by Dave
Travis’s earlier post concerning what we’ve been reading made me think about some purely hypothetical questions. My philosophy major side is creeping out a bit here. I’m not sure of the greater merit of such a question, but I started wondering how an archvillain like Voldemort might find his end in some other literature. I’ve been teaching The Inferno for the last couple of days to my World Cultures freshmen. Oddly enough, they are rather enjoying lurid descriptions of torment and suffering endured by those Dante condemned to his version of Hell. He had a rather creative knack for developing and arranging punishments that seemed to poetically reflect the crimes committed by the damned. Before that, they were reading the “swashbuckling” adventures of Beowulf, and enjoying the blood and carnage of medieval combat.
Kids these days…(..and the adults…)!
Dante doesn’t seem to posit The Inferno as a literal idea of what Hell is like. Instead, he wrote it (at least partially) as a metaphor from which to satirize and prod the social, religious, and political issues of his day. So, condemning historical figures to various levels of his fictional version of Hell reflects political and moral convictions that Dante carried with him through much of his life. My hope/point is to get a handle on just how cosmically egregious Voldemort’s crimes might be. But, as our recent discussion of Dumbledore exposed, we do stratify both good and evil based on the qualities/intentions of certain actions, whether we want to or not, whether doing so is right or not.
It’s easy to call a guy evil. And it might be ideal to say “all evils are equal”, but this isn’t precisely true, even in Harry’s world. He does stuff all the time that is clearly “evil”, but we’re willing to excuse it because Harry is primarily “good”, and (I think) his “evil” actions clearly don’t measure up to Voldemort’s (one interesting side question: is anyone shown in the books to be clearly “better” than Harry as a person?). But what nature does that evil assume? How might Voldemort’s actions, wishes, desires, fears come back to haunt him in a Dantean style?
I’m not sure what this might generate, but I’m eager to see how vicious and damnable we think Voldemort’s crimes might be — or those of some of the other less savory characters in Harry Potter — at least in Dante’s terms. Here is a link to the Wikipedia entry on The Divine Comedy that provides a brief synopsis of Dante’s architecture for Hell.
Even though there isn’t much suggestion of any kind of hell in what theology Rowling hints at in the books, how Voldemort might meet some divine justice intrigues me. The question is hypothetical in one sense, but answering that question might also give us a more interesting place from which to look at Voldemort’s character as a depiction of evil. Or, better still, which characteristics are defined as evil in our own modern archetypes versus those of earlier eras/periods. How are they similar or different?
Travis Prinzi on 
Arabella Figg on 
aerisflowers on 
Jessica on 
SPT on 
Red Rocker on 
Fricka on 
Loading ...
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
Interesting essay, Dave. Just to get into it, I think that for one in HP JKR isn’t trying to make distinctions per se between different degrees or kinds of sin, but on where one’s choices are leading you.
Harry makes mistakes & he certainly sins, but in the end these aren’t what define Harry. His love & his friendship & his desire to overcome the evil of others is. LV on the other hand is defined by his lust for immortality, power, & control over others.
Harry lies, breaks rules, & constantly misjudges people, but he either regrets these actions or else he doesn’t desire to do these things but does them because of the situations with which he is faced. And he goes beyond them. His constant misjudging of Snape, even though Snape deserves a lot of it, is redeemed in Harry’s giving his middle son part of Snape’s name.
LV on the other hand is set on his own desires & will do anything to accomplish them. He never sees any need for regretting his actions or turning away from them. Which in the end is what Harry offers him. Just show some regret, Tom. But LV cannot acknowledge that anything he does is ever wrong; he cannot turn away from his path & thus his downfall. He can’t repent as it were. Not because the opportunity isn’t open to him, but because he refuses it.
This is a kind of a complicated issue & perhaps I’m not expressing things right in the long way. But the simple way of looking at things is that it is not sin so much that gets you damned to hell, it is unrepentant sin. And in regard to damning sins, it doesn’t matter whether you’re an unrepentant gossiper or an unrepentant mass murderer.
