Part I of this series: Why Joker Succeeds and Voldemort Fails
“Behind the scenes” is a trope of long standing tradition in many forms of literature. In a recent essay on Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Terry W. Thompson argues that the violent deaths occur off the page as a direct result of Shelley’s love of classical Greek drama in which decorum often dictated a strict sense of what drama could portray and what it couldn’t:
Over two millenia ago, when the plays of [Euripides, Aeschylus, and Sophocles] were performed live for theater patrons in Athens, Corinth, Epidaurus, the many acts of murder and mayhem so integral to Greek tragedy were never carried out on the state proper. Only the gruesome aftermath could — within the bounds of good taste — be presented to the audience. Blood could be shown; indeed, it frequently was to the delight of many theatergoers; but the actual spilling of it was strictly forbidden. Thus, all the stabbing and slashing, hacking and hewing was done well out of sight — behind closed doors or drawn curtains. (58)
But, this convention is not purely a matter of decorum. It also hints back to one preoccupation of Greek drama, tragedy particularly: what matters are the consequences and their causes. One primary distinction between tragedy and comedy to the classical mind is that tragedy must have a discernible cause/effect relationship between plot elements, while comedy could rely on conveniences due to its more lighthearted nature. Aristotle states that “The most important” element (of the six he delineates) “is the structure of events, because tragedy is a representation not of people as such but of actions and life” (Halliwell trans. 37). Consequently, tragedy was taken more seriously by Aristotle and his peers — a theory that has drifted through the history of literary criticism, and still stands within the postmodern academy (though it is admittedly much more weak-kneed).
Thus, the gory details of death, the simple salaciousness of murder, is left only to the imagination due partly to the need to emphasize the cause of the murder and its after effects. The author did not want the audience distracted by the spectacle. At some level, artistic and moral unity were one and the same, and that perspective largely prevailed throughout all forms of Western art until the 19th century. It is true what needs to be depicted within a given story has evolved. By the time Hamlet is first staged, Shakespeare had already made a living staging some of the most brutal deathscenes ever devised.
The archetypes we’ve taken as a starting point for much of our discussion about Voldemort are tied to obscuring the obvious, as well. For a literature so entrenched in causal action (at least for its more serious matters), leaving what modern audiences would define as a pivotal plot moment “off screen” bespeaks a mindset that also develops characterization through associations among multiple characters, often archetypal ones. One must reveal the pertinent personality ticks of a character by pasting them into a canvas of connections with other characters — not by simply dumping them into the audience’s lap explicitly.
Of course, this is one reason why we read (or watch) the things we do. The dominant thought is that that some form of Aristotle’s catharsis persists within figurative expression. We want to experience the emotions the same way the characters supposedly do.
Thus, the relationships created between Harry and his narrative peers is of paramount importance, particularly the antagonal relationships. The Snape dilemma(s) posed after Half-Blood Prince highlighted this importance, and Deathly Hallows, in an odd twist, doesn’t seem to help matters. Without question, Snape is the most compelling of Harry’s antagonists, yet he is never given the primary position within Harry’s crosshairs. That role is always given to Voldemort, who is inexplicably reduced to a caricature by the time the final battle arrives. After Deathly Hallows, what are we to make of Voldemort? The book presents a major problem for us as readers interrogating the texts, positing the existence of real evil with real consequences, yet depositing its prime representation into a character that Rowling reduces to a very uni-dimensional entity. He comes across as an egotistical buffoon who succeeds more out of his enemies’ fear than his real skill — and Voldemort’s enemies include a whole host of characters we’re to regard as heroic and noble in their own right. My general problem can be summed up this way: Because of Voldemort’s deflation, the story seems to move inexorably toward an already determined ending. Voldemort will not repent and he will be defeated in some manner by Harry. And we end up with a character that deconstructs himself, and thus deconstructs something of the power of his relationship with Harry. The trick is that Voldemort’s power depends on his narrative interconnectedness with other characters, like Snape, who are shunted to the background. Voldemort depends on these other characters; once he is brought to the fore by Rowling, he starts to fall apart as a malevolent presence, and I do not think this was Rowling’s intention.
Consider something from the opening chapter of Deathly Hallows, “The Dark Lord Ascending”. After Snape delivers intelligence concerning how the Order will move Harry from the Dursley home, Voldemort is described in truly frightening terms:
His red eyes fastened upon Snape’s black ones with such intensity that some of the watchers looked away, apparently fearful that they themselves would be scorched by the ferocity of the gaze. Snape, however, looked calmly back into Voldemort’s face and, after a moment or two, Voldemort’s lipless mouth curved into something of a smile. (3-4)
It’s part of a horrifying scene as Voldemort holds court with the Death Eaters, Charity Burbage suspended above the table (yet to meet her rather gruesome end) and the moans of Ollivander locked away in the dungeon of the Malfoys’ manor. Opening the seventh volume in this way reaffirms Voldemort as the primary villain against which Harry is set, and establishes an astonishing degree of malevolence like nothing else in the series to this point. Burbage’s murder and disposal is savage. We’re meant to see here the depths of evil Voldemort represents, the very nature of the literal conflict Harry faces.
Voldemort should in some way come to represent the internal crisis that Harry faces throughout much of Deathly Hallows, then. Half-Blood Prince starts us down this road with the Pensieve lessons in Dumbledore’s office. Questioning whether or not Harry sympathizes with young Tom isn’t necessarily designed to humanize Riddle/Voldemort, but externalize Harry’s own feelings of loneliness and sometimes-self-imposed isolation. It’s this flaw that is Harry’s greatest, and is the one he tends to revert to at the end of Half-Blood Prince and that the camping scenes from Deathly Hallows are designed to force him to overcome. Burying Dobby and choosing the Horcrux Hunt over the Hallows Quest solidifies Harry’s recognition of this point and cloaks that recognition in the alchemical imagery John Granger has so thoroughly detailed.
Yet, there isn’t really a crisis depicted for Voldemort. He always assigns his defeats to the hands of “luck and chance, those wreckers of the best-laid plans” (7). At one level, I think this is supposed to be some foreshadowing of Voldemort’s downfall, pointing a to his arrogance and inability to accept his own faults. Except for one problem: Rowling’s reliance on deus ex machina plot details means he’s at least partially right (Goblet of Fire, anyone?).
And within this same idea, Voldemort’s narrative relationship with Harry pivots upon Snape:
“Yes, Dumbledore’s dead,” said Harry calmly, “but you didn’t have him killed. He chose his own manner of dying, chose it months before he died, arranged the whole thing with the man you thought was your servant.”
“What childish dream is this?” said Voldemort, but still he did not strike, and his red eyes did not waver from Harry’s.
“Severus Snape wasn’t yours,” said Harry. “Snape was Dumbledore’s, Dombledore’s from the moment you started hunting down my mother. And you never realized it, because of the thing you can’t understand.” (740)
This is the “Flaw in the Plan”, tying Snape into their relationship, and accounting for some of the power of Snape’s emergence from the HP story. Yet, Snape disappears into the background of Deathly Hallows, placed firmly behind the ascending Dark Lord. Rowling’s choice to force Snape into the background hurts both characters by also reducing how the reader understands the flaw, and thus reducing the catharsis of the final confrontation. Voldemort’s lack of dimension in Deathly Hallows makes him dependent on these other characters — they’re absence breaks his characterization, and leaves the last confrontation deflated — the end never in doubt.
Arabella Figg on 
Joivre on 
PotterMom05 on 
Red Rocker on 
korg20000bc on 
Loading ...
{ 1 trackback }
{ 97 comments… read them below or add one }
Dave, the end was never in doubt for me once Harry had his little chat with Dumbledore at King’s Cross. I think by that time we had clearly been shown that Harry was the master of death & not Voldemort.
But you do make a very good argument about Voldemort in relation to other characters. To an extent he needs them to give him some definition. He is an evil monster, capable of generating great fear.
But he’s also kind of like the thing in the closet that we just knew was going to get us once the light in our room was out & our parents gone. The atmosphere helped contribute to its power. The darkness & the aloneness as we faced it underneath our covers. The scritch-scratch of the trees against the house & the wind rustling through the leaves. But turn on the light, fling open the closet & there’s nothing there. Take away all the things that build up its power & the monster vanishes.
Once Voldemort comes out into the open, once he stands alone, well, he is pretty pathetic. There is no crisis for him because he’s already made all his choices. His crisis happened a long time ago, & I think the scenes in HBP were designed to show us that. That he had plenty of chances to take a different path but yet stayed focused on his one true goal.
The final scene between Harry & Voldemort seems anti-climatic because it is anti-climatic. The climax of the book has already occurred & I think Red Rocker would be in agreement with me on this one, the climax of the book is in Harry’s journey into the forest. For the real enemy to be defeated is not Voldemort but death.
In a sense, Voldemort, Dumbledore, & Harry are the three brothers in the Tales of Beedle the Bard. Voldemort is the first brother who seeks to conquer death. Dumbledore is the second brother who seeks to undo death. Harry is the third brother who comes to terms with death & thus actually is able to live a proper life.
