A great C.S. Lewis quote courtesy of The Kibitzer:*
In reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet remain myself. Like the night sky in the Greek poem, I see with a myriad eyes, but it is still I who see. Here, as in worship, in love, in moral action, and in knowing, I transcend myself; and am never more myself than when I do.
~ C.S. Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism, p. 141.
That is the imaginative power of literature and what I’m arguing for in Harry Potter & Imagination. Like when the protagonist in MacDonald’s Phantastes enters stories that he reads in Fairyland so profoundly that he becomes the character, we learn to see differently, to see through different eyes, yet still our own, with the Coleridgean “transformed vision” (for more on that, listen to Hog’s Head PubCast #60, and read John Granger’s The Deathly Hallows Lectures). We are Harry at King’s Cross, who no longer needs glasses.
Tolerance is the new fundamentalism. People are able to feel very righteous by condemning intolerance of any kind, and in the process, become irrationally intolerant of anyone who is perceived as intolerant. But Plutarch was right: “What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality.” There’s a reason Rowling wrote that line, and it’s the same reason that she made a fool of Hermione in her crusade to free the house-elves through political revolution. Inward change must precede outward change.
Dumbledore is the real icon of tolerance; he accepted and believed there was good in Snape, rescued Umbridge from the centaurs, and showed manners to the wicked Carrows and Fenrir Greyback on the Astronomy Tower. The truly “tolerant” person is not one who self-righteously waves a finger at perceived intolerance; instead, s/he first becomes a gracious, merciful person capable of loving even enemies. Then, either the bigots are transformed by kindness, or they are made to look the fool.
We must transcend ourselves to become our true selves, the selves the we were created for and intended to be. Imaginative literature can play a transformative role in this process.
*Jeremy also had a post on Lewis and “Second Meanings” a couple days ago.
revgeorge on 
Flu-Bird on 
R. Ross on 
Lily Luna on 
Arabella Figg on 
Loading ...
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
Very interesting piece by Jeremy. And interesting discussion after, especially the debate between the existence of embeded deeper meanings vs the hypothesis that language determines what experiences we can have. My natural bias is more postmodernist, although not 100%, but I can’t even begin to form an educated opinion on that particular debate (which is why I’m posting this comment here rather than there).
As for Dumbledore, I’m not sure tolerant is the word I’d use to describe him. He appears tolerant, but I think that’s more a cultivated image, and part of his overall strategy, rather than an innate acceptance of people as they are. Dumbledore keeps his cards very close to his chest. He rarely speaks his true thoughts or feelings. He is very deliberate. Almost everything he says is said with a purpose in mind. He has incredible self-control – one of the reasons why I think Gambon’s performance is so far wide of the mark.
What lies under all that self-control? There are very few occasions when he speaks without subterfuge. There are two types of incidents: when he’s full of self-pity and contrition for mistakes or bad deeds, and when he’s giving someone a blast for their mistakes. It’s the latter occasions which show that his “tolerance” is mainly for show. When Snape comes to him (after having inadvertantly caused Lily Potter’s death) his attitude is not one of warm forgiveness, it’s not “I understand”. Rather it’s an attitude of: “You screwed up big time and you’re going to have to do something large to make up for it”. The other occasion is in HBP when he’s giving Harry heck for not yet having charmed the truth out of Slughorn on the subject of horcruxes and Riddle.
But when I read what I just wrote, I see that even then Dumbledore isn’t speaking from the heart. He’s still using words – and even his tears – to control others and for effect. He remains a master manipulator.
But don’t misunderstand me: I’m not criticizing Dumbledore. To me, he is JKR’s best drawn character, fascinating, contradictory, with more layers to him than a mille-feuille. It’s just that tolerance would be one of his more superficial layers.
It’s just that tolerance would be one of his more superficial layers.
Probably no surprise here, but I don’t buy that in the least. A person who is only superficially tolerant does not show manners to Carrows, believe in “the best of” Snape, and rescue Umbridge, who tortured his beloved students. What’s really inside comes out in those instances. Snape deserved a “you screwed up, now you have to deal with it” response. He did not deserve a teaching position and an opportunity for redemption, which is what he got.
Travis,
Funny, how we both value Dumbledore, but see him from such drastically different perspectives.
To me, his politeness to the Carrows is part of his public persona: to seem supremely in control even in the most dire of situations. It’s another way of letting them – and the world – know that nothing will faze him, nothing will make him deviate from his personal standards, including the standard of courtesy. It’s also an expression of the old British stiff upper lip: march to your execution with a smile on your lips and greet the firing squad by name.
