Spare parts and Diggory's death

Death is a part of Harry Potter. We all know that. The entire series of novels is set into motion by the brutal murder of Lily and James Potter and an almost unspeakably ruthless act -- the attempt to murder an infant, just over a year old.

I would argue, however, that it is the matter-of-fact, entirely needless murder of Cedric Diggory at the end of book four that provides the series its most brutal moment.

Diggory does not need to die. Rowling could have spared him simply by having him touch the Tri-Wizard Cup a split second later than Harry and get left behind in the maze while Harry is hurtled hundreds of miles to the graveyard to face the Dark Lord. Voldemort could have spared Diggory simply by ordering Wormtail to stun him and forget about him, rather than kill him. Wormtail could have refused to kill him, could have chosen to stun Diggory simply because his murder is such a brutal, needless, cruel act.

Diggory's death is not necessary to the rest of the plot of The Goblet of Fire. After Harry brings his body back to Hogwarts, we see one immediate scene as the shock of Diggory's murder spreads through the crowd and sends his father into grieving hysterics, but no plot point, no future development hinges on Diggory being dead.

Diggory's death is important, however, and perhaps my comment above that "Diggory does not need to die" is not entirely accurate. Cedric dies because Rowling needs to send a clear, ruthless message -- to the characters who are on the side of good in the books and to us as readers -- that Voldemort is back and as brutal as he ever was. With this scene in the graveyard, everything changes.

We are no longer reading simple young-adult fiction where, if death occurs, it occurs off stage, it is crucial to the plot and it occurs for a reason. No, we're reading stories about the most evil sorcerer the world has ever seen, under whose rule death is a common-place, everyday thing, death occurs as often and as casually as the arrival of the owl post, the teaching of classes, the eating of meals.

When Voldemort, still in his almost powerless, infant form, hisses to Wormtail, "Kill the spare," the universe changes. We, as readers, learn that Rowling will pull no punches from here on out. Evil will be evil in every sense of the word. And we learn that Voldemort's cruelty knows no bounds. He will kill with impunity, almost without thought, certainly without remorse. And finally, we learn that Voldemort's followers will carry out his most cruel, most senseless orders without question, without consideration of morality.

And the word "spare" is important. It hits us like a hammer. In the Dark Lord's mind, Cedric Diggory is not a young man, filled with hope of a bright future, kind, funny, handsome, beloved by his family and his friends... he is a spare part to the story, an accidental element that must be swept aside for Voldemort to achieve his goals.

In the French translation, Voldemort hisses "Tue l'autre". This translates, as far as I understand, as "Kill the other". It makes sense, sure, but I'm not sure it has the impact of "Kill the spare." I'm not sure it sends the same ruthless message.

Sometimes I just wish Jo would leave well enough alone

J.K. continues to use Pottermore as an outlet for more and more of the backstory she had created for the Harry Potter stories.


Now, though I now have two Pottermore accounts, I can never remember my username nor my password for either account so I don't ever actually visit the site. So I am forced to rely on news reports of Rowling's little disclosures.


As a result, it is possible that I am not getting the complete story when I read, for example, the Guardian's summary of the author's latest Pottermore article, this time disclosing the source and history of the enmity between the Dursleys (Vernon and Petunia) and the Potters (James, Lily and Harry), I am not getting the full story.


But there are a couple of things in Rowling's latest release (as reported in the Guardian) with which I have real problems:


1. According to the Guardian, Rowling reports that, when James and Lily were first in a relationship, "James told [Vernon] of the solid gold his parents had in the wizarding bank Gringotts" but that Vernon remained unimpressed. Wait a minute: on several occasions in the novel Harry makes it clear that, if Uncle Vernon were to find out that James and Lily had left Harry with a pile of gold, Uncle Vernon would immediately try to get it away from Harry. Now Rowling tells us Vernon has known all along that James had gold and that Harry must have inherited it? Sorry, that doesn't fly with me.


2. Rowling appears to take great pains to explain, in realistic and adult terms, the horrific treatment Harry suffered at the hands of his Aunt and Uncle. What she seems to be losing sight of is that the most ignominious treatment (locking Harry in a cupboard under the stairs, putting bars on the windows of his bedroom, starving him, behaving in a physically intimidating even violent manner toward him) occurs in the early books of the series, books that were intended as books for children, where good and evil have to be presented in clear, unequivocal terms. This is fairy-tale evil, not realistic, adult evil.


Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon in the early novels are caricatures, not fully rounded characters -- they are most akin to the evil step sisters of Cinderella. It is folly for Rowling to attempt to rationalize the comic-book evil she presents in the early children's novels in adult terms. I have often celebrated the fact that Rowling's books matured with her readers -- that her later novels are written at a higher level, with more depth, complexity and sophistication, than were her earlier books. It's a great thing. A masterpiece. But it does that mastery a disservice to try to rationalize the simplicity of the early novels in a manner more suited to the adult world. The Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon of The Philosopher's Stone and The Chamber of Secrets are the purely evil villains of fairy tales. She should leave it at that, not try to explain it, rationalize it, justify it in the adult terms of the later novels!


3. According to the Guardian, Rowling says in her article that she feels that, in The Deathly Hallows, she presents Aunt Petunia “in a way that is most consistent with her thoughts and feelings through the previous seven books”. I believe that is a direct quote from Rowling's piece: "the previous seven books". Jo, there were only six previous books. You seem to be confusing your own series of seven wonderful novels with the increasingly awful eight films that were made from them.


I may be wrong about what's in the Rowling article. I hope I am. I hope the Guardian's report has misled me.

"R" has a lot of good stuff to say about my last post

I recently had the good fortune to receive a number of comments on my last post, "Rowling and the art of the family", by a reader who identified him or herself only as "R".

I seem to have struck a nerve with R in some of the things I said in that post and R's response is fantastic. This is a person who really knows the Harry Potter books well and obviously loves them. Since the comments R created were broken into five parts (Blogspot limits how long each comment can be), I have taken the liberty of copying them all into a single entry into the blog itself.

I have also taken the liberty of replacing a couple of swear words with "[*]" since young people read this blog and I have deleted the half sentences at the end of some paragraphs that got cut off by the comment function. Other than that, what follows are R's words. Thanks, R, for taking the time to read and to respond. You might not always agree with me but I'm glad you're willing to explain to me where you feel I've gone wrong. I hope you will find stuff in other entries on this blog that you find more acceptable (or that prompt more fantastic responses).

That being said, here is R's response to my blog entry:

What I think? I think that this post is pretty stupid. No offense but what are you trying to say? That J.K. Rowling is a horrible family hater? First thing first, only because you write about something doesn't mean you think about it the same way. But since you didn't get the point during any of the seven books: HP is very pro family. James died so save Lily and Harry. Lily died so save her son. Sirius died to save Harry. Molly and Arthur would have died for their children and for Harry and Molly's biggest fear was to lose them. What says more about love and family than "I'd die for my family."

Just because some characters aren't in a relationship or have children doesn't mean they don't worship families or don't know how to love. But it's also one of the greatest things about Harry Potter and the difference between HP and Twilight. “Harry Potter is about confronting fears, finding inner strength and doing what is right in the face of adversity."

           

But to the next part of your text: "Think about that: Dumbledore, McGonagall, Snape, Sprout, Hagrid, Lupin, Lockhart, Flitwick, Trelawny, Moody, Slughorn, Quirrell, Pomfrey, even Umbridge... They're in live-in positions and yet not one of them is shown with a spouse and not one of them mentions a spouse. Sure, Lupin eventually marries Tonks but, at the time they're teaching, they are single. No matter their age."

First thing first: Dumbledore is gay. Do you really expect him to find a wife? Next thing: Snape is still in love with Lily. He would have married her some day if she required his love but she didn't. Poor Snape but that doesn't say anything about family. Quirrell traveled after his 7th year and was possessed by Voldemort ever since ... But I guess Voldemort would have been a great daddy. To Lupin: He marries Tonks so where is the problem? Oh because he wasn't married right after he left school? Excuse me, I forgot that people aren't allowed to live their own lives.

           

"And then ask yourself the question: how many of the families in the Harry Potter series have more than one child?" More than you named. You forgot Fleur for example. Also you forgot the "Next generation". Harry has three kids. Ron and Hermoine have two kids. George has two children. But to the characters without siblings:

Harry: I'm sure his parents would have been were happy to have more than one kid. A shame they [*] died when their first born was a year old.

Neville: I'm sure his parents would have been were happy to have more than one kid. A shame they [*] went insane when their first born was a year old.

Voldemort: I don't know if his mother would have wanted another child after the heartbreak with Tom Riddle Sr but we will never know because she died during [*] childbirth.

Luna: I'm sure her parents would have loved another child. To bad her mother died when Luna was still a kid.

Hagrid: Nope, Hagrid DOES have a brother. Only a halfsibling but still.