Now, whether Jo meant it to come out that way or not, I don’t know. I think she did, even if only subconsciously. But that’s just my guess at it.
Don’t get me wrong. There are some problems with DH. I think the scene with Lupin & Harry regarding leaving Tonks & coming with the Trio is a bit forced. I still think the fact that we don’t really get much resolution with the Slytherins is a failing, unless you count Snape’s story as being a resolution of that conflict. We know Harry comes to terms with Slytherin House because he encourages his son that if he’s put in Slytherin it won’t matter to him. But we don’t see much in the book itself; maybe it would’ve been too distracting. And yes, Voldemort could’ve been handled a bit better, but I’m still not sure about that.
Anyway, despite the flaws in it, DH still remains my favorite of the series & one of the most moving.
Just some thoughts off the top of my mind.
I think part of the problem with Voldemort is that he comes on scene fully developed. There is no room for change or growth – either for the better or the worse. The only changes he undergoes in present time are physical. He is an extremely static character.
He is most interesting when we peer (through Harry’s eyes) into the past, and see how he developed from abandoned baby to solitary child, to a dabbler in the Dark Arts, to a self-annointed Dark Wizard. His interactions with his family, with Slughorn, with Hepzibah Smith, and above all with Dumbledore are fasicnating – to me anyways – because he is in the process of becoming. At those points, even though we know the end point, he is still a dynamic character.
I think that the other part of the problem is that he never fully engages or interacts with Harry, who is the emotional heart of the story. When they do interact – through Harry’s dreams and visions – my interest in him perks up. But even then, their interaction is one-sided: he is doing, Harry is the one who is reacting (and feeling and acting in response).
In some ways, it doesn’t matter if Voldemort is a hero or a villain. Any character which is totally static and unengaged with the central character whose own growth is at the heart of a story is almost bound to be boring.
Red Rocker, I think you hit on some of the important points. Also on a great contrast between Harry & Voldemort, one which Dumbledore points out in the books.
Voldemort stunts his own growth. He shreds his humanity by shredding his soul. He is a negation rather than someone who progresses. In his flight from death, he makes himself into someone who is totally unable to enjoy life.
Harry, on the other hand, lives. Although death hangs over him at every moment, he lives & grows. He enjoys life. He takes pleasure in the gifts of this world. He loves & relates to people. He has compassion & pity. And yes, even anger & hatred at times. And he takes life with all the trials & tribulations that come with just living in this world & that come from loving human beings with all their faults & failings. Whereas Voldemort always tries to escape those things, love & trust in others, because at times you can & will be hurt. Harry embraces his humanity while Voldemort destroys his humanity.
So, of course, when we meet Voldy, he’s already made himself incapable of being anybody other than Lord Voldemort. He’s made his choices & his choices instead of giving him freedom have only bound him into the person he is. He cannot be anyone other than Lord Voldemort. If he could, as Dumbledore notes, then he might never have become Lord Voldemort.
So, Voldemort shows what happens to a person who is so turned in on himself & what it shows is someone who really is boring. There’s nothing there. Sound & fury truly signifying nothing.
Dave,
Thank you for this very careful study of Batman & Joker vs. Harry & Voldemort. You hit on a lot of interesting points about Voldemort’s “failed” character. In one sense, I can’t help but think about these on a certain literal level: the Joker in The Dark Knight lives at the end (from what we can tell), while Voldemort at the end of Deathly Hallows quite literally fails.
At another level, another way to put this difference at whether or not one villain “succeeds” or not definitely needs to take place within a discussion of the ontology of each world. You touched on this in the previous post (and Red Rocker alluded to this as well with his yin-yang comment), but there is an inherent dualism between Batman and the Joker in Dark Knight. Yes, they “complete” each other, and even Batman’s own actions are highly suspect (using everybody’s cellphone to spy on people to find the Joker, to name just one thing). The world is a murky one as eveything really is a shade of grey–more like the real world, perhaps.
Now, take the world of Harry Potter in contrast. At first glance, we might think that a similar dualistic logic is at work here: Harry, the horcruxes, Voldemort, and the link between them. However, I want to suggest that the world at work is far more of an Augustinian one in the sense that evil is a privation of the good. Now, I have no idea if this is intentional from JK Rowling’s point of view, but there are a lot of things in the story which add up to make some sense of this.
For starters, we have Voldemort’s twisted appearance. Over and over again Rowling comments on the appearance of his thin and spidery fingers, his snake-like snout, and his eyes. Even till the very end we have her narrating his final battle with descriptions of his twisted appearance (I would add here that Mr. Tuesday Morning Quarterback’s pithy dismissal of this final scene misses precisely this extremely important and complex point, but instead he just snobbishly calls it “bad writing” with–surprise–no explanation as why this is the case).
Second, there’s the fact that Voldemort is argued here as “failed”. As mentioned, this is true, but as many commenters (and Rowling herself points out, no less!) the last enemy to defeat is death. Voldemort is not spectacular nor pure evil because there is no such thing; on the contrary, he is mundanely a poor image of what he should be in a calling toward the good. Because evil is literally nothing at all but instead a lack, Rowling then quite brilliantly shows how stupid and uninteresting Voldemort ultimately is. On the contrary I would argue that stories in which the villain is spectacular and somehow embodies a hardened “pure evil,” is in fact bad writing because its ontological presuppositions are askew.
In varying ways, C.S. Lewis, Tolkein, and Rowling all get this: Narnia’s perennial cold of the White Witch’s winter;the destroying of the land toward ‘industry’ of Sarumon’s Orc and Uruk-hai army; and the twisted appearances and loss of humanity of those who have broken their soul to pieces in the act of murder. In the end there is–to varying degrees depending upon the author’s emphasis–a restoration of humanity/creation when death is overcome. For Harry, he earns his life back after he gives it up for his friends, which is the greatest thing anyone can do.
Voldemort “fails” because his own character failed to live up to what it means to be a real human being. He fails not because he is not as ‘compelling’ as the Joke, but succeeds as a “failed” character precisely because he isn’t spectacular, interesting; Rowling it right to have us pity him because he has become a tragedy.
A villain’s character merits should be weighed less on its ability to instill fear into us as much as the characters inability to have any power over us in spite of his or her efforts to obtain that power. The light shines into the darkness and the darkness has no power over it.
What Eric said!
I think that what Eric says may be true morally and spiritually, but not necessarily dramatically. Good drama needs compelling villains. Iago. Don Giovanni. Scarpia. Bill the Butcher. Hannibal Lecter. Fagin and Bill Sikes. And yes, Ledger’s Joker.
My point is meant to call into question just that conception of what drama itself is
Which is really why we don’t need a lot of drama for Voldemort because he’s not the real villain or the real antagonist. I think maybe people’s disappointment rests in the fact that Jo seems to have done another narrative misdirection. Voldemort seems to be the enemy. He’s set up to be the enemy. But he’s just there to keep our eyes off the real antagonist until the necessary switch is made.
I’m not really sure what people expected out of the final confrontation between Harry & Voldy anyway. A knock down blazing wizard duel like Dumbledore & Voldy in the MOM? I’m sure people would have been dumbfounded if all of sudden Harry starts shooting around huge, powerful spells. Or did they expect Harry & Voldy to grapple over the last horcrux before Voldemort fell, clutching it, into the Cracks of Doom?
If being uninteresting is the mark of evil, then the trio are going to Hell. Because they aren’t any more interesting than Voldemort in [i]Deathly Hallows[/i]. I didn’t find Dumbledore’s backstory to be all that gripping either.
I don’t think myself or anybody is saying that “uninteresting” is the ‘mark’ of evil. My own point is that evil/death ultimately has no power because 1) it has has already been defeated, and moreover 2) because the nature of evil itself is that it doesn’t itself have substance but instead is a lack of what is good.
Perhaps “uninteresting” isn’t the best word to use because of the confusion. Maybe ‘undesirable’ or something like that is more fitting. This conversation is stemming from Voldemort’s ultimately lack of being supremely twisted in light of Ledger’s performance of the Joker. Both characters are evil, but the Joker tantalizes us more. Why? The Joker definitely has more tricks up his sleeve, but his story is presented in a kind of dualistic fashion with Batman’s own. Voldemort fails to be full of spectacle in the end precisely because he represents what evil really is: powerless, no imagination, no directing us toward the Good. The world Rowling sets up, I would argue, is in the end the more realistic one.
To attempt another reversal, what is Good itself is also often not super “interesting,” and yes, is rather mundane, but more in the sense of a Thomistic forming of habits within a community. The most faithful and good works almost never get any kind of spotlight because they fail to dazzle. Mother Theresa’s work is the path of suffering love — not exactly very glitzy.
I bring this up mainly to show that “interesting” really isn’t the best hermeneutic to begin with here.
