted conscience or cognitive dissonance that usually go along with doing what one believes to be wrong and hateful. No second thoughts, moments of reflection or introspection, self-doubt, remorse, etc. Possibly her fanatical allegiance to her powerful friends (which gives her power) supplants her own conscience–significantly, unlike Snape.
On the other hand, Umbridge did show at least once that she was willing to do something she thought was wrong (performing the Cruciatus Curse on Harry) as long as it would serve “the greater good.” To me that shows she is trying–and no doubt succeeding–to justify her actions to herself. Whether her self-justification will survive her fall from power is another matter, though. It’s not impossible to imagine some remorse and even repentance during a period of self-doubt brought on by her stay in Azkaban–unless of course her bitterness kicked the resentment and self-justification up another notch. Just speculation by this point, of course.
Tom – you just made a dead woman happy. Maria Callas tried very hard to look like Audrey Hepburn when she shed her avoir du pois. My avatar is like my mood ring. It’s mercurial and will probably change soon.
Yes – ’tis Cathy and Heathcliff frollicking on the moors. I never understood the allure of moors. They seem rather flat and boring. And yes Red Rocker, that made me laugh – it does look like Olivier is more interested in the demonstration of his considerably beautiful profile than Oberon. Or maybe he was thinking of Marlon Brando –
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-403258/Larry-gay-Of-course-was.html