And I disagree that he believed the best of Snape. First, he did not have to “believe”: he knew how Snape was; if he didn’t know before Snape came to him (and it’s hard to believe that he would not) then he certainly did once he did. And he did not give Snape an opportunity for redemption: he used Snape to protect Harry and to get insider information on the enemy. On this one I know you and I will never agree because for me that is one of Dumbledore’s profoundest betrayals: to let Snape think he was keeping Lily’s son from harm, while what he was really doing was “raising him like a pig for slaughter.”
As for saving Umbridge from the centaurs, your explanation, that he was motivated by tolerance, is one of several possible explanations. I can suggest several others: he did not wish for the centaurs to be at war with the wizarding world, so he saved them from an act which would raise insuperable barriers to an alliance. This tendency – to keep people from going over to the dark side – can also be seen in his refusal to let Draco kill him. It might be concern for their souls – a tempting hypothesis, I grant you – but to me it looks more like keeping the enemy from getting more recruits. There are other explanations which go outside of the story. JKR sets the centaurs up as sympathetic and aligned more with the forces of goodness than darkness. Letting them kill Umbridge would have marred that view. And going even further away from the text, I believe the author has commented that Umbridge was “far too much fun” to write to let her die.
I’m not arguing, btw, that Dumbledore is intolerant There are many examples of intolerant characters in the text (most of the Ministry staff, the so-called Purebloods, especially the Blacks and Malfoys, the Dursleys, Snape, and not a few students at Hogwarts). In comparison with them, of course, Dumbledore comes across as highly tolerant. But for true tolerance, ranging from the mundane to the profound, I would look at Flitwick (who kept a corner of the swamp FredandGeorge conjured up because it was such brilliant magic), Luna (who forgave her tormentors easily), Hagrid (who bore no ill-will to the wizarding community which used him so badly, including expelling him from Hogwarts for a trumped up charge and sending him to Azkaban for I can’t even remember what), and Harry (who was truly merciful to his enemies, including Crabbe and even the Riddle soul-fragment at King’s Cross).
Last paragraph – all excellent examples of tolerance!
But yes, we read Dumbledore quite differently, and both appreciate him, and that’s cool. Responses:
one of Dumbledore’s profoundest betrayals: to let Snape think he was keeping Lily’s son from harm, while what he was really doing was “raising him like a pig for slaughter.”
I still don’t believe this is what Dumbledore did. Two things in response: (1) Dumbledore didn’t make Harry into a horcrux, and it was never part of his plan. The choice was always going to be laid before Harry. Snape couldn’t possibly have that information in his head. So, in effect, Snape was keeping Lily’s son safe. Add to that the fact that Dumbledore had a pretty good guess (and you know how good his guesses are) that Harry was going to make it out alive, and I think the “pig to the slaughter” argument falls by the wayside. Dumbledore had Snape protecting Lily’s son until the time Lily’s son would choose to sacrifice himself (something Snape couldn’t know, possibly for his own protection as much as the plan’s), and Harry would, in the end, be alive and whole, and Voldemort – Lily’s murderer – destroyed. If Snape could have known the whole plan, I think he’d have been happy to do his duty.
Apart from Dumbledore, I don’t see where redemption for Snape is possible. I don’t buy that, on the hill that night, Dumbledore concocted this entire plan. I think it developed over years – and possibly didn’t even start until he discovered the diary-crux in Chamber (though I’m sure he had his suspicions before then).
But what fascinates me about your post is that every one of your readings is just as viable as mine (at least I think so). His politeness to the Carrows and his rescue of Umbridge could just as easily have been motivated by your proposals. Or maybe both motivations were involved?
Yes, I think that that’s where the layers come in: mixed motivations. Mixed, not as in contradictory, but in multiple. Here’s an example:
Dumbledore is nice to Hagrid and gives him the groundkeeper’s job (later augmented to care of magical critters teaching job). Motives: he strongly suspects that Hagrid did not activate the basilisk, so redresses the injustice of his being kicked out of Hogwarts. He also suspects the day will come when he’ll need the giants to fight for him, so he nurtures an ally who is half-giant and can talk to the giants and if needed, spy on them (much like Snape, come to think of it). He also has a very loyal staff member on site who will do pretty much whatever he asks him to do, on the QT. Net result: he does the right thing and profits in the process. Vintage Dumbledore, I think.