I’m not sure the Joker is very tantalizing. And I don’t he’s very compelling or interesting unless it’s in the same way that watching a train wreck is compelling & interesting. And plus he’s pretty much wrong on most things. He’s certain that the experiment he sets up with the two groups of people on the boats will end in one group sacrificing the other to save themselves. He’s wrong. He tries to turn good men into doing evil. He’s part right but also wrong. The situation in The Dark Knight plays out the way Sirius said it did in the first wizarding war: Such things bring out the best in some people & the worst in others. The only place the Joker might be right is in his assessment of the Batman, because, let’s face it, Batman is a nutter.
So, while Ledger may have given an engaging performance as the Joker, in the end the character of Joker is just as boring, if no less evil, than Voldemort.
Also agree with your points above, Eric. I don’t think any of us made being uninteresting the _only_ mark of being evil.
revgeorge, you ask an interesting question: what did people expect out of the final confrontation?
I can’t speak for anyone except myself. And I didn’t go into it expecting anything. But I can tell you what might have made it a bit more interesting for me.
If Harry had put into words his literal understanding of the flayed child at King’s Cross, and if Voldemort had responded with even an iota of interest or understanding.
If Voldemort had spoken about why he is so afraid of death and how it feels to have (almost but not actually) conquered death.
If Voldemort had spoken about what it feels like to have your soul fractured into bits, and residing in assorted bric a brac.
If Voldemort had shown any trace of insight similar to that of Javert at the Pont-au-Change.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not talking about a last minute change of heart, remorse and redemption here. That would not have been plausible. But one small moment of contact, recognition and awareness would have been good.
Well, okay. But then what is the contrast between Harry and Voldemort? What is the fundamental difference in choices that makes Harry good and Voldemort bad?
In Deathly Hallows Voldemort has no clearly stated reason for his actions and no plan to use his immortality for anything. He doesn’t even have the Joker’s motivations of “social experimentation,” or creating chaos for its own sake. Voldemort doesn’t have a madness to go along with his methods. He is, as you say, empty. But if he is empty, then why is taking over the government? It seems like a lot of work.
Without some motivation for Voldemort, the only difference in choices between Harry and Voldemort is that Harry does not kill. But, really, Harry does, in the end, kill Voldemort. Reflecting a Killing Curse is still killing. There wasn’t any chance that Voldemort was going to be captured was there? Of course not.
Otherwise we are left with the rather problematic idea—- already too evident in the books due to the “Sorting at Age 11″ problem —– that Harry is better than Voldemort due to the Grace of God. We pretty much have to accept that some people— like the trio, Dumbledore, Hagrid, anyone with red hair and anyone born in July or August—– are born inherently good, whereas some other people ‘just ain’t right.’ Presumably because of their bad blood or something.
If you don’t give Voldemort some reason for his actions, whether that reason is reasonable or not, then he and his followers are nothing but stick figures and the book is nothing more than a game of hangman with the bad guy marching step by step to death.
I think he does have a madness to his method: His attempt to remake the wizarding world in his own pure image, etc. And his goals are just as empty as he is.
Tell us then just what Jo should’ve done with Voldemort, please. And tell us if there is any difference between the good & evil people. If not, why then does anyone read the books? I’m not saying there’s not problems with Jo’s work; I think I’ve said quite clearly there are some literary & plot issues. But really, what’s the point of your criticism? I would like to understand.
I think that Voldemort’s reasons for his actions are tantalizingly close to being explained. It’s all there save for a few dots on the i’s and crosses on the t’s.
I’ll take a stab at it, with the proviso that it’s just a hypothesis.
He grows up without a family. He does not find substitutes for his family amongst peers and teachers, as does Harry. He does not have a loving disposition and loves no one – although he seems capable of inspiring love (or perhaps just lust) in others. He has no friends, only subordinates and lieutenants and sycophants.
He’s a narcissist, with the usual sense of superiority and specialness that goes with that. He also has a severe sense of entitlement: there is no doubt in his eyes that he is the strongest and smartest and all should bow to him. No one, and nothing can best him.
There are only three things which challenge this sense of superiority verging on megalomania: Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter, and death. He despises Dumbledore – because he despises all who do not worhship him – but also fears him, a little (maybe a lot). He despises Harry Potter and can never understand how the little worm survived the AK. He figures he can defeat both of them eventually, however because he is obviously the superior wizard. But death is a harder nut to crack. He’s got to use all his knowledge and skill to try to defeat death.
Why so afraid?
Does he really fear death that much, or is it that incredible sense of superiority: he can’t conceive of dying, of being no more.
Is he afraid of what waits after, or is he so self-important that he can’t allow himself to be no more?
I used to think that he feared death because, unlike Harry, he had no loved ones, no one to walk with him on his final journey, no one to comfort him or welcome him on the other side.
Then I thought that he was afraid because he was afraid of going to hell. And the more he tried to avert his own death by torturing/killing others, the more he ensured his eventual fate.
Or maybe he was afraid of dying because he would no longer be boss or king; his power wouldn’t count anymore. He’d be insignificant. And to someone like him, that would be hell.
But overall I’m more inclined to think that his ego is so huge that it is simply unacceptable to him that he could die. That the world could continue to exist for a single second after he died.
Something I really find fascinating is the self-fulfilling prophecy aspect of the whole scenario. The more he fears death, the harder he tries to avert it, the more he maims his soul, the more he ensures a bad fate (whether that’s loneliness, or suffering, or powerlessness, which are the only options possible to him beyond King’s Cross), and as a result the more he fears dath and the harder he tries to avert it.
And there is no way out for him because he is so afraid.
Now that is not a stick figure. There’s a lot stuff bubbling around in there. It’s just JKR won’t give us access to it.
I’m tempted to ask why she won’t. And I think the answer is the same as for why she let Snape die such a quick and meaningless death. I don’t think Voldemort the person interests her that much. It’s death that’s got her attention, and all Voldemort is to her is a bringer of death.
Again, she develops a potentially fascinating character and then doesn’t bother with him beyond the function he provides for the important story: Harry Potter and the Final Frontier.
Very excellent observations, Red Rocker. I think you hit the nail on the head for Voldemort’s personality, the ultimate narcissist. He can’t conceive of a world without himself in it. And for why he becomes that way? Well, who can tell why a person becomes a sociopath. Who can tell why someone becomes a serial killer. It doesn’t mean they were predestined to become those things. We just don’t have an explanation that satisfies us.
I agree much with your last point. Jo makes an excellent character in Voldemort but he’s not who Jo is interested in, death is. And so I’d say that Voldemort isn’t so much a failed villain as it is the case that Jo failed to use him to his fullest extent, just like with Snape. The character, as you say, becomes sublimated to the plot.
Red Rocker nails it. Deathly Hallows showed us that the characters that most interest Rowling are Harry and Dumbledore. Snape was initially a plot device who grew into one of the most fascinating characters on written page over the course of 6 books, then disappeared until chapter 33 of the 7th. Voldemort was always a plot device, a person to communicate a theme; though, I’d argue that he’s a very effective villain until that very odd moment when we’re asked to believe that he convinced himself no one else had ever found the Room of Requirement, despite a thousand years of discarded items being present in the room.
Rowling has almost said flat out that Voldemort is not her primary interest:
From a 2000 interview:
I think you & Red Rocker have nailed it down, Travis. Voldemort wasn’t that important really to Jo except moving the plot along, so not much really came of him. Just like Snape. He had his part to play & that was all we were going to get of him.
As for really evil characters in the books, the prime one is Dolores Umbridge. The banal, bureaucratic every day evil. How easily she goes from opposing Voldemort to supporting him, all because it doesn’t matter what’s right or wrong, it’s simply a policy decision.
Of course, even with a character she’s not as much interested in, she put a ton of really important and interesting work into him. There’s no way she didn’t do a lot of research on Narcissistic Personality Disorder (and as I’ve argued before, maybe the Fromm and Peck material on the “malignant narcissist”).
Umbridge is a character out of the mind of a genius. Rowling’s best baddie by far.
If Rowling isn’t interested in Voldemort, then why did we get half a book of Voldemort backstory in Half-Blood Prince? If Voldemort isn’t supposed to be scary then how come he is so scary in Goblet of Fire? If Voldemort isn’t supposed to be smart, then how come he comes up with all these deep and subtle schemes in book after book?
It is only in Book Seven that Voldemort ceases to be interesting and scary and smart. So it seems more likely that Rowling has simply failed to give Voldemort adequate characterization in Deathly Hallows rather than that she has brilliantly characterized him as a failed villain.
I’m glad you guys are running with this. I wasn’t real happy with its coherence.
Eric, As far as Batman/Joker, I don’t know that I would reduce that tension to a purely Augustinian dualism. “Good vs Evil” fits the Superman mythos much more closely. Batman is clearly not a particularly “good” person — complicated by the fact that the reader is never fully sure of which personality donned by Bruce/Batman is actually the truer persona. And he’s never able to fully compartmentalize the spectacle from the more mundane aspects of his personality. Thus, we need the bad guys here to help us understand something about our hero.
