the book club: New books dissected over e-mail.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

the book club
entries

1 2 3 4 5

from: Jodi Kantor

Voldemort: Just Fire-Breathing Kitsch

Posted Tuesday, July 11, 2000, at 6:56 PM ET

Dear Judith,

I don't find these books as morally realistic or ambiguous as you do. The examples you mention certainly are. And while most of the characters are painted with, as you say, an admirably diverse palette of grays, Rowling portrays her two main figures, and the dispute between them, in stark black and white. Harry and Voldemort are far less conflicted than the folks with whom they share the stage. In terms of virtue and evil, they're flat figures moving through a three-dimensional landscape.

Let's take Harry first. The situations in which he finds himself may be morally complicated, but he himself is not. Has he done anything wrong in these past four years? By my count, he's made only two sorts of mistakes. Some have been of the lovable-scamp kind: He exacts light revenge on his horrendous cousin Dudley, fakes the answers on some patently ridiculous homework assignments, sneaks out when and where he shouldn't, etc. These aren't real misdeeds; in fact, they're calculated to win our approval. Dudley deserves far worse, the homework really is useless, and it's only by flouting Hogwarts rules that Harry saves the lives of Ginny Weasley, Buckbeak, and Sirius Black.

The other sins Harry commits are innocent ones. He mistakes his allies for his foes or allows a criminal to escape in order to save the life of another. Harry regrets these missteps, but brightens when Dumbledore, usually at the end of the book, claps an arm around him and explains that actually he's done nothing wrong--if anything, he's been valiant beyond his years. (In Book 3, the take-away was Free Will: Harry learned that even though the Sorting Hat wanted to place him with the devious Slytherins upon his arrival at Hogwarts, he had overridden his destiny by wishing for heroic Gryffindor. In essence, the lesson taught to Harry was that he had been acting correctly from his very first day at Hogwarts! Well done, young man!)

But our hero has never experienced true remorse or had to conquer any nasty habits or weak impulses (I'm on Page 646, and so far, the worst he's done in this book is procrastinate). Last year in this space, Tony Scott hoped aloud that Harry would be tempted to join the Dark Side, as have so many talented wizards have before him. I don't know if I'd find that quite convincing--Voldemort murdered his parents, after all--but I'd like to see Harry do something he knows is wrong. Any guesses at to what Harry's flaw could be?

At least it's only Harry's moral makeup that's flat--the rest of him, from his breathless excitement over Quidditch to his pining for a parental surrogate among his professors and caretakers, is beautifully drawn. Not so for Voldemort. Who is this guy anyway? You call him "sublimely chilly," but I think he's all fire-breathing kitsch. Rowling, usually so inventive, accessorizes the Dark Lord with the most shopworn sorts of villainalia: a mirthless laugh, a snaky demeanor, and lines such as "Harry Potter is as good as mine!"

Nor do we learn much about him. Most characters are so frightened of him that they refer to him as "He-Whose-Name-Should-Not-Be-Spoken," and Rowling doesn't really say much either. We know that he was once a brilliant student at Hogwarts and that his reign of terror over the wizarding world ended when he failed to kill infant Harry. But we're clueless as to why he originally defected to the Dark Side and what his followers see in him. Everything that terrifies me in this series--the death of loved ones, panic over not knowing who to trust, the inescapable gloom of the Azkaban prison--does so because it plays on our my own deepest fears. Voldemort has no such resonance. Perhaps you will tell me why you find him menacing, so I can borrow your case of the shivers before I'm through with the book.

All of which is to say that I dearly hope Harry and Voldemort's actions will become less predictable in the coming volumes. In this respect, The Goblet of Fire is already a bit more promising than its predecessors. I noticed Harry being a teensy bit callous without cause to Moaning Myrtle, a forlorn, mousy ghost who's repeatedly saved his hide and gotten hardly a word of thanks in return. Hey Myrtle, are you really going to tolerate that kind of treatment? Maybe there's hope for Voldemort too. One idea: When Rowling explains the original split between him and the rest of the wizarding world, she could make his decision to defect a wrenching one and have Dumbledore or Harry's dad almost succeed in tempting him back.

Or maybe I want Harry and Voldemort to stay as pure as they are: two poles of good and evil, with the rest of the characters arrayed around and struggling between them. After all, Harry is truly virtuous, and Voldemort hopelessly corrupted. Endowing Harry with a token downfall and Voldemort with a drop of honor might just be a distraction. There's no use pretending we don't know how the struggle between the two of them will end. It's watching what happens to all of our other wizard and muggle friends that's keeping us riveted.