And yes, I agree, there are multiple readings possible. I think JKR wrote this into the character, and that’s part of her genius.
Fascinating discussion, as always. I can see both sides. I tend to still see Dumbledore as tolerant, however. Had Snape gone to anyone else with his confession about what he had done, I doubt he would have lived long enough to ever know what happened to Harry.
Tolerance is such a strange thing. Being tolerant doesn’t, in my mind anyway, mean that a person has to embrace or agree with the other person’s point of view or refrain from telling them that they screwed up. I see it as the attitude of someone taking the time to listen, to empathize (without compromising their own values), to offer comfort and help. And that is what Dumbledore did. He never excused Snape any of his sins or faults. Nor did Dumbledore excuse anyone else from having to accept responsibility for their actions. He did, however, try to give them the opportunity to rectify their past choices by showing them they could now make better choices. I see that as being different than the tolerance of our modern world – “if you don’t embrace this life-style that is not like yours, you are not tolerant” or “if you don’t understand how ‘they’ feel, then you aren’t tolerant”.
What Dumbledore did with everyone, was to live and act according to his own understanding of what was proper for a human being, and respond to others with that same generosity of giving them the benefit of the doubt, that somewhere inside them was a better person. Hence, his dealing with Snape and Draco, and even Tom Riddle when he was still Tom Riddle. But with the Carrows and Voldemort later, Dumbledore, in maintaining a politeness they didn’t understand but saw as weakness, was showing everyone else what it takes to continue to live by your own high standards; in that, he refused to allow them to pull him to their low level of existence.
With Dumbledore, I don’t think it’s possible to see him in just one way or another – as redrocker said, he is such a complex character, and that’s what made him fascinating.
Snape is the other complex character that we all found so fascinating. And what we get with Snape is that too had that goodness of character but it was altered by his own sad childhood and the circumstances in which he found himself when he went into Slytherin. His relationship with Lily was his one thread that kept him from being forever cut off from that goodness. If that hadn’t remained, I don’t think that Dumbledore would have bothered to do anything for Snape, nor would he ever have trusted him. Dumbledore wasn’t the one who could redeem Snape – Snape had to do that work himself, and it took him a long time to get there. Dumbledore gave him the chance to do that work, by enlisting him in helping save Lily’s sone, but the one thing that Dumbledore clearly understood about Snape was that he had to be tough with him, even through all of Snape’s remorse. Snape would never have trusted or respected anyone who gushed over him or told him a flowery tale of happiness. In that way, Dumbledore understood Snape better than Snape understood himself. That goes beyond whether or not Dumbledore was tolerant and points instead to his wisdom, and his ability to see the big picture.
Pat
Eeyore, I agree with you on a lot of things – I was even going to write what you did, that Dumbledore understands Snape better than Snape does himself. My take on the relationship between them is a bit different, however. It’s not a case of whether Snape respects Dumbledore – he does, of course, they all do, and rightfully so, although in some of them it takes the shape of fear and hatred – but whether Dumbledore respects Snape
Dumbledore doesn’t trust anyone, totally. He doesn’t confide in anyone, totally. My take on him is that he selects the right words – and the right persona – to suit each occasion and encounter. Call it wearing a mask, if you will. Many masks, actually. There are a few people, however, with whom he is less deceptive, and speaks in a more straightforward fashion. He is somewhat so with Fudge, and also Slughorn. But he is most so with Snape. He doesn’t mince words with Snape (although he deceives him on one critical point). To me, this looks like he respects Snape more than anyone else he deals with.
And yes, I agree that it goes beyond tolerance, to the big picture: there’s a war coming and the commander-in-chief needs his men in place, even if he has to be a ruthless sob to do it.
Red Rocker, very true. If Rowling did mean to make Dumbledore something like Fabius Maximus, which I’ve speculated, then this is a close similarity. Plutarch wrote of Fabius:
This is sort of Dumbledore’s methodology, isn’t it? Get people to hope for and believe in victory, but keep the plan close at hand, trust in self alone, trust in the power of courage (hence, Gryffindor), and his long, drawn-out plan for Voldemort’s defeat. There are obviously other factors that require these things in Potter, but it’s an interesting similarity.
Only when we reach the “gleam of triumph” moment (which is Goblet of Fire I think) does Dumbledore see a way in which Harry can survive. So that’s, what, fourteen, fifteen years where “pig to the slaughter” is exactly Dumbledore’s plan.