The rejection of God’s grace is what’s damning. One is in essence saying to God, Thanks, but no thanks, God, for your forgiveness, I’ll handle my sins on my own. Whether by denying that they are sins or by trying to make them up to God on my own.
I like this game.
Let me take a stab.
Everyone (except the Muggles) are Eighth Circle, Bolgia 4 or beyond (sorcerers). If not for that, Dumbledore would be in the Seventh Circle, Inner Ring (look it up).
Scrimgoer is in the Eighth Circle, Bolgia 5 (courrupt politicians).
Snape is in the Ninth circle (Traitors) although I don’t know which RIng, because there’s nothing about those who betray the one they love.
Voldemort? Seventh Circle, Outer Ring (the violent against others), if it weren’t for the fact that he’s a Sorcerer, which places him in the Eighth Ring (Bolgia 4) with the rest of the cast.
The cool thing is that Dante agrees with JKR: in her assessment Snape was (in some ways) worse than Voldemort because he, at least, had been loved by someone.
Ninth Circle.
In Dante’s world Snape was not damned because he repented. Dante probably would have placed him in purgatory.
As far as I can tell, Voldemort never repented, which makes all the difference.
One of the key aspects of Dante’s denizens of hell is that they cling to their sin, even in the depths of hell.
One of the most interesting parts of Dante is that the inhabitants of purgatory exercise free will in choosing to remain there until they have come to terms with the pain and wrongdoing they had caused in life.
Revgeorge’s statement “But the simple way of looking at things is that it is not sin so much that gets you damned to hell, it is unrepentant sin.” is a great summary.
Dorothy L. Sayer’s commentary on The Divine Comedy, especially on purgatory, is well worth reading.
You’re right, Mary Jo, he did repent, and would thus be sent to Purgatory until he expunged his sin. But I couldn’t pick which terrace to place him; the terraces seem to correspond to the minor sins, not the major ones.
But it’s a moot point. All the wizards and witches are destined for the Eighth circle, Bolgia 4, unless they repent of being sorcerers. Laura what’s her name would be laughing.
I want to back up a few steps. Dave, you really see what Harry did as “evil”? Maybe it’s just the way I think of that particular word, but I wouldn’t use that to describe Harry or most of the characters–really only Voldemort. He, and the Death Eaters, really seem to be the only ones who intentionally harm others and feel no remorse for their actions.
Harry, and everyone else, makes mistakes that sometimes harm others, but it is not done with the intent of causing harm or the pleasure of watching someone else suffer. (The Cruciatus that Harry uses in DH is the main exception and that’s the reason I find it so disturbing.)
You asked if someone is shown as being a better person that Harry. Absolutely–and I think it’s Luna. She is the only one who is kind and thoughtful to everyone; I can’t think of a time that she said anything mean about someone else. She loves her father and shows him great respect, even thought most others think he’s off his rocker. Even when others pick on her by calling her names or by taking her things, Luna is the one who responds without animosity, bitterness or the desire for revenge.
And Neville would be a close second. He’s not happy, certainly, that he is ridiculed, but he rises above all of it and holds fast to his strong moral values.
Harry gets there in the end, but had to spend a good portion of three books dealing with his anger and hatred of Snape. Harry, like Luna and Neville, has taken a great deal of abuse at the hands of his fellow students and adults like Umbridge, Malfoy and of course, Voldemort. Without that strong sense that his choices define him, it would have been easy for Harry to become as bitter as Snape.