I’m with you on Voldemort up to a point — thus why I think he needs to be defined by the other characters. It’s just that those other characters are shuttled into the background as if Rowling didn’t really understand the architecture she drew between them. Death may be the last enemy, but she personifies it ironically in Voldemort who wields Death as if it were a toy, despite his fears. That’s a serious character, I think. But the end of Deathly Hallows deflates him so much that he just doesn’t fulfill his narrative potential. I don’t suppose I would be bothered by this so much if HBP hadn’t worked so hard to flesh out a full character.
Or maybe HBP was simply about introducing Harry to the Horcrux Hunt…? Maybe that’s really the most contrived plot in the series (sorry GoF) and we’ve just all missed it? I don’t think so. But…
Mike, all good points . My point was that Deathly Hallows demonstrated in whom Rowling was most interested – Dumbledore and Harry. We lost a lot of Voldemort and Snape potential in DH, which is Dave’s point. When we lost those two fascinating points in DH, the characters fell a little flat in the last volume.
Really, the reason Snape and Voldemort seem to have fallen to flat is because they were so interesting up until DH. I think Dave hit the nail on the head – with Snape shuffled to the background, there was no longer the Snape/Voldemort relationship; they weren’t helping define each other.
Interesting thoughts, Dave. It does feel like all the time spent on Voldemort’s backstory came to very little…I mean, we’re moving along through DH, and we finally get to a point where Ron says, “You really know him, don’t you?” Was that what the whole buildup was for?
I think if we back up and take Dumbledore’s perspective, though, it makes sense (but ultimately is a plot device, in a sense) – Dumbledore gives Harry all the information he needs to know how Voldemort would think and act. Then he gives overly-cautious and rationalistic Hermione the Tales, slowing Harry down so he’d get all the answers at the right pace (not letting his “hot head” get ahead of his “good heart”). So – while HBP gives us an interesting look into Voldemort, the whole exercise seems to be a lot more about the formation of Harry’s character than it is an authentic exploration of Voldemort’s.
Good point, Mike A.
For someone who is not interested in Voldemort, JKR spends an awful lot of time in HBP developing his character.
I would also say the same thing about Snape. JKR spends a lot of time building interest in him, and over six books, not just one, and then inexplicably dumps him in one short chapter, and a couple of foot-notes.
Here are some possible explanations.
HBP was mainly Voldemort’s story, and to a lesser extent, Snape’s story. DH is primarily Harry’s story. The emotional focus is on him. The author doesn’t have the interest – or time – to bring her other characters’ stories to a satisfying end. Plus, remember what she’s told us: she envisaged Hagrid walking out of the Forest bearing Harry’s dead body a long time ago. Which says two things: that is where her attention is focused; and she did not have as strong a vision for the end of Severus Snape or Tom Riddle.
I guess what I’m saying, a little reluctantly, is that she did not powerfully imagine the full character arc for those two fascinating characters.
I would also conjecture that in the course of writing seven books, JKR had a lot of room to develop different characters and plot lines. And that over the course of time, she went down paths she hadn’t originally envisaged. But when it was time to go back to the destination she’d originally seen so clearly, there wasn’t enough time left to bring the other stories to satisfying ends. Or maybe – and I kind of like this theory – it’s hard to come up with three compelling endings of the order of Harry in the Forest and Harry at King’s Cross. Although Snape’s ending wasn’t too bad: “Look at me!” is a pretty good line. It was just a tad too hurried.
So I would argue that the unsatisfactory endings for Snape and Voldemort were not as much poor writing, as great but unfinished writing.
Eric, As far as Batman/Joker, I don’t know that I would reduce that tension to a purely Augustinian dualism. “Good vs Evil” fits the Superman mythos much more closely. Batman is clearly not a particularly “good” person — complicated by the fact that the reader is never fully sure of which personality donned by Bruce/Batman is actually the truer persona. And he’s never able to fully compartmentalize the spectacle from the more mundane aspects of his personality. Thus, we need the bad guys here to help us understand something about our hero.
Dave, I would agree with you, hence all my talk about the murkiness of the story and its world… I was just going off of all that the Joker himself says about how they ‘need’ each other. I never said anything about how Batman simply (or at all) represents ‘good’. Also, I never said anything about an ‘Augustinian dualism’ — speaking about an Augustinian ontology was meant to illustrate Harry Potter’s world. Just wanted to clarify, because I wasn’t recognizing my comments at all in your response. So yeah, I think we agree!
Eric, sorry that I misunderstood you! I was trying to write and clean my house at the same time this morning. Unlike my wife, I cannot do two things at once!
Dave, no worries! Thanks again for this really astute series of posts. It just so happens that I am about to read The Killing Joke.
Great points, both Travis & Red Rocker. Jo knew where she was going & so had to get there even though she did such a great job building up Snape & Voldy that she had to tone them back down in the end.
But whether or not she meant to end up with Voldy as a failed villain in the end, I think it works out. The real story, as Red points out, is about Harry. Harry’s journey & Harry’s struggle. Once Harry goes through that & emerges victorious, there’s really nothing left for Voldemort because he has in fact already been defeated.
I can certainly understand Mike A.’s concerns, but I’m still not quite sure what else could’ve been done. I think Red Rocker’s assessment pretty spot on.
Also, in regard to Voldemort as villain, I kind of picture him along the lines of Khan Noonian Singh from Star Trek II. Brilliant but twisted, arrogant & supremely confident in his own abilities, deadly dangerous but yet for all that, as Spock puts it, rather two dimensional in his thinking. Which really makes him unable to adapt to changing situations, unable to really process new information, unable to really grow, unable to conceive of the fact that someone might actually know something that he doesn’t.
Go back & watch Star Trek II & watch how Khan operates & how he interacts with his First Officer, Joachim. I think you’ll see a lot of Voldemort there.
Of course, Khan is a lot cooler than Voldemort. One, it’s Ricardo Montablan! And two, he’s always quoting Melville. Voldy never does anything as cool as that.
revgeorge, between my studies as a student and my time as an English teacher, you’re only the second person I’ve met who thinks quoting Melville is cool…
Makes me happy…
You’re welcome, Dave.
There seems to be an awful lot of Snape-bashing going on here that I don’t fully understand. I think his presence in DH was at least as strong as it was in any of the other books (although much of it is unrecognizable as such until a second read-through, but still…), and “The Prince’s Tale,” while quick, was I think a satisfying end to his story.
I know it’s a bit off-topic, but care to clarify?
ned, I don’t really think it’s Snape-bashing. I just think Snape disappeared for the majority of the book, showed up for a brief moment at the end, and then was gone again. In the previous six books, you had the sense that Snape could arrive on the scene at any moment – and if he did, you knew it was going to be a good scene.
In DH, he was just gone. HBP ended with Harry saying, “If I meet Severus Snape along the way, so much the better for me, so much the worse for him” and Rowling commenting, “Snape/Harry has become more personal than Voldemort/Harry.” But Snape and Harry never crossed paths again until the very moment Snape died. The dramatic tension that had been so beautifully set up just deflated.
So, no problem with Snape himself. But I do think Rowling lost him in book 7 just a little too much.
Ned, I don’t think anybody is Snape bashing. In fact, most seem to be lamenting the fact that Snape didn’t seem to be utilized to his full potential. That we didn’t get enough Snape. I’m not sure how that comes off as Snape bashing?
I didn’t mean Snape-bashing so much as bashing of the utilization of his character. Sorry for not being clear.
Personally, I think Snape was used beautifully in DH. Perhaps not in as dramatic a fashion as I had expected, but I think the anticlimactic quality (particularly in his death scene) actually made him a much more satisfying character for me… it felt like poetic justice, in a sense
Personally, I agree with you, Ned. I would’ve liked to see more Snape in DH. But I’m not sure if he & Harry could’ve met up any earlier without too much information being given away too soon.
I think any sooner & Harry would’ve been blinded by his hatred for Snape. Nothing productive would’ve occurred. In the end, Harry is left to deal with the death of the man he has hated so long & to then get to see behind his facade.
I too would have appreciated more of a final give-and-take, some dialogue, some resolution between Snape and Harry, especially following the long, long build-up of mutual dislike, enmity, and eventual hatred.
Problem is, I don’t think the plot could allow it. Snape has to die before the climax – chapters 34-36 -because his death post-climax would be gratuitous. And since he has been designated the carrier of the crucial bit of information which will lead Harry to his sacrifice, and since once Harry has that information he can’t participate in lesser plot point – Death is calling – Snape has to give that information to Harry and die immediately before Chapters 34-36. And this is what happens. Voldemort zaps him, he takes a final look into Lily’s eyes and expires in Chapter 32. Harry scans his memories, figures out what he’s got to do in Chapter 33. And then off to the Forest.
I suppose JKR could have extended the death scene. But that’s always implausible, rather in the manner of Camille in La Traviata or Mimi in La Boheme. As beautiful as the music is, you want to say: die already!
