Slate's Bizbox
the book club: New books dissected over e-mail.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

the book club
entries
12345
from: Judith Shulevitz

Hero's Dark Side? Optional

Posted Wednesday, July 12, 2000, at 11:39 AM ET

Dear Jodi,

I think you're on to something. If you looked at the Potter books through special (magical?) glasses that reduced characters to their moral density the way orthopedic X-rays reduce limbs to bone mass, Harry and Voldemort would seem slight. Their lack of roundness, though, doesn't bother me as much as it does you. (I'm going to ignore your little caveat at the end, because you raise an important objection, and you leave me nothing to write about if you then dismiss it out of hand.) I think I'm more sanguine about their moral one-dimensionality in part because, as you say, the other characters complicate the picture to the point where (I think) they earn Rowling the right to glorify Harry and demonize his enemy. But mainly, I just don't agree that every hero has to have a dark side or that every archvillain must once have been a lovable boy. What if the insistence that every protagonist have failings and every scoundrel admirable qualities turned out to be the reigning cliché of our time?

Ambivalence is more seductive than its opposite, though, and I can see why you'd be tempted to demand that Voldemort have some. But now that I've finished the book--and I promise not to give the ending away--I suspect that Rowling is sketching the outlines of something even more perverse than the Miltonian backstory you propose. You want Voldemort to have become Satanic only after having been Luciferian--he was Head Boy at Hogwarts, after all--and to have gotten himself disinherited in some wrenching way. I agree that over the years Lord Voldemort has developed into a kind of vaudevillian Beezlebub, snakes and all. But there's a hint at the end of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire that Tom Riddle (Voldemort's boyhood name) is modeled not on Satan or even his latter-day equivalent, Darth Vader, but on a more troubling figure. Riddle is shaping up to be a version of King Lear's Edmund, a nasty piece of work who ranks with Iago and Macbeth as one of the great hero-villains of Shakespearean drama. Edmund, you may recall, is Gloucester's bitter illegitimate son. He betrays his brother and destroys his father, among other dastardly deeds, because, he says, the world has seized on his bastardy to deny him his due. No matter how eloquent Edmund's speeches may be, Shakespeare's audience would not have perceived Edmund's horribleness as a legitimate protest against his fate--against the arbitrariness of having your social status determined by your parents' marital relations, or lack thereof. Rather, the Elizabethans would have seen Edmund as a man at war with the universe since birth. Voldemort, the product of a similar background, has a similarly willful urge to punish the world for his misfortune:

You see that house upon the hillside...? My father lived there. My mother, a witch who lived here in this village, fell in love with him. But he abandoned her when she told him what she was ... He didn't like magic, my father ...

He left her and returned to his Muggle parents before I was even born ... and she died giving birth to me, leaving me to be raised in a Muggle orphanage ... but I vowed to find him ... I revenged myself upon him, that fool who gave me his name ... Tom Riddle ...

Comparing Voldemort to Edmund also offers us a different way to view what you object to as the dark wizard's "fire-breathing kitsch." Consider what Edmund does when the object of his designs, his brother, first walks on stage: He transforms himself into a stock melodramatic figure, all but rubbing his hands and twirling his evil mustache:

And pat he comes, like the catastrophe of the old comedy: my cue is villainous melancholy, with a sigh like Tom o'Bedlam.

In other words, Edmund may overplay his evilness, but that doesn't mean he isn't actually evil. He's both image and substance, hype and reality. He's a bad fake and a bad human being. He's bad through and through. Likewise, Voldemort goes over the top, but he's still malevolent. There isn't a sympathetic bone in his body. He's the dark force, pure and simple, his heart hardened against goodness because that's the way he is: nihilism in all its foul glory.

Likewise, I think it's fine that Harry is good. He's a hero, after all, and a young boy. Why can't heroes be heroes, the way they have been through the ages, particularly in fairy tales that deal with a young man's coming of age? Why must they all be modern and tormented? Although I do think he's less good than you say. I mean, he's no namby-pamby. He's got a temper, getting ticked off and playing tricks on Draco Malfoy. He often feels sorry for himself, particularly when it comes to his muggle relatives, the admittedly loathsome Dursleys. He's fairly insensitive when he quarrels with his best friend Ron, refusing to understand why Ron would be jealous at Harry's luck in being selected to compete in the Triwizard Tournament. Are these things meant to endear him to us? Well, yes, in part--but you're trying to have it both ways here. You insist on emotional nuance, then say when it's provided that it's offered in a cynical spirit. What could Harry do that would please you and be in keeping with his fundamental decency and stay within the confines of the books' light and charming mock-fairy-tale tone?

You're absolutely right about one thing, though: Dumbledore goes way too easy on the boy. I can't count the number of times I've wished Hogwarts would enforce its own rules, if only to keep Harry out of trouble. As you point out, the whole school and all good wizards everywhere benefit from having Harry wander off into Dark Forests where he gets kidnapped by giant spiders and other gruesome creatures, because in the end he saves the day. But think about it: Harry doesn't benefit from it, exactly. I mean, he lives and all, but he gets shaken up pretty badly. I think he's being used.

I assume you've finished the book by now. Ready for any grand summings-up?

Best,

Judith

the book club
entries
12345
from: Judith Shulevitz

Hero's Dark Side? Optional

Posted Wednesday, July 12, 2000, at 11:39 AM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire 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".]


Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
What's Fair Game?
Anne E. Kornblut | What questions would Hillary Clinton have to answer if she were in Sarah Palin's shoes?
Editorial: Disappointment '08
PLUS » Stumped: More Nonsense From McCain