"Of the five main child characters in the novels (Harry, Hermione, Ron, Neville and Voldemort), three are parentless, one abandons her parents to join the magical world and the fifth is Ron of the massive family." There are reasons for three of them being parentless and this reason is not Rowling’s hate towards families. Hermoine also didn't abandon her parents to join the magical world, you [*] idiot. The deleted their memories of her so they wouldn't get killed during Voldemort War II. It was said from the very beginning of their journey in book seven that as soon as Voldemort was defeated, Hermoine would give her parents their memories back. Hermoine did this to save them and it did break her heart. And "Ron's massive family"? There is no way to please you, is there? Either there aren't enough kids or there are too many. And again: The book isn't supposed to be lovey-dovey no-one dies everybody's happy and has a perfect family with 2.5 children.

PS: "Your comment will be visible after approval." There is no way in hell you're going to approve of my comment, is there? So I really wasted one hour of my life. Yippie-Ya-Yeah.

Harry, Dumbledore and the Resurrection Stone

I have a question. When Harry walks into the Forbidden Forest to face his death near the end of The Deathly Hallows and turns the Resurrection Stone thrice in his hand, why doesn't he invite Albus Dumbledore back from death as well as his mother, father, Sirius Black and Remus Lupin?

I think it's really nice, and quite fitting, that Harry calls back those four people.

But why not Dumbledore, the man about whom he has been mooning for the entire duration of the book? It doesn't make sense. Given the opportunity to talk to someone, anyone who is already dead, why wouldn't he choose to talk to the man with all the answers?

It's strange. It doesn't make sense, really, when you consider where Harry's mind has been for months prior to that pivotal moment. I think it's a lovely scene as written (and as filmed, to be honest), but it doesn't seem right to me.

Harry wouldn't be Harry without the Dark Lord

How do you think Harry would have turned out if there had been no Voldemort to tear his life apart? if he had been raised by his parents rather than by the Dursleys?

I'm not sure he would have turned out all that well.

Harry spends a lot of time across the seven novels wondering about what his life would have been like if his parents had lived, if he had grown up in a happy home with his mother and father, without a scar, perhaps even with a brother or sister or two as part of his life.

On the other hand, Albus Dumbledore spends a lot of time throughout the seven books telling Harry that it is precisely the fact that he is who he is, that he has a great capacity for love and little or no inclination to focus on himself, to be selfish and self-centred, that makes him so uniquely qualified to overcome the challenges that he faces.

Even as early as book one, The Philosopher's Stone, Dumbledore gambles on Harry's innate goodness and selflessness in making sure that the Stone can be acquired from the Mirror only by one who wishes to possess it but not use it.

When Voldemort attempts to inhabit Harry's mind and body in book five, The Order of the Phoenix, it is Harry's great capacity to love that makes his possession intolerable to the Dark Lord.

And, as Dumbledore so carefully explains in King's Cross at the end of The Deathly Hallows, Harry's goodness makes him worthy of uniting the Hallows in a manner that Dumbledore himself failed.

My point is, Harry becomes this unusually selfless and caring person, this person with such an enormous capacity to love others and put their needs above his own, as a product of his childhood spent in the cold, harsh household of the Dursleys. Had he not gone through the trauma of that experience, would he really be the person so worthy of taking Voldemort down time and again?

I'm not so sure. After all, look at the people who would have been around to influence him in that alternative, early life. James Potter was no saint as a child and young man. In fact, we learn in Book Six that Harry's father was a somewhat foppish, arrogant bully while at Hogwarts and that his godfather, Sirius, was a vain, idle young man who looked upon the world with a boredom verging on complete dismissal of those around him, but for his chosen few.

Would Lily, Harry's mother, whose virtue is never really questioned, have been able to exert sufficient influence on Harry to stop him from becoming as aggressive and self-centred a young man as his father once was?

I doubt it.

So we end up with J.K.'s ultimate irony: Voldemort did more than mark Harry as his equal when he murdered James and Lily and left the lightning scar on baby Harry's forehead; the Dark Lord created the circumstances that would ensure Harry gained the very qualities (selflessness and a great capacity for love and self-sacrifice) that would make Harry worthy of overcoming the challenges that his difficult life would present him and ultimately defeating the Dark Lord.

Getting to know the Dark Lord

Ever since my online conversation with Anonymous, I've been thinking a lot about Voldemort, his life and his portrayal in both the books and movies in the Harry Potter series.