I tend to side with Travis’ reading of Dumbledore. I’ve been thinking a lot about “tolerant” versus “controlling” tendencies in my own life, and specifically with a long-term friendship I’ve had that has struggled in the past few years. I think Dumbledore gave people freedom and did not attempt to control all circumstances. At the same time, he was uniquely gifted in ability, intelligence, and wisdom to help orchestrate events to help ensure the best odds of accomplishing Voldemort’s downfall of power. I think Dumbledore had his weaknesses and faults, especially his paradoxical inability to fully trust anyone, but I like the idea that the real changes that need to be made in people is inward first, and from there, outward change can become reality. I’m not sure if anything I just said made any sense, but there it is!
Matthew, I read the story differently than you. The “pig to slaughter moment” between Severus and Dumbledore didn’t occur until the events during Half Blood Prince and the “gleam of triumph” was during Goblet, but in my interpretation Dumbledore was not sure about the Harry-crux until the “in essence divided” moment in Order. To me that’s when Albus realized Nagini and Harry carried parts of Voldemort’s soul and he realized Harry would have to sacrifice himself to Voldemort to rid himself of it. So the “gleam” was important because it would help Harry survive any of Voldemort’s attacks and made Dumbledore happy, but became critical when Harry was a horcrux and only Voldemort could rid him of it.
That’s just how eye see the story (couldn’t help myself with the eye joke, almost done with the Dealthy Hallows Lectures).
Brent, well said.
Matthew Wilson, in addition to Brent’s helpful observations, note that it wasn’t until the end of Chamber of Secrets that Dumbledore had any firm confirmation that Voldemort had created a Horcrux. Up until then, it was all speculation, and even after then, I’d imagine Dumbledore was biding his time, brainstorming ideas, trying to think of ways to keep Harry alive.
So, at the very most, it was 2 years. Furthermore, I submit once again the question: What choice did Dumbledore have? He didn’t make Harry a Horcrux. That wasn’t his plan. The only thing we have to debate is (a) whether or not he should have revealed the Harry-Horcrux to Snape earlier than he did, and (b) whether or not he should have revealed the information to Harry earlier than he did.
I tend to think Dumbledore’s judgment was right: Snape, who spent so much time about Voldemort, should not have had that info in his head, and Harry’s hot head would have gotten ahead of his good heart. There’s room to disagree, but that’s where the debate is. There doesn’t seem to me to be any room to debate the idea that Dumbledore was simply raising a pig to be slaughtered.
but I like the idea that the real changes that need to be made in people is inward first, and from there, outward change can become reality
Leanne, precisely. I’ll admit that part of me clings to this reading of Dumbledore because there needs to be at least one character in this whole series who actually achieved inward change leading to outward change. It’s the theme of the series, and it seems to be undermined by a lot of static, “innately good” or “innately evil” characters.
This is also why I hate Rowling’s interpretation that Dumbledore wasn’t really after power; he was just “made a fool of” by love. No. That’s nowhere in the text of Harry Potter. He craved power and prestige – just like Grindelwald.
Grindelwald. You cannot imagine how his ideas caught me, Harry, inflamed me. Muggles forced into subservience. We wizards triumphant. Grindelwald and I, the glorious young leaders of the revolution.
We’ve been over this. We’ve asked the question: would the ideas have inflamed, without the man?
But does it really matter whether he was prepared to do evil for love or for power? Would killing Muggles out of love for Grindelwald been more morally acceptable than killing Muggles out of a need for power?
I don’t think that’s what JKR was implying. I think what she was saying is that Dumbledore’s feelings for Grindelwald made Grindelwald’s mad dreams more attractive to him. Hence: fool for love.
I also don’t think either motive (power or love) reduces the extent of the change Dumbledore underwent: he went from someone who wanted power over others, to someone who knew that he was not to be trusted with power. He went from being a potential (and maybe even actual) murderer, to someone who tried to keep people from being murdered. There were some basic things about him that didn’t change, but I’d say that his moral alignment really got straightened out.
I think Rowling was implying that Dumbledore was somewhat “off the hook” or “not as bad” as Voldemort or Grindelwald, because it was love, not power, that motivated him. In that interview, if I recall correctly, she was asking the question how someone like Dumbledore, who is “innately good,” could be tempted by power. I think the right response to this is, “Dumbledore isn’t ‘innately good.’ He’s just like everyone else, and he was tempted toward power and evil.” Rowling, it seems, is trying to salvage Dumbledore’s “goodness.” I think it’s better to say that there wasn’t a whole lot good about him at the time. Goodness came with repentance.