Rowling doesn’t really get to a description of hell, that’s true. But what we see of what is left of Voldemort is like a living hell for him, and that’s probably as close a definition that we can get from her. (Unless she decides to keep talking–*rolls eyes*)
Pat
Pat, I guess what you said is really my point. I wouldn’t classify Harry as evil, either. Yet, he clearly does some evil things. And, in the case of the cruciatus in DH, we have a canonical example that we simply can’t explain away in any easy manner. Harry never shows remorse over that instance (I wouldn’t be at all shocked if Rowling makes some mention of this in the planned encyclopedia — something Harry regretted later on). I just find it interesting that one could make the case that Harry is the most significantly flawed of all the major child-characters in the books, except Ron — particularly, he’s full of wrath (and understandably so). Given what we’ve seen in the books, Dante might at least confine Harry to Purgatory for a period of time. Or does his self-sacrifice in DH absolve him? Man, that screws around with some theological principles, doesn’t it? The Christ figure finding absolution during his sacrifice and resurrection — now that’s a postmodern bent to the story…
As far as Luna is concerned, that’s exactly who crept into my mind when I wrote the question down. She’s such a wonderful and bizarre character…
Perhaps the problem lies in trying to make a one on one correlation between the Divine Comedy & Harry Potter? It can be helpful, & even fun at times as reyhan says, but in the end it’s not really a good comparison.
I just wanted to go on record as saying that I am totally cool with how Harry used the cruciatus and who he used it on and why. I don’t expect him to show remorse, and I think he would be a different kind of person if he did show remorse.
More to the point, I don’t think that the author thinks he did anything wrong either.
Dave, when you’re thinking of major child-characters are you excluding Malfoy and Crabbe and Goyle and all the other Slytherin bullies? How about Fred and George? Or Percy? What’s the comparison group here for flaws?
I’m also not sure how to interpret your question about whether Harry’s supreme self-sacrifice blots out his sins of wrath (and also his lying, laziness, and lustful thoughts). Are you asking what Dante might think? What we think? What heavenly authorities might think?
We could regard Heaven as a bureaucracy comprised of book keepers who meticulously note each transgression and each good deed on a ledger, with values assigned to each (5 points off for asking Hermione for the answers to the Potions assignment! 15 points for telling Ron he doesn’t suck at Quidditch! 10 points off for lingering too long on Bellatrix’ cleavage!). Sort of like Santa’s ledger, but without the presents. But what would be the value assigned to sacrificing your life so countless others may live? I am personally not up to the balancing job.
As for who’s a better person than Harry: well, there are a couple of people who sacrifice themselves for the sake of others, aren’t there? Lily Potter and Severus Snape? No one would argue that Snape is better than Harry, but no entries on the bad side of the ledger for Lily, are there?
Reyhan, I said you could make the case. I didn’t say it would be a very good case! I was thinking primarily of Harry’s inner circle of friends there…should have clarified that…sorry…
What I’m getting at is that many readers laud the books as a great example of good versus evil; yet, our definitions of and distinctions between the two muddy up the waters in ways that aren’t easily explained.
For the record, I wouldn’t bat an eye at Harry’s use of the Crucio in DH if I were fighting by his side. But, as a reader looking at a book onstensibly designed to say something about internal conflicts concerning faith and larger conflicts between good and evil based upon one’s choices, I’m supposed to learn something from these actions about proper and improper moral conduct and the principles against which I might judge those actions.
The same is to be said of works like The Inferno, too. In that sense, Rowling falls quite easily into a tradition of classic European literature that is designed to “teach and delight” — Dante, Milton, Shakespeare, etc. Yet, she’s trying to find a happy ending for a character who doesn’t manage to overcome all his character flaws before the resolution of the central narrative conflict — a typically modern/postmodern theme.
She’s trying to make Harry both Hero and anti-Hero at the same time. Something similar might be said for Voldemort. There’s this constant tension in the last two books about a burgeoning sympathy for the pure archvillain, most notably toyed around with in the Kings Cross chapter when Harry feels, simultaneously, sympathy (and I’d say empathy, perhaps) and revulsion for the withering, wimpering Horcrux dying underneath the bench. And Harry “pities” Voldemort just before the final battle.
In the main post, I was working towards the idea of seeing Rowling’s work in the context of some others that deal with similar themes. Dante provides an interesting framework from which to think about one’s “sins”.
…starting to think I kind of screwed this post up…
I think we’re pulling the trigger a little too quickly on “they’re all going to the 8th circle because they’re sorcerers”.