Or I suppose she might have had Harry and Snape meet, tete-a-tete, a bit earlier, and the crucial info passed on at that point, with a bit of dialogue: “The Patronus in the forest was mine”. But I don’t think Harry could have received the information about the seventh soul-piece from a living person. The reason being, I don’t think JKR intended for him to discuss his decision with anyone. Which is quite right, in my opinion. Unlike many of his other quests and tasks and missions, the only people who could accompany him on this one had to be already dead.
Long meandering way of saying that Harry’s self-sacrifice made a satisfactory final scene between him and Snape difficult to fit into the story.
Hmm, see, the fact that Snape didn’t get a big chance to explain is precisely what is so satisfactory for me about his story. Judging by the fact that he kept saying “Let me find the boy,” Snape’s plan was to have some sort of final explanatory meeting with Harry which would probably have had lots of yelling and tears and drama, and would be what (apparently) readers were expecting of him, and which could have been made to suit the plot. But his grand plan is cut short by Voldemort being (once again) a moron. I love that he was killed for being too good of a spy; that he just hung around the dragon long enough that it swooped down and ate him for being there. It’s precisely the end he was asking for all along, but it wasn’t the end he was expecting. Like I said, it just feels like poetic justice: “meddle not in the affairs of dragons” and all that…
All that’s to say I guess I just have a difference of opinion
.
I’m not sure Voldy was a moron as much as he was fixated on one idea. Once again he can only think of one thing & how to achieve that despite any evidence to the contrary. He should’ve learned that the Elder wand wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. For one, from what he had learned he should’ve known that killing the previous holder wasn’t necessary to master the wand. And two, the fact that Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald shows that the wand doesn’t make the holder unbeatable. Of course, if by moron you mean arrogant know it all who doesn’t really know it all, then I’ll agree.
And yes, I, too, think the fact that Harry & Snape didn’t get a final confrontation is a satisfactory ending. I think it works much better for Harry to see through Snape’s eyes what went on. Much better than any kind of explanation Snape could give. Somehow I can’t imagine any way Snape & Harry would meet & Harry would believe it from Snape that he, Harry, had to walk right into Voldy’s arms & not even fight. Sure, right.
Oh, I think there are lots of ways she could have done a final showdown with Snape. I was right on with ned’s opinion on this after my first read of DH. But something was emotionally unsatisfying about it all, and it kept bugging me. Dave was bang on when he said that Snape had become a more personal and real villain than Voldemort.
Part of the issue (that I should have put in the post) is Harry’s response to “The Prince’s Tale”. That so much vitriol directed at Snape is so suddenly transformed into such reverence — “one of the most courageous men I ever knew” — just feels unearned to me. I know there’s time between these events, but there’s a profound transformation in the protagonist worth seeing. “The Prince’s Tale” doesn’t do it justice.
Good point, Dave. It would have been more convincing to see how the vitriol turned to reverence.
Because in the real world, if you hate someone, that doesn’t change easily. Evidence to the contrary is disregarded, minimized, re-interpreted in the old light.
JKR just doesn’t give us – and Harry – enough time to see Snape from the new perspective. Heck, she doesn’t even let us in on Harry’s thoughts as he processes the new information. And because of that, the impact of the dramatic revelation is incredibly diminished. It might as well happen off-stage for all the attention it gets.
I wonder. Was JKR really not interested? Or did she run out of time and didn’t have time to take care of all her loose ends? I think that if she’d had more time – if the whole world wasn’t camped at her doorstep waiting for the book – she might have arranged things differently.
Red Rocker wrote: “I wonder. Was JKR really not interested? Or did she run out of time and didn’t have time to take care of all her loose ends? I think that if she’d had more time – if the whole world wasn’t camped at her doorstep waiting for the book – she might have arranged things differently.”
Well, this gives her perfect material for a book on the time between the end of DH & the start of Albus Severus’ first year at Hogwarts! Or she can give us little mini stories of what’s going on with either Harry’s thoughts or with other people. I see that Brian Sanderson did that with his Elantris book. More HP in narrative form is what I want.
Why has my new gravatar not activated yet? Annoying.
There it is!
Not pushing the boundaries much, eh, Travis? When’s Chesterson going to come in the rotation?
Actually, I was thinking that I’d photoshop a pipe into Rowling’s mouth for my next one
Hilarious!
Eric Lee,
Thanks for the Augustinian nod. That was a basic premise of my honors thesis, and I was actually shocked at how many examples evil in HP illustrates either privation or perversion of a good. I think Rowling is in fact working from that position, and that’s why Voldemort, as a failed attempt at evil incarnate, is “redeemable,” and a little bit boring–really, he’s just a reduced or diluted “portion” of the vividness of created good.
That’s also why the Batman/Joker codependence bothers me so much, I think, and strikes me as a bit false–I’m pretty deeply committed to the Augustinian/Boethian portrait of evil as privation.
Just came back from (finally) seeing Dark Knight and feel impelled to return to this thread.
I think it’s important to specify that the comparison we’re making is not between Voldemort as written by JKR vs Joker as written by Kane/Miller. I honestly can’t remember Kane or Miller’s Joker anymore, but I think that’s besides the point. The comparison we’ve been basing our discussion around has been Voldemort as played by Ralph Fiennes (and written by Kloves/Goldenberg) and Joker as played by Heath Ledger (and written by the Nolans). We may also be comparing the directors’ visions of the character. And perhaps also the camera work.
Given that those are the comparisons, here are my thoughts:
It’s not so much that the writing in Dark Knight is so much superior to the writing in GoF and OotP, because a lot of the dialogue in the former is – IMHO – pretentious claptrap, made palatable by the fine actors delivering it. But it must be admitted that the Joker gets far better lines than Voldemort does. And it’s not that Yates/Newell are bad directors, but it must be admitted that Christopher Nolan has a clear vision of what he wants the Joker to be, whereas Voldemort is more generic super-villain. And it’s not that the camera doesn’t track Fiennes in his scenes, but the camera is all over Ledger in his scenes: it embraces him, it lingers on him, it can’t take it’s eyes off of him.
But beyond all this, there is a difference in the quality of the acting. Fiennes is a superb actor, and was a couple of years ago nominated for a Tony in a performance on Broadway which by all accounts was as mesmerizing in its own way as Ledger’s Joker. But he is not mesmerizing as Voldemort. And Ledger truly takes Joker to a level beyond what we normally see on screen. It’s hard to think of a performance to compare it to. The usual descriptions – that he completely disappears into the character, that he taps hidden parts of the psyche – are true enough, but they don’t begin to describe what he does when he’s on screen. He fascinates, he mesmerizes. You can’t take your eyes off of his white clown make-up with the garish red mouth, you wait for his next appearance, youl listen for the sound of his flat, nasal voice.
The one observation which I took from the film which relates directly to our previous discussion here is this. A major – although not the only – part of the interest Ledger brings to the character is in his engagement with Batman. The famous line, told only half-mockingly: “You complete me” has a lot of truth. He welcomes Batman’s appearance on the scene – he seeks it out and tries to make it happen – not to try to destroy him, like Voldemort/Harry, but because interacting with Batman makes his life more interesting, to the point of giving it meaning. The Joker loves pushing people to their limits, and Batman is a character whose limits are most worthy of being explored.
Bottom line? Joker is a very, very different kind of villain from Voldemort. And the performance by Ledger is truly something different, something you don’t see too often, and something we haven’t seen and won’t be seeing in the HP movies. Voldemort may or may not be a failed character, but it’s not fair to compare him to Ledger’s Joker.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Voldemort is in NO WAY a failed character. He is by contras, the ultimate villain and villains are as we all know, the most interesting characters in fiction. A true villain needs to be the person all ordinary people would like to be – charming, charismatic, talented, brilliant, strong, confident – but at the same time, pure evil. Kind of like me, minus the pure evil. A true villain is the ultimate Mary-Sue. Like Ledger’s Joker, the character of Lord Voldemort more than fits the bill. We are told repeatedly that Voldemort is “the most brilliant pupil Hogwarts had ever known”, extremely persuasive and a genius. The reason he seemed shunted into the background a little in The Deathly Hallows was because Rowling still wanted to give him that bit of mystery. She wants to depersonalise him. If Rowling made Voldemort a human being he would lose his status as an inexorable force of evil, thereby lessening his menace. Nevertheless, our glimpses into his inner psyche show that he is still a very realistic character. For all his strength and confidence, he’s still deeply vulnerable. He feels that he’s the victim. He’s just as scared by the world as everyone else in the story. He’s angry and he’s fighting against what he knows to be the fundemental nihilism of the universe, hence his desperation to escape death. What does Voldemort fear above all? Oblivion. So do we all at heart. The difference is that Voldemort is able to identify this and tries to fight it but in his desperation to escape it, he loses his humanity. Voldemort is a tragic villain but still an awe-inspiring one. For all his faults, he is a truly remarkable person and Rowling sends him out in the spectacular fashion he deserves at the end of the story; locked in battle with his arch-nemesis, he dies with an operatic swoon as dawn breaks over the mountains, defeated not by the weak little Boy-Who-Lived-Due-To-A-Complex-Deux-ex-machina, but by himself. An irony that Voldemort, with his wicked sense of humour, would no doubt find quite amusing despite the fact that in the end, the joke’s on him. The talk about Voldemort being “dull” or “mundane” is, to put it very bluntly, utter bollocks. You’re damned right about him being a narcissist and if there’s anything a narcissist is not, it’s dull.