It may just be splitting hairs. Your last paragraph is convincing, and after all, the real complex and interesting baddies are the ones who think they’re doing what’s right, and really are doing what’s evil. I’ll have to give it more thought, but overall I remain unconvinced that “love” had much of anything to do with Dumbledore’s folly. I’m more inclined toward pride, and the quest for power which is the natural corollary to pride.
Has anyone pointed out that there are a lot of similarities in the relationship between Voldemort and Bellatrix Lestrange on the one hand, and Grindelwald and Dumbledore on the other? That if it weren’t for the reality-check of Ariana’s death, there might have been little to choose between them?
You have to ask yourself what goodness means in a person. Is it thoughts and feelings and impulses? Motives and intentions? Or is it actions?
Travis you write that there wasn’t a lot good about him at the time. I’d agree, to the extent that he hadn’t done much good. But he hadn’t done much evil either. He was an adolescent: he hadn’t done much of anything. When he did start doing stuff, we assume that he did a lot of good (although you and I probably disagree about his motives) and not much evil. Did that make him good?
I think that in the stories there is a continuum of goodness and badness. On the purely good end we have Lily and Harry, and also Luna and Neville and Hermione and Hagrid. Then we have the mainly good people who have more of the dark side in them: Ron, and Sirius Black and James Potter. And then we have the mixed group: the ones who have equal amounts of goodness and darkness in them, or who change over time. This group would include Snape and Mundungus and maybe Fudge. And then we have the mainly evil characters who summon forth a good deed or impulse or who are not always committed to evil: Peter Pettigrew comes to mind, as well as the Malfoys, and maybe Bellatrix Lestrange. Argus Filch. And maybe even Tom Riddle. And then of course we have the out-and-out villains, the ones with no redeeming points: Umbridge, Fenrir Greyback, the Carrows, and Voldemort himself.
Where would Dumbledore fall in this continuum? If you go by what people do – rather than what is in their hearts – I would place him in the second group. He did a few bad things (may have killed his sister, lied often and well) but overall did a lot of good things.
I think both of you, Travis & Rocker, are on the right track, perhaps with just different emphases. I also think it best if we don’t try to salvage Dumbledore’s goodness but admit that whether it was for love or power or a combination of the both his lust for domination was an evil thing from which he was saved by the death of his sister and the repentance it brought about in him.
Plus, love as an excuse or justification for doing what is wrong only gets you so far. To go back to an analogy Red Rocker used long ago, there’s a big difference between stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving sister and committing mass murder because you’re infatuated with your lover and his ideals. Both are wrong but in the limited realm of human justice we certainly recognize a big difference in motive and in the application of compassion and mercy to such crimes.
Another example, we certainly have more sympathy for someone who would pass along secret information because his family was being held hostage & threatened with death as opposed to someone who passed along state secrets for monetary gain.
So, what I’m getting at is that we should have little to no sympathy for Dumbledore’s actions as a youth, even if motivated primarily by love, because of what that love would leading him to plan, domination of Muggles, by any means including mass murder.
Here’s also where we get back to the problem of the text and authorial statements. In the text, Dumbledore clearly says he could not trust himself with power. He says nothing about being a fool for love & how that might have influenced his decisions. That’s Jo’s addendum and if that’s what she feels is his real motivation then she utterly failed in conveying it in the text and then that would lead us to question her abilities as a writer.
So, more in agreement with Travis than Rocker on this one, but still think Rocker has made some good points and a compelling case in some regards. How’s that for playing both sides?
Red Rocker wrote: “Has anyone pointed out that there are a lot of similarities in the relationship between Voldemort and Bellatrix Lestrange on the one hand, and Grindelwald and Dumbledore on the other? That if it weren’t for the reality-check of Ariana’s death, there might have been little to choose between them?
You have to ask yourself what goodness means in a person. Is it thoughts and feelings and impulses? Motives and intentions? Or is it actions?”
Rocker, I could make a stab at answering your question but it would take us into ground we fear to tread here at The Hogshead, that is, primarily a religious discussion as opposed to merely ethical. So, I won’t go there.
So, I’ll try to keep it more ethical or vague. I think you would have to find goodness in attitude as opposed to actions. And this is of course difficult to do since it’s much easier to judge someone’s actions than their attitude. One is visible, one is not so obvious. But a person’s attitude will inform their actions and their attitude will thus lead one set of actions, good or bad, to predominate.