This is a fairy tale world. The rules are different. Lucy cast a spell in “Voyage of the Dawn Treader” (C.S. Lewis) — two, in fact — and only got chewed out for the first one. And don’t forget Caspian’s half-dwarf tutor in “Silver Chair” who is also a wizard.
There is a reason magic in the real world is forbidden in the Bible. As with adultery, idolatry, theft, murder, there is a good reason. But it’s not what the HP people are doing. It has almost nothing in common with HP magic beyond the name.
So I think we need to look beyond the simplistic “they’re all witches so they’re all going to hell” and actually *think* about the character development. Condemning them for their ‘witchcraft’ is judging them by real-world laws and concepts that simply don’t apply in HP.
Respectfully,
Brian P.
Brian,
I think reyhan was being sarcastic in saying they’re all consigned to hell because of their witchcraft. This would be knee jerk reaction of the Harry Haters & so it’s a hit at them, ignoring everything about the characters’ actions & only focusing on the fact that they can do magic. At least, that’s what I got from the post.
Brian,
At least they won’t be in the Ninth Circle, with Brutus and Cassius, traitors to the Roman Empire.
My point – had I actually stopped to make a point – would have been that a literal acceptance of a politically biased 13th century conceptualization of sin isn’t going to be too helpful to us here. But it’s fun to slot Harry’s people into Dante’s Bolgia .
Dave’s bigger question – how does the view of the books as designed to “teach and delight” fit in with the fact that the hero gets to live happily ever after without having to repent of all his sins – takes things to a level I don’t feel competent to grapple with.
Maybe he did. I guess my sarcasm-o-meter and my humor-o-meter are on the fritz again.
*Taps the dials*
And yes, revgeorge is quite right, it was also a hit at the Harry Haters. Seemed like a “gimme” to me. Sorry for the confusion.
I don’t quite get the idea that Harry lived happily ever after without repenting of his actions. Does a soldier per se need to repent of his actions in wartime? In some cases, yes. But for the most part in wartime you do things you would never consider doing otherwise. You’re put into a situation where you’re forced to fight for your life & the lives of your buddies.
As for Harry’s use of the cruciatus curse, well, to me that seemed to be a crystalizing point for Harry. Here is Amycus getting ready to let LV slaughter the Ravenclaw students for no other purpose than to avoid his own, from LV’s point of view, just punishment. Bellatrix is wrong; righteous anger is powerful, & here is Harry showing it.
Besides, Jo kind of skated around Harry using the cruciatus. Amycus doesn’t fall to the ground writhing in pain while Harry stands over him, amping up the pain as it were. Amycus flies twisting & screaming through the air, hits the wall, & is knocked out. When have we ever seen the cruciatus curse do that?
In keeping with Dante’s ironic view of hell/punishment, perhaps Voldemort’s torment will be inflicted by the horcrux-parts of his soul: they get to vent their spleens on him for eternity:
‘Look what you did to me!’
‘And you didn’t even notice when we were killed!’
‘And look where it got us! We’re still dead, and for what?’
‘If we were still part of your soul you wouldn’t have got into all that trouble with the Potter boy.’
‘Harry saw me flop and groan all over the floor at Kings Cross and people made the most embarrassing assumptions about what I was doing. The shame of it all!’
‘I was the smart part of the outfit and you banished me!’
‘A diary! You hid me in a diary!’
Brother, you are funny.
“‘Harry saw me flop and groan all over the floor at Kings Cross and people made the most embarrassing assumptions about what I was doing. The shame of it all!’”
I did think he was flippin’ his beans.
Matthew
Well, maybe that’s one question I wouldn’t mind asking JKR.
When there are no children around, preferably.
This is a very interesting question…but I’d like to make a point in light of the Snape-House, MD parallel above.
What if the Inferno’s appeal to your students, Dave, is something like the appeal of the “Saw” movie series? There’s a thirst for justice, perverted by a desire for shocking, gratuitous bloodshed, and thus individual punishments which poetically recapitulate the crime are satisfying.