Hi, Tom, welcome, and as per this site’s discussion rules, consider this your warning! You’ve got a lot of interesting things to say; just cool it a little bit.
I’ll let Dave respond at length for himself if he wants to, but here’s a simple response question: If you’re certain Voldemort hasn’t become “boring” in Book 7, why do very intelligent readers (like Dave) find him boring?
I find him rather cartoonish in Book 7, and not anywhere near as fascinating a character as he was in the previous 6 books. It seems to me Rowling’s trying to portray evil as utterly foolish in the end, but even then, something gets lost with Voldemort in the final book.
Tom, welcome in, and thanks for the comment!
I very much agree with your description of a quality villain: “charming, charismatic, talented, brilliant, strong, confident – but at the same time, pure evil.” I think this is a great description of Joker, or my other favorite pop culture villain, Hannibal Lecter. But I don’t think it even remotely applies to Voldemort. In fact, if I understand it properly, your analysis of him goes to great lengths to show how many these things are not parts of his character…?
Yes, Voldemort fears “oblivion,” but it’s not in any significant sense. I think he actually fears a lack of attention, or even fame. He is presented as the epitome of evil. Then, in DH, Rowling turns him into a character worthy of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.** The failure of his character crystallizes for me in that moment when he seems to think that no one could possibly have found the Room of Requirement other than him. It’s such an overwhelmingly Dr. Evil-type moment that I actually laughed out loud when I read it. And in his death, all I could see was George Lucas’ inadvertent homage to Young Frankenstein at the end of Revenge of the Sith: “Nooooooooooooooooooo!” It struck me as corny, not compelling.
** For the record, I loved TMNT when I was younger. And yes, I spent good money to go watch the last animated movie in the theater — and I still watch the live-action movies whenever I find them on TV. But you watch TMNT for reptiles who are ninjas trained by a giant rat, not because Shredder, BeBop, or Rocksteady are particularly interesting.
Sorry for appearing belligerent Travis, I was a tad inebriated when I made that post so I probably sounded more aggressive than I realised. But really you should go on YouTube, I once got called a very rude name for saying that Sauron was a mediocre villain.
Thanks for your comments Dave, they’re very interesting. Hannibal Lector is indeed all of those things and if you ask me, so is Voldemort. We’re shown that he is “eloquent and charming”, we see his charisma in his ability to attract legions of followers as well as his rather wry wit, his talent is noted by Dumbledore and Slughorn on numerous occasions and we see it repeatedly. As for brilliant, given his numerous convoluted schemes as well as his flair for magic and his insatiable curiosity, he’s shown to be nothing less than a genius. He would have to be strong to be able to cope through all those years of degradation when he was a powerless spirit, having to rely on the care and support of losers like Quirrel and Wormtail, for his survival, possessing animals to remain alive, having to drink snake venom to keep up his strength. Such things would be humiliating for anyone, let alone someone with Voldemort’s gargantuan ego. Strong indeed. Finally Voldemort is nothing if not confident. He’s convinced of his own invulnerabilty and superiority and that’s just his problem. As awesome as he is, he fails to see that he’s still fallible, despite the fact that he’s thwarted on numerous occasions. Like any archetypal villain, he’s defeated not because he lacks talent or skill but because he’s too cocky for his own good. Like Christopher Nolan and Thomas Harris, Rowling is aware that a story is only as good as its villain. Erstwhile Rowling admirer Stephen King, while an excellent author in his own right, fails to recognise this, fobbing us off with cop-outs like Randall Flagg and the Crimson King (whose name makes him sound like a reject from Marvel Comics) in order to show us that good is stronger than evil. While it is true that good is stronger than evil, evil is still a potent force and it’s only by recognising this that one can defeat it. Harry defeats Voldemort because he recognises that Voldemort is a serious threat. Voldemort meanwhile, makes the mistake of dismissing his enemies as beneath contempt and it’s for this reason that he loses. In depicting this, Rowling succeeds magnificently.
On an unrelated side-note, The Shredder was always my favourite character in TMNT, it’s a shame they left him out of the movie.
Just want to say I’m glad someone dropped a comment here just now because I probably wouldn’t have seen or read this essay otherwise. I totally agree fwiw, despite that unlike most of the world I’ve never been a huge fan of Miller’s.
I always thought that Randall Flagg had a lot of conviction as a villain, although I only met him in The Stand. I just Googled him and it turns out that he has been featured in a lot of King’s novels, by different names. To me he sounded like the Devil, but King says he is not that, but the embodiment of evil, or the archetypal evil. He’s actually one of the few fictional villains I’ve met whom I would be frightened of: there is an emptiness to him which is scary.
Voldemort, not so much.
I think the reason Hannibal Lector works is that he’s a better/nicer/more honest person than everyone else in Silence of the Lambs. He’s all those things described for sure. Everyone else, except Clarise, are ambitious, self-serving, viscious and unendearing.
There’s nothing endearing about Voldemort or Riddle.
Korg, I actually find the 11 year old Tom Riddle more interesting than the just-graduated from Hogwarts Tom Riddle (the one who kills Hepzibah Smith), who in turn is more interesting than the one who has just started calling himself Lord Voldemort (the one we see talking to Dumbledore), who in turn is more interesting than the reconstituted Voldemort we see after GoF. Endearing isn’t a word I’d use to describe any of the versions, but version 1 and version 2 seem to have some elements of uncertainty and vulnerability which make him at least a little sympathetic. Once he starts throwing his power around, he is merely boring.
Red Rocker,
I think it is because as the 11 y/0 Riddle was interesting because he was completely human. As I think we’ve discussed before, the deliberate dehumanising of himself has rendered Voldemort without a level of profundity.
OK, I’m “going diagonal” here, and will likely have my tail stepped on for not subscribing to The Spectacular Villain School of Thought.
In the end, isn’t evil actually kind of…boring? I don’t care how you dress it up, it comes off like a rather bad Halloween costume. Voldemort’s descent into mundane, egocentric ridiculousness doesn’t bother me. Because I feel it’s true to the nature of evil. It appears that even Satan (role model) will be dispatched without much fuss.
What interests me more than an uber-villain, with the same old requisites, is how good, somewhat-tainted, or morally ambiguous characters deal with evil impulses. Thus Harry, DD, Snape, Draco and others hold far more fascination for me than Voldemort. Like a lot of villains he was predictably insane at the end, a pathetic marcissist who, with stereotypical grandiosity and incompetence, engendered his own downfall. Ho hum.
But the struggles of the sane, the good, the tempted who ultimately say “no;” give me these for compelling interest any day.
And I agree about Umbridge; most nuanced and realistic bad character in the series because she was sane, subtle and doing it all for “righteousness’ sake.” But the real enemy was fear of death, in its many forms.
<—– carefully avoiding Arabella’s tail…
I guess I’m just the other way around. I find characters too perfect or nice to be boring and insufferable. I guess it’s why I never really identified much with Harry, and one reason why I do subscribe to at least a minor segment of the Harry’s-too-good thesis. And it’s also one reason why I find both Snape and Dumbledore to be the truly compelling characters of the series. Part of me, looking back, really wishes the story had been about the relationship between Dumbledore and Snape, rather than Harry and Voldemort.
For instance, I think korg’s description of Hannibal Lecter is absolutely perfect. Silence of the Lambs is one of my top 3 or 4 movies. Jamie and I watched it on our first date (weird, I know…). And Hannibal makes it what it is. He is the epitome of everything that can go wrong with a human being’s moral compass, but he is also erudite, sophisticated, intelligent beyond description, and cultured. The most frightening thing about him to me is that he is the only male character that ever treats Clarice with anything that approaches respect.
I can buy Arabella’s and Tom’s thesis except for the fact that Voldemort is one character for six books, and then inexplicably becomes something ridiculous in Deathly Hallows. Even if his characterization isn’t that important, he’s certainly a symbol. In my view, his symbolism is undermined because of the inconsistency.
Dave, I don’t think the books are about the relationship between Harry and V0ldemort, at least not in a Batman-Joker or Clarice-Lecter way. To me, the interesting dynamics are (in order), between Harry and Dumbledore, then Harry and Snape, and then Snape and Dumbledore. And maybe to a certain extent also between Harry and Ron, although in a very unarticulated way. All these interactions have their key scenes, and sometimes several, which show the changing dynamic. The only kind-of-interesting relationship Voldemort has is with Dumbledore.