Just yesterday, I was reading the last part of Harry Potter et La Chambre des Secrets (the French translation of Rowling's second novel) and reviewed, once again, our first meeting with Tom Riddle, the Dark Lord's youthful self. What an interesting presentation that was!

Voldemort's shadow hangs over the early novels, even though his appearances in these books are brief. In The Philosopher's Stone, Harry learns of Voldemort at first from Hagrid and it is Hagrid's fearful, halting explanations of who the Dark Lord is and what he had done to Harry's parents that set the tone for Voldemort's influence on the rest of the series of books.

In the movie version of that first novel, Robbie Coltrane does a great job of capturing the fear and paranoia that continues to grip the magical world, even though ten years have passed since Voldemort disappeared. I am particularly fond of the way Coltrane spits out the word "Codswallop" in that scene. He's just so vehement about it: "Some people say he's dead. Codswallop, I say."

We catch our first glimpse of Voldemort at the end of that first book, a shrivelled face that emerges from the back of Quirrell's head in the final battle over the fabled Stone. But it is only when Harry plunges into the diary in The Chamber of Secrets that J.K. begins the wonderful process of serving up, in tantalising pieces, the story of Voldemort's younger years. The scene in the Chamber provides even more of these morsels.

The Tom Riddle of the second novel is a handsome, well-spoken, seemingly quiet young man. We learn he is an orphan, with a Muggle father and a magical mother, that he desperately hopes to escape the orphanage and that he is a remarkably brilliant student. We also learn that he is a Parselmouth and, oh yes, that he is the direct descendant of Salazar Slytherin, one of the four founders of the Hogwarts School.

This all seems very positive, especially if you can see the Slytherin relationship as merely a sign that Riddle is related to magical royalty rather than a sign that he is associated with a Muggle-hating bigot.

But then we meet the memory of Riddle in the Chamber. This Riddle is portrayed as self-centred, vindictive and judgmental. He brags about his ability to charm people in order to get his way. For the first time, we see his willingness to see others as pawns in his game, as tools to be used and cast aside. His ridicule of the 11-year-old Ginny Weasley for the childishness and banality of her diary entries, for her little girl hopes and fears, confirm him as a hateful, spiteful individual and his complete lack of concern or empathy over her impending death is a telling foreshadowing of his future behaviour.

We also get a glimpse of two weaknesses in Riddle that would continue to plague Voldemort in his adult life. The first is his fear of Dumbledore. Already as a 16 year old, Riddle struggles with the power Dumbledore seems to have over him, with his frustration over his inability to charm the brilliant wizard, to blind Dumbledore to his evil intentions. Even as he brags that Dumbledore was chased from Hogwarts by the mere memory of Voldemort, Riddle reveals his own inability to deal with Dumbledore's unique ability to stand up to him.

The second weakness we encounter is Voldemort's underestimation of the power of things that do not interest him or that he does not understand. It never occurred to Riddle that Lily Potter's decision to sacrifice herself out of love for her son would provide Harry with the protection he needed to survive Voldemort's attack. And when Harry points this fact out, Riddle both recognises and dismisses it, seeing it only as evidence that Harry alone could not have withstood him.

When Fawkes, the Phoenix, arrives to help Harry, bringing with him the Sorting Hat, Riddle mocks Harry and Dumbledore relentlessly. A song bird and a moth-eaten hat, he laughs. This is the help the great Dumbledore sends you? Even as a 16-year-old, Riddle understands only certain types of power, only certain kinds of magic. And he pays for it. The hat provides Harry with the Sword of Gryffindor, the weapon he needs to kill the Basilisk. Meanwhile, Fawkes proves invaluable, first blinding the great snake and then saving Harry from the Basilisk's venom with his healing tears.

We can't forget that one of Voldemort's greatest flaws is his inability to recognise power in forms he cannot or refuses to understand. He is all but destroyed by the power of Lily's love and sacrifice for Harry. He underestimates the power of house elves, never considering that an elf like Kreacher could infiltrate the cave and escape with the locket Horcrux. He dismisses the possibility that Snape's love for Lily Potter might be so strong that Snape would spend much of his adult life working to bring about the defeat of Lily's murderer.

That's a great deal of information to pack into what is, in fact, a relatively short scene in the second novel. It speaks volumes for J.K.'s abilities as a story teller but does it undermine Anonymous' criticism that Voldemort is flat and one-dimensional throughout the books?

I have to admit that I'm not sure it does. I may have to accept that Anonymous is right but credit Rowling with intentionally creating a single-minded, one-dimensionally evil character and leave it at that.

What are your thoughts?