Harry, Ron, Sirius, Snape, Dumbledore all have their dark sides. But overall their intention, their desire is to do what is right, from whatever motivation they may have for that. Harry and friends do a lot of rule breaking in the series, which is of course a criticism against them, but mainly by people who can’t or won’t deal in subtleties. When Harry et al break the rules they are generally doing so for the benefit of others or with the intention of thwarting someone else’s wrongdoing.
When they break the rules for their own aggrandizement, more often than not they end up being punished for it or suffering in some way, as when Ron & Harry took Mr. Weasley’s car to school. And even when they break the rules to help someone, they often end up getting punished, as when Harry & Hermione help get rid of Norberta. And the worst one of this is when Harry takes it upon himself to rescue Sirius from the Ministry & winds up almost getting his friends killed, Voldemort almost getting the prophecy, and Sirius dead. He’s not being rewarded there for breaking the rules.
Plus, the right attitude and desire doesn’t always instantly do away with the negative aspects of one’s character. Snape desires to make amends for what happened to Lily but he still can’t totally overcome his hatred of James. Dumbledore spends his life after Arianna’s death fighting evil but he can’t ever give up doing things the manipulative way. Sirius is always arrogant to some extent. And Harry, well, he’s Harry, with his limited omniscient view in which he always thinks he knows exactly what’s happening. All of them are good despite the fact that they still have major character flaws, which makes them human.
The evil characters are evil not because they do bad things but because those bad things are what they want to do. They revel in doing them. Any moments of goodness are fleeting glimpses at what they could be if they turned away from their intention to do wrong. Or else their moments of goodness are simply selfish displays towards those whom they care about but not extended to others outside their circle.
Bellatrix, of all people, gets to the point when speaking of the unforgivable curses. “You have to mean them, Potter.” To really do evil you have to mean it. You have to desire to inflict pain and suffering on others. You have to truly want to profit from doing things the wrong way. And a really twisted sort of evil is when you truly wish to do things for the good of other people, because then nothing can dissuade you from the rightness of your cause. C.S. Lewis had a great quote on that. This is the temptation to the dark side that Hermione grapples with the most.
I don’t think even Hitler woke up in the morning and said, “I think I’ll be evil today.” It flowed out of who he was and the path he had set himself on.
And most good people don’t wake up and think, “I think I’ll be good today.” They just do it. Albeit not without some bad moments thrown in because they are human.
So, some simplistic thoughts on the subject.
revgeorge, interesting take on good and evil. Appreciate your keeping the discussion at the ethical level, where it’s more of an even playing field for me.
So if I hear you right, you’re saying that goodness/evil is determind by attitude, which I would call intent You are good if you mean to do a right thing, and evil if you mean to do a bad thing. You also bring up the idea that some evil is done in the name of good, or when the person actually believes they’re doing good.
I wouldn’t reject this approach, but I’d add a few things. Actions which are motivated by love, caring or compassion would get bonus “goodness” points. As well, I wouldn’t disregard the effects of actions. If bad things happen to people as a result of my actions, and if it was reasonable to predict that, I’d get some “badness” points, regardless of the purity of my motives. On the other hand, if good things happen to people as a result of my actions, I’d have to get some “goodness” points, regardless of the darkness of my motives.
I’m not sure what your point was about Hitler: that evil – like good – is a matter of habit (and character)? I’d agree that that may be true, for most of us. But I think Hitler falls in another category. A different kind of evil. More purposeful. Closer to the source. And interestingly for this discussion, the closest approximation we have to that is Grindelwald. And if not for his costly wake-up call: Dumbledore?
Red Rocker, I’m not sure I’m saying anything yet. Just offering some thoughts. Your formula for counting up good points or bad points helps to illustrate further how difficult of a question this is.
What I am willing to say is that we cannot totally measure a person’s goodness or badness based on their actions. But if we judge by their intentions, then the only way we really can tell a person’s intentions is by what they do.
Here’s some examples to help us try to sort this out. I think we can pretty much agree that Umbridge is an evil person. She may not be a Death Eater but her inclinations lead her into a lust for power and prestige and control of the institution. She supports the institution, the Ministry, against Voldemort, not because she disagrees with pure blood mania; it’s quite apparent that both she & Fudge to some extent hold to a pure blood first view of things. They just aren’t necessarily willing, yet, to go as far as Voldemort nor are they willing to give up being the ones in charge, which is what Voldemort is also attacking. Who gets to wield the power of the Ministry? Voldemort or Fudge? Umbridge supports Fudge because he’s currently the one with the power. But as soon as Voldemort takes over the Ministry she just as easily switches allegiance to him or to his administration.