Eighty-eight pages to go,

Jodi

the book club
entries

1 2 3 4 5

from: Jodi Kantor

Voldemort: Just Fire-Breathing Kitsch

Posted Tuesday, July 11, 2000, at 6:56 PM ET

DISCUSS

E-MAIL

This week, a discussion of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, by J.K. Rowling. Jodi Kantor edits Slate’s "Book Club," "Breakfast Table," and "Diary" features. Judith Shulevitz writes the "Culturebox" column. They both started reading The Goblet of Fire over the weekend and decided to compare notes. If you haven’t read any of the books in the Potter series, click here for an introduction to their charms.

Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum

What did you think of this article?

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Response from The Fray (to be read after the most recent entry):

The main concern of an Edmund/Iago villain like Voldemort is not revenge but virtuosity. He must continually prove his own godlike superiority to the rest of the human race by reducing all around him to manipulated objects whom he allows, until the moment of cruel revelation, to enjoy the illusion of free will. Some philosophers have defined property as the projection of an individual's will into a thing, and this type of character is driven by resentment to convert every other human being into his property.

Whatever other failings Harry Potter may have as a human being, it is not surprising that he lacks resentment. Notwithstanding his ghastly upbringing among the Dursleys, his life since the arrival of the first owl from Hogwarts has been a succession of delightful surprises. He has discovered not merely that he is a member of a community of superior beings, but that he is an extraordinarily gifted and celebrated member, blessed with shrewd and powerful adult patrons. Certainly he has his troubles (who does not), and he is not universally loved (who is), but he is a born insider on the fast track to the highest levels of the Wizard establishment. What is there in his situation to drive him towards the Dark Arts?

Ron Weasley, on the other hand, is a natural candidate for seduction by the bad guys. Even in the first volume, his look in the magic mirror revealed him as someone who badly wants distinction. He has always disliked the handmedowns and humiliations imposed by his family's poverty; as he grows older in Vol. 4, he is becoming increasingly angry about it and increasingly greedy for money. He is jealous of his second fiddle status to Harry. From personal pride and family loyalty, he longs to destroy the Malfoys father and son. Ron is a decent fellow with the makings of a crooked cop in him, and there is a great deal that Voldemort could promise him to win him over. If Rowling wants to drive the Potter story in a morally complex direction, the temptation of Ron Weasley is the vehicle she should be using.

--Jack Cerf

(To reply, click here.)

You write that, while you read the book, you're "doing what every Potter fan is doing, reading the critics..." Judith, this is an understandable professional handicap/bias on your part. In truth, no Potter fans need critics to tell them what to think, or even care what "the critics" think. The idea of Harry Potter's audience turning to the NY Times to find out if it's right to like him is hilarious. By now we almost think that English professors (in existence for 80 years, at most) made Shakespeare and Milton and Dickens and company popular. This Saturday, midnight, watching the readers snatching up the books, I realized with joy that, although my own profession (English professor) has all but destroyed itself, literature never needed us anyway, and would do just fine without us.

--George Leonard
(Professor of Humanities, San Francisco State University)

(To reply, click here.)

I, like Harry Potter, am a 14-year-old adolescent who has experienced the trials and tribulations of both school and puberty. I have gone to many lengths to read this book. I haven't gone as far as curling up on the bathroom floor, but I have shunted my responsibilities for the past 3 days so that I could finish it. But in terms of a moral lesson being a part of these books, I don't think that there are any, nor should there be any. It is my opinion that one of the reasons that these books are so wildly popular is because they have a truly fantastical flair about them, not because they present good moral lessons and standards. I am by no means saying that I disliked Ms Kantor's article, I actually enjoyed it very much, but I think that perhaps not every book written that is geared towards a younger audience should have a moral lesson. Those of us who are not quite of age yet are having examples of good and bad morals forced upon us every day of our lives: I thought that the Harry Potters were a nice way to sit back, and let someone else go through things that would never, ever happen to us, and still be able to appreciate the fact that he can do the right thing without a moral lesson nagging at him, making him ultimately ask things like "now, what did we learn from all this?"

--Frocodile

(To reply, click here.)

[Notes from The Fray: There were a number of arguments about whether the books promoted Satanism--one starts here with a comparison with Alice in Wonderland. The Fray Editor also strongly recommends this post from James Grimmelmann: but--spoiler alert--only for those who have finished the book, as it gives away some secrets from the plot. This further post from Mr Grimmelmann not only continues the discussion but also has the best title in The Fray: "Nobody here but us Manicheans".]

also in slate