Now you may wish that JKR had written more about some of these relationships. But that would take the focus away from the main theme and result in another kind of story, the kind where relationships are more important than the plot.
I can buy Arabella’s and Tom’s thesis except for the fact that Voldemort is one character for six books, and then inexplicably becomes something ridiculous in Deathly Hallows.
Yes, this. But I don’t buy that evil is boring, it’s boring if you write it badly like anything else. I love how evil was written in the early books. Like I said before I love how Voldemort and Harry were written in the little screen time they had in PS/CoS /GoF, the exchange they had in CoS especially was beautifully written. Take the knowledge that they both had similarly crappy upbringings and they could have had an awesome confrontation at the end, but that convo really fell flat for me.
The way others were shown to be seduced by evil is even worse by DH. It was way too convenient IMO that the only characters that were on Voldies side were either severely stupid and one dimensional(Crabbe/Goyle, the Carrows), universally disliked and never shown to have any redeeming qualities whatsoever anyways(Umbridge) or completely new so that we know absolutely nothing about them.
In DH, the former bad guys that we do know anything about-the Malfoys-had an easy out because Draco wouldn’t have done anything bad if Lucius wasn’t being directly threatened. And of course, Stan Shunpike had to be imperio’d and not acting of his own will.
But I agree that this is definitely one of the more interesting aspects of the big bad-the effect it would (potentially) have on others. I think, especially in the first books, she did a great job illustrating how there are more banal evils in this world, and also that we don’t magically go from being a racist to racism free society because somebody won a war. That’s the way the world actually is and what originally made her world really compelling.
I just find it a little funny that the guy is supposedly this dynamic personality that had tons of followers in his day but by the last book he shows the kind of stupidity that is beyond arrogance and a fatal flaw and more to the point that I have trouble believing that he could find his way home at night let alone take over a government.
The best Riddle is probably diary Riddle, perfect prefect Riddle, the Riddle that exists in your mind before you know he is actually Lord Voldemort. He is sympathetic and yet implicates Hagrid in a way we know cannot be true.
After that, I would go with Mirror of Erised Voldemort, then Graveyard Voldemort. Atrium Voldemort is eclipsed by the awesomeness of Atrium Dumbledore. I agree that Deathly Hallows Voldemort is a neither particularly scary nor particulary interesting.
To go off on a slight tangent, how does Voldemort work in the movies for people? That is to say, which performance seems the most to be what encompasses Voldemort’s evil & his cunningness? And which would be more cartoonish?
My ranking would be COS TMR, HBP teen TMR, HBP youth TMR, and then Fiennes’ adult LV. But even though I rank them like that, I still think each are spectacular performances. Much better casting & acting than say another major character I could mention…
Is it also possible that a good onscreen performance could be bring more life & nuances into a character that many see as falling a bit flat in the books?
Arabella, you make some good points and I don’t mean to tread on your proverbial tail but what do you mean by calling Satan a “role-model”? Are you implying that I am a Devil-worshipper? If so, I confess myself offended.
I admit that in situations like Voldemort not thinking anybody but him could find the Room of Requirement, Rowling stretches Voldemort’s arrogance perhaps beyond our suspension of disbelief but I think the concept of making an evil genius arrogant beyond reckoning is a good plot device. It works in both the Bond films and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. After all who but an egomaniac would want to rule the world? But a lot of people found Voldemort’s portrayal in The Deathly Hallows dissatisfying. One critic (can’t remember his name) stated that in TDH Voldemort “becomes more tiresome than an Ian Flemming villain” and unfavourably compares him to “the vicious but verbose Nicolae Carpathia” from Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind series.
Oh and Revgeorge, my favourite portrayals of Voldemort are in order of ranking his depiction in Order of the Phoenix (his battle with Dumbledore in the atrium; pure awesomness), Goblet of Fire (his resurrection scene is positively chilling), Chamber of Secrets (Christian Coulson is deliciously evil), Half-Blood Prince (top marks for picking actors that not only look like Ralph Fiennes but are also good actors) and finally The Philosopher’s Stone (couldn’t take him seriously).
Tom, I read through your comments & through Arabella’s comment. I’m not sure how you’re taking away the thought that she’s in any way whatsoever implying that anyone, least of all you, is a Devil-worshipper.
I think her point about Satan being a role model is that he is being used as a role model for other villains. Or for Voldemort in particular, as LV has often been described in satanic terms. And that Satan, the role model for all other villains, will be dispatched in the end in a very unspectacular fashion because compared to God there’s not much to him. The devil likes to think of himself as being much more important & powerful than he really is. Capable of great evil, yes, but in the end there’s not much too him.
So, I would hope you might cut Arabella a little slack. Thank you.
Thanks, revgeorge. You understood what I meant about Satan as a role model upon whom we base evil\evil characters, extrapolated in the oeuvre of the day. I’m sorry you misunderstood, Tom. I would never say such a thing of anyone as a slander.
To me, Voldemort had a lot more oomph umseen than seen. So, books or film, I’d go with V drinking unicorn blood, Babymort at the beginning of GoF, Scarcrux and attempted possession in OotP, and Naginicrux, Locketcrux, and memory at Godric’s Hollow. Films would be young Riddle. Fiennes’ V is too cartoony; the Ministry was more about the awesome D/V battle and Harry’s vulnerability.
V always depended on others for his accomplishments. I always wondered why someone as urbane as Malfoy would be his toady.
Harry is too good for the first four books–not damaged enough. But I still prefer struggle/redemption stories of tempted, tainted, ambiguous people (Severus, Tony Stark, Ron), over overt baddies.
the movie Voldemort lacks any level of frightfulness. He pulls angry faces and makes outraged noises and makes poncy gestures with his wand.
Ohhhhh! Scary…
Something that irked me with the movies was how everyone uses their wands- it looks namby-pamby. Like they went to the Liberace school of Whitchcraft and Wizardry. Rickman’s Snape is the worst offender.
Nadia, I agree with you about the “banal evils.” This is what made the Dursleys and others more compelling than Voldemort. I knew V would buy the farm at the end; the big tensions were: would Harry die and what about Snape? There was no doubt in my mind that the Dursleys would realistically continue as is (this was why Dudley’s change was so astonishing and satisfactory).
Dave, I’m not so sure V changed in the last book, as much as his soul-splitting had by then completely deconstructed his sanity.
Korg, your first ppg.–yes. Second ppg, I don’t agree, but you made me laugh! Poncy WizWorld!
Korg, not sure that there is a forceful, masculine way to gesture with a wand. Think of the associations.
Dumbledore makes a big entrance…
Except, of course, for the fact that he seems quite adept at wandless magic. Ironic that, given your train of thought.
Anyone else ever wonder why JKR gave her witches and wizards wands? Not typical witch/wizard props, are they? Unlike brooms and cauldrons and familiars. Associated with quite another kind of magical creature, aren’t they?
That is interesting…
Also, all Hogwarts students are supposed to wear their pointed hats. Something that would’ve looked very uncool. I saw some sketches that Rowling had made of her characters and they were wearing those hats. I never keep that mental image going.
With the wand use, I was hoping for more a competant sword/dagger style than Tinkerbell.
I had taken the wands to be more of a power or force multiplyer for the witch or wizard. But I suspect that is because of my role-playing game history. Maybe a 4x power point multiplyer and +25 for directed spell device for the rolemaster/MERP player. Voldemort uses wandless magic right from PS.
In David Eddings’ Belgariad there is a examination of magic requiring “the will and the word” to be effective.
Arabella, I’m so sorry if I have offended you. I have Asperger’s syndrome so I sometimes misread social situations. I understand what you meant now.
Yes, the character of Satan (particularly the Miltonic version) has indeed inspired many great villains in fiction such as the White Witch, Morgoth, Sauron and more contemporary antagonists like Megatron, General Zod and The Master from Doctor Who. I think Ralph Fiennes Voldemort is grossly underappreciated. I admit that he and Snape are a tad camp but it’s a bit hard to look or sound manly when you’re waving a stick saying “Expelliarmus.” I have to say I think Alan Rickman does admirably. He’s like the drill sergeant of the Wizarding World. Still you can’t really envision Vin Diesel waving a wand saying “Wingardium Leviosa.” Maybe adding “bitch” succintly on the end. Samuel L. Jackson as the new defence against the dark arts teacher: “Avada (edited) Kedavra!” Lol! I’m on a role now. Have you noticed how the director changes with every Harry Potter film? Imagine Quentin Tarantino directing The Deathly Hallows. There’d probably be a lot more of “sectusempra” wouldn’t there!
Rickman is a great actor but I think his Snape is the weakest acting he has done.
The movie Snape barely resembles the book Snape, to me.
Rickman’s Snape is one of the characters who has successfully overwritten his/her book analogue in my mind. File Save, with Replace Existing File.
Other such complete writeovers are Watson/Hermione, Shaw/Petunia, Smith/McGonagall and Staunton/Umbridge.