Now, how about the girl in Umbridge’s office? The one that calls her a toad or something like that. Is she good or bad? What are her intentions and actions? Well, her actions show her working for an evil government and printing out vicious, hateful propaganda against Muggles and Muggleborns. So, she must be bad based on her actions, right? Well, her comment about Umbridge seems to indicate she may not be in agreement with what’s going on but that she doesn’t have any way, or doesn’t feel she has any way, of fighting against what’s going on. Or maybe she wants to do good but is simply afraid for her life or afraid for her family. Or maybe she’s in agreement with the new Ministry goals but just hates Umbridge personally.
It gets really complicated and here neither intentions nor actions necessarily give us an answer.
To take it to another story, how about Luke Skywalker? Before the droids enter his life, Luke’s goal is to go off to the Imperial Academy, where no doubt he would train as a fighter pilot & end up as one of those guys in the funky pilot suits flying a TIE fighter. Despite what he might personally feel or desire, he would spend his career following orders and doing things to other people simply because his superiors told him to do it or because they told him he was fighting the ‘bad’ guys.
Even after he meets Obi Wan Kenobi, he still hesitates at fighting the Empire. He was only one person and couldn’t do much and the Empire was so far away. Then his aunt & uncle are killed by the Empire and now he’s totally dedicated to fighting the Empire. Except that he occasionally has these little desires to go all Dark Side.
So, is Luke a good person or a bad person? Or is he a good person who becomes a better person through the choices he makes while still fighting against the dark side within himself? So, pretty complicated stuff.
My point about Hitler was that most people don’t think what they’re doing is evil. Hitler probably thought he was redressing the German grievances against the Treaty of Versailles and that he was restoring German greatness and prominence in the world. His racial purity mania was part of this because he thought that the influence of Jews and other subhumans was destroying the national character of Germany. Now, that’s not to say that just by understanding what he was trying to do doesn’t mean one is in agreement with it or that it excuses what he did. But the point is, he just didn’t wake up one day & say I think I’ll kill twenty million or more people just because I’m evil.
Tying this into the wizarding world, there was apparently a pretty strong pure blood sentiment in the wizarding world long before Voldemort ever showed up. And there was also a pretty strong feeling that Muggles should be dominated for the greater good of the wizarding world because otherwise Grindelwald & Dumbledore wouldn’t have thought along those lines with any chance of success.
Grindelwald & Voldemort just tapped into these sentiments much better than anyone else & they had much more specific goals in mind & the compunction to use any method to achieve those ends. And I don’t think anyone would argue that they were evil, both because their intentions and their actions were so.
revgeorge, I agree that it does get complicated.
Two of the examples you bring up, the girl in Umbridge’s office and Luke Skywalker introduce more variables: not knowing that your actions are supporting evil; or feeling helpless against evil. The people of Germany who stood by while Hitler killed millions, might fit either category.
And no, Hitler didn’t wake up one day and say “I’m going to kill a few million people.” He actually said that pretty much everyday. And he probably thought he was in the right. But that doesn’t make it any less evil. As you say, it’s a category of evil, justifying what you’re doing by appealing to a greater cause. Grindelwald and (potentially) Dumbledore fit there, as we’ve agreed.
With regards to Umbridge, for me, her evil is not in her support of first Fudge and then Voldemort. It’s not even her lust for power and prestige and control. Lots of politicians have that, and we don’t call them evil. Her evil is in her enjoyment of causing pain. The lady is a sadist, a side which is beautifully portrayed by Staunton.
Trying to roll it all up to come up with a way of defining evil, we have these things: intent (which you called attitude), actions, knowledge of the consequences of one’s actions, and freedom of choice.
Thus, if your intent is to hurt others (regardless of why) , and you know that your actions will hurt others, and you act in ways that hurt others, and you’re free to choose not to, then you’re doing evil.
And on the other hand, if your intent is to help others, and you know that your actions will help others, and you act in ways that help others, and you’re free to choose not to, then you’re doing good.
As I wrote this, I realized that intent, and specifically the intent to help or to hurt, is primary. Knowledge, freedom of choice and actions are important, but they are secondary.
I think I agree with you again.
Spooky.
Spooky, indeed. Funny how that’s been happening so often lately. And I haven’t even said anything about Gambon lately.
Actually, I saw near the end of OOTP this Sunday while on vacation & I still just don’t get Gambon as Dumbledore. I’m thinking particularly of that scene where Dumbledore permits Trelawney back into Hogwarts & Umbridge gives him a not so veiled threat of taking even more power. In the books, Dumbledore is not fussed about that at all but Gambon’s portrayal of that scene just makes Dumbledore look scared of Umbridge & unsure of what to do, so much so that he shouts at the students for no good reason.
But I digress. I would agree with your closing statement, that the intent to help or hurt others is a primary consideration. Of course, we can never forget what the road to hell is paved with…
Can’t resist responding to your digression: that scene shows exactly what’s wrong with Gambon’s reading of the character: we see Dumbledore scared and unsure, and we see him being discourteous. The Dumbledore I know is not scared of the likes of Umbridge, never shows fear in any case, and he’s very, very rarely – if ever – discourteous.
Red Rocker wrote: “The Dumbledore I know is not scared of the likes of Umbridge, never shows fear in any case, and he’s very, very rarely – if ever – discourteous.”
Exactly!! The reason the scene in the cave in HBP is so jarring & disturbing is that it’s not the Dumbledore we know. We finally see him without any facades and no opportunity to manipulate the situation as he even does with his denouement with Harry at the end of OOTP, where we think we see him being open & honest. Same thing with the revelations about Dumbledore in DH. They are so disturbing & faith shattering for Harry as well as us because that’s not the Dumbledore we know.
Gambon has never given us the Dumbledore we know, so I expect to be profoundly unmoved when the above referenced scenes show up in the HBP & DH movies.
I’m beginning to think we need a separate thread just for you & I to vent over Gambon’s performance whenever we need to.
Anyway, back to my recent viewing of OOTP, I’m still utterly disappointed with the movie’s denouement between Harry & Dumbledore. It just doesn’t come off because the statement from Dumbledore that he cares about Harry just doesn’t ring true from Gambon.
Oh well…
So I found parts of the script for Order on line and pulled out the lines Gambon flubbed:
Albus Dumbledore: [after Sirius' death] I know how you feel, Harry.
Harry Potter: No you don’t.
[pause]
Harry Potter: It’s my fault.
Albus Dumbledore: No, the fault is mine. I knew it was only a matter of time before Voldemort made the connection between you. I thought by distancing myself from you, as I have done all year, he’d be less tempted and therefore you might be more protected.
Harry Potter: The prophecy said neither one can live while the other one survives. It means one of us is going to have to kill the other, in the end.
Albus Dumbledore: Yes.
Harry Potter: Why didn’t you tell me?
Albus Dumbledore: For the same reason you tried to save Sirius. For the same reason your friends saved you. After all these years, after all you’ve suffered, I didn’t want to cause you any more pain. I cared too much about you.
I’m imagining how other actors might say those lines. Harris (God rest his soul!) would have said them quietly, looking at Harry intently. Russell Crowe (in about 20 years’ time) would have said them quickly, looking away. Peter O’Toole would have said them looking at Harry but not seeing him, speaking into the middle distance, his mouth twisting with self-mockery. Sean Connery – no, I can’t see Connery playing Dumbledore. Wrong energy. But I can even see Christopher Walken doing it: delivering everything but the last line in his typical syncopated style. And just at the end going still and quiet, and saying very deliberately: “I cared too much about you.”
What a wasted opportunity.
Christopher Walken, eh? Wow, we are really down on Gambon’s performance, aren’t we?
Now, when we can start envisioning Keanu Reeves doing the scene better than Gambon, we’ll have hit rock bottom!
Actually, Walken is a fine actor. He has done a lot of over-the-top stuff in the last while, but if you go back a bit, you’ll see his true acting chops. Try renting Deer Hunter if you haven’t seen it already. The Russian Roulette scene with DeNiro. Or try The Suicide Kings whereWalken plays a Mafia chief. Watch the scene where he’s tied down, pinkie finger amputated, surrounded by three kids who want to extort money from him. Watch him completely control the kids, and the situation. Shades of Dumbledore on the Astronomy Tower.
Oh, I know Walken’s a good actor. I was just kidding.
Here’s Walken reading The Three Little Pigs My favorite line: Wolfie burns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vNk4K3YaIc