Going back to the question of Fiennes, as I’ve mentioned before, I don’t think Voldemort is up there with his best work. It’s probably amongst his weakest, right down there with John Steed. And like I’ve also said before, it’s not that he can’t do very convincing villains, both realistic and overthetop. Take a look at him as Francis Dolarhyde in Red Dragon if you get the chance. Or as Tony Angel in The Good Thief. But he just doesn’t seem to be able to do anything with Voldemort, besides the pacing and the declaiming.
BTW, I just Googled Fiennes and saw that he’s going to be playing Hades in the upcoming movie Clash of the Titans Liam Neeson is playing Zeus. Maybe we’ll get another chance to judge his ability to do overthetop.
A remake of COTT?
That’s interesting. I hope they do a stop-motion medusa again.
Arabella, I just wanted to say that I agree with your comment #69. I find the Locketcrux to be one of the creepiest manifestations of Voldemort in DH, if not the whole series. Especially the scene in which the locket opens.
For me, the whole section where they trade off wearing the locket sums up a considerable portion of the last book. It is not just LV that they are battling on their journey around England; it is their own demons and often themselves (lack of faith that they are doing the right thing, lack of hope that they will find all of the horcruxes, and in particular Ron’s lack of trust in his two friends). I find these to be scarier than the actual character of LV as we see him in DH.
Tom, thank you for the apology; you surprised, rather than offended me and misunderstandings do happen sometimes. I’m interested in other ways of processing information, as I have synesthesia. Aspergers must be quite challenging. I’ve read Daniel Tammet’s Born On A Blue Day (he has both Aspergers and synesthesia, and the two mesh for his astonishing math prowess) and also Temple Grandin.
Red, I second your “overwrites” except Umbridge, and would add Griffiths/Dursley and the actor who plays Filch. The casting has been good overall, except for revgeorge’s “favorite.” Heh. I think Voldemort would be difficult for any actor.
As for overwrites, I don’t have too many of them from the movie impinging on my book thoughts. I do generally tend to see Lupin as Thewlis’ portrayal. But that’s about it. While I liked Staunton’s Umbridge in the movie, she bears no resemblance to how I see Umbridge in the books.
But back to the point, I agree with Arabella & aerisflowers regarding locketcrux. Voldemort is certainly more interesting & terrifying when he’s not fully on stage but hidden in the shadows or acting as a foil on the other character’s temptations.
Thank you for being understanding Arabella. Asperger’s is indeed quite challenging as I’m sure synesthesia is. By the way, do you agree with me that the number one is red?
I thought Steed was pretty good actually. I shall no doubt be crucified for saying this but I rather like the Avenger’s movie. Fiennes played a Nazi character in something once, he was quite terrifying. It’s a credit to his acting abilities that he’s able to play such vile characters while he seems to be a terribly nice chap in his interviews. I knew he was playing Hades and I greatly look forward to seeing the remake of COTT. Liam Neeson as Zeus. How cliched!
Had forgotten about Fiennes’ depiction of Amon Goth in Schindler’s List. Pure evil, that. Not cartoon evil, megalomaniacal evil, charming evil, seductive evil, overthetop evil. Just evil.
Interesting that he’ll be acting against Neeson in CooT: that’ll be the second time they’ll be playing good vs evil: Neeson played the heroic Schindler against Fiennes’ murderous Goth in Schindler’s List
I’m trying to figure out why Fiennes can’t do much with Voldemort. He does tend to be an understated and economical acto, suggesting a lot with an inflection, a glance, or even an expression on his face. Can’t be doing that with Voldy’s prosthesis and the really basic lines of dialogue he gets. Nothing subtle there to work with. On the other hand, you don’t get nominated for a Tony award (for The Faith Healer) if you can’t hold an entire theatre mesmerized with your ability to project emotion. It could be that the part is just not written well. Could be that Fiennes is overqualified for the job, and a less elevated purveyor of evil would have done better.
Re wands, I believe Rowling used them as critical plot points, rather than for “style.” Wand cores, Elder wand, losing/gaining wands, wand sentience, Expelliarmus, channeling/aiding magical power; many, many plot points.
The pointed hats, as worn in the first film–dorky.
Briefly, Tom, synesthesia’s only hindrance is that I don’t like audio books, and can easily mind-wander in conversations; otherwise, the visual complexity is completely natural/unconscious, and aids memory. Synesthetes have their own colors–for me, 1/one is white. I did a paint chip letter/number chart and have written two poems about synesthetic perception.
ReconstitutedMort in the graveyard became ridiculous to me (especially in the film) and also his followers. I do think the makeup/mask plays a role in this, but he seemed so underwhelming. Too bad they didn’t use the red eyes, but then Fiennes would have had almost nothing to work with.
Now, to me, the digit “1″ is black; the only red grapheme is “F”, which is brick-red. Interesting that there should be more than one of us synesthetes here at the Hog’s Head!
Steve, wow! I don’t know any others, so this is cool. I only learned the name of my weirdness from a ‘92 Atlantic article. I have no red; T and 10 are black. Since this isn’t a synesthesia site, those who are curiouANCan look it up. Actually it shouldn’t be too surprising that a literary blog should draw “other perspective” thinkers.
I agree that “F” is brick red but I also think that 4 and 5 are red, I think the letter “i” is burgundy and the letter “T” is bright red.
It sounds interesting Arabella, have any of your poems been published? I’m something of a poetry buff myself.
You haven’t said so directly, Tom, but you must have synesthesia, too. This is fantastic. You have a lot of “reds”; I have a lot of (ho-hum) browns.
I’ve won and placed in a few regional poetry contests, but have yet to send anything to magazines, which I should, if only to see if I can cheaply paper our walls in rejection slips.
I’m glad you enjoy poetry, too; so few do.
I haven’t been diagnosed with synesthesia however I do associate colours with numbers and letters when I envision them in my mind but I think everyone does. I do indeed have a lot of reds and burgundies, as well as pinks. Generally rouge colours. There are a lot of blues, whites and blacks as well actually, as well as the occasional murky yellow.
I know, it’s a shame few appreciate poetry in this Phillistinian era we live in. I once went to Phillimonic Hall in Liverpool actually to see a number of poets read aloud, including Carol Anne Duffy and Simon Armitage.
I might be beating a dead horse a little here but on the subject of Asperger’s syndrome, does anybody besides me think that Voldemort and Dumbledore seem slightly AS? I have to say, Hermione seems a tad Asperger’s as well.
Tom from your description, you have synesthesia. It’s not a medical diagnosis and not everyone has it; it’s rather rare. They believe it to be a neural cross-activation of senses. I suggest looking it up online or reading Blue Cats and Chartreuse Kittens by Patricia Lynne Duffy.
I see, interesting. Thank you Arabella. Is Patricia Lynne Duffy by any chance a relative of Carol Anne Duffy? And what do you think of my suggestion that Voldemort Dumbledore and Hermione might have Asperger’s syndrome?
Evidently I am indeed beating a dead horse.
Tom, I’ve been meaning to get back to this thread to address your question for some time, but I keep getting distracted by lots of other obligations!
I don’t know that you’re “beating a dead horse” so much as your suggestion doesn’t lend itself to immediate reply for two reasons: (1) I’m guessing a lot of people don’t know that much about Asperger’s to begin with, and (2) diagnosing a Harry Potter character with Asperger’s is probably pretty tricky business.
Perhaps a some further explanation of your reasons for thinking about those characters in that way will spark a little more conversation.
Though I’ll say now, if we’re diagnosing Voldemort with anything, it’s narcissistic personality disorder.
My candidate for Asperger’s – to the extent I understand that disorder to be a higher functioning form of autism – would be Binns. This is how Wikipedia describes him:
He does not seem to be particularly aware of his class, or even of the outside world, and what is going on in it; it is uncertain whether he has even updated his curriculum since he passed away. It is uncertain whether this is because he is a ghost, or whether he was this way also in life.
And this is how Wikipedia describes Asperger’s:
Asperger syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder, and people with it therefore show significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development. Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and atypical use of language are frequently reported
Kreacher might be another candidate, as might Gollum.
Voldemort is definitely a malignant narcissist as was Adolf Hitler who is also said to have suffered from Asperger’s. Binns most likely suffers from the disorder though I don’t think Gollum or Kreacher do. I have reason to believe that Voldemort may given his high intelligence and the way he thinks very deeply about everything. Likewise he speaks in a very verbose manner and becomes obsessed with things very easily. He also operates a great deal at night and lacks empathy, though the latter may be due to his MN. Dumbledore, likewise exhibits many of the eccentricities associated with Asperger’s such as not caring what people think of him and an offbeat sense of humour (they say people with AS have no sense of humour but really they do, people just don’t always understand it). Again these eccentricities may simply be an aspect of Dumbledore’s flamboyant personality.
The only thing is that Voldemort and Dumbledore both seem very skilled socially whereas people with AS are not. Quite the opposite in fact.
I don’t know if any of you have read any of the Artemis Fowl books. Artemis himself is a great depiction of a sufferer of Asperger’s syndrome.