"bad guys"
Here in Minnesota!
Voldemort & Bellatrix are just a bit over the top... so are the Dursley's. I
considered Filtch... after all, he makes people miserable just for the sake
of it... but I think he might necessary for the school.
It comes down to Umbrage [with Fudge being a runner up]. the worst part of
her evilness is that she thinks she is good.*
*for those who would argue that Voldemort thinks' he is good [ridding the
wizarding of mudbloods and putting muggles in their proper place] I don't
think he believes in Good & Evil at all
ngtybtnice
<neverwillicheckt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Who is the most believable villain of the Harry Potter book?
Umbridge! Without a doubt.
Of all the villains, she is the one who truly gives me the creeps.
<shudder>
Toon
He flat out says there's no good and evil, just the pursuit of power
and those who won't. So, he's not trying to kill a baby because he's
evil, nor does he think he's doing good by protecting himself to lead
wizards to a glorious new destiny. He's doing it to stay alive and be
all powerful.
Here in Minnesota!
"Toon" <to...@toon.com> wrote in message
news:alpdf5l5fk1sl5bj8...@4ax.com...
So who do you think is the most believable villain of the Harry Potter book?
Voldemort? Umbridge? Ginny Weasley? Someone else?
mag3
>Who is the most believable villain of the Harry Potter book?
>
>Voldemort & Bellatrix are just a bit over the top... so are the Dursley's. I
>considered Filtch... after all, he makes people miserable just for the sake
>of it... but I think he might necessary for the school.
I think Filch's personality/behavior was primarily his angst/frustration over his
being a Squibb. I don't think he's truly evil... If he had wizzarding powers, I think
he'd be a lot different. Filch reminds me of the standard "old crotchety janitor" at
one's elementary school. Watching all that youthful exuberance go by, and
knowing that your time is long since past... Or in Filch's case, that it never existed
at all.
But in the group you mentioned above, I'd also give Honorable mention to "Aunt
Marge." If you saw Pam Ferris play "Agatha Trunchbull" in the Danny DeVito rendition
of Roald Dahl's "Matilda," you'd put her at the top. She was brilliant. Speaking of which,
if you have ever seen it, the "cook" who bakes the chocolate cake reminds me a lot of
"Ms. Filch." ;-)
>It comes down to Umbrage [with Fudge being a runner up]. the worst part of
>her evilness is that she thinks she is good.*
Fudge is a politician. He does things not for good an evil either, but whatever
he perceives as giving him the best political advantage and/or public face.
Acknowledging Voldie at DD's suggestion after all the time he spent denying his
existence would have made him lose a lot of face, as well as cause an upheaval that
no politician would want on their watch.
Yeah, by your standards, I'd have to go with Umbridge over Fudge, but barely. A lot
of Umbridge was kissing up to Fudge/The Ministry. And a lot of people did a lot of
kissing up (Malfoys, Pettigrew & DE's to Voldie etc. etc.). Both, in effect, were politicians
and did most of their dastardly deeds in the name of politics and self image. And while
Fudge carried the "vision" for the Ministry (which might be an augment for his being
the "most evil,"), Umbridge liked to punish the students "just because she could.... and
because it would get her off" And to me, that's what wins her the title.
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
Rob Strom
She's definitely up there, if you can consider that she's
really believable, and that the Ministry would have
enabled her to go to these extremes.
More conventionally as a villain, Barty Crouch, Jr.
--
Rob Strom
Here in Minnesota!
"mag3" <zmpmag...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:um4ef51elo2rbg2ov...@4ax.com......
> Yeah, by your standards, I'd have to go with Umbridge over Fudge, but
> barely. A lot
> of Umbridge was kissing up to Fudge/The Ministry. And a lot of people did
> a lot of
> kissing up (Malfoys, Pettigrew & DE's to Voldie etc. etc.). Both, in
> effect, were politicians
> and did most of their dastardly deeds in the name of politics and self
> image. And while
> Fudge carried the "vision" for the Ministry (which might be an augment for
> his being
> the "most evil,"), Umbridge liked to punish the students "just because she
> could.... and
> because it would get her off" And to me, that's what wins her the title.
>
> ____________________________________________
> Regards,
>
> Arnold
She was even worst in the last book. Moody's eye on her door. the "THE
MUGGLE-BORN
REGISTRATION COMMISSION"
"No, no, I'm half-blood, I'm half-blood, I tell you! My father was
a wizard, he was, look him up, Arkie Alderton, he's a well-known
broomstick designer, look him up, I tell you - get your hands off
me, get your hands off -"
"This is your final warning," said Umbridge's soft voice, magically
magnified so that it sounded clearly over the man's desperate
screams. "If you struggle, you will be subjected to the Dementor's
Kiss."
The man's screams subsided, but dry sobs echoed through the
corridor.
"Take him away," said Umbridge.
.
"Sit down," said Umbridge in her soft, silky voice.
Mrs. Cattermole stumbled to the single seat in the middle of the
floor beneath the raised platform. The moment she had sat down,
chains clinked out of the arms of the chair and bound her there.
"You are Mary Elizabeth Cattermole?" asked Umbridge.
Mrs. Cattermole gave a single, shaky nod.
"Married to Reginald Cattermole of the Magical Maintenance
Department?"
Mrs. Cattermole burst into tears.
"I don't know where he is, he was supposed to meet me here!"
Umbridge ignored her.
"Mother to Maisie, Ellie, and Alfred Cattermole?"
Mrs. Cattermole sobbed harder than ever.
"They're frightened, they think I might not come home -"
"Spare us," spat Yaxley. "The brats of Mudbloods do not stir our
sympathies."
.
"A wand was taken from you upon your arrival at the Ministry
today, Mrs. Cattermole," Umbridge was saying. "Eight-and-threequarter
inches, cherry, unicorn-hair core. Do you recognize that
description?"
Mrs. Cattermole nodded, mopping her eyes on her sleeve.
"Could you please tell us from which witch or wizard you took
that wand?"
"T-took?" sobbed Mrs. Cattermole. "I didn't t-take it from anybody.
I b-bought it when I was eleven years old. It - it - it -
chose me."
She cried harder than ever.
.
"No," said Umbridge, "no, I don't think so, Mrs. Cattermole.
Wands only choose witches or wizards. You are not a witch. I have
your responses to the questionnaire that was sent to you here -
Mafalda, pass them to me.".
'Parents' professions: greengrocers.' "
mag3
>
>"mag3" <zmpmag...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> Yeah, by your standards, I'd have to go with Umbridge over Fudge, but
>> barely. A lot of Umbridge was kissing up to Fudge/The Ministry. And a
>> lot of people did a lot of kissing up (Malfoys, Pettigrew & DE's to
>> Voldie etc. etc.). Both, in effect, were politicians and did most of their
>> dastardly deeds in the name of politics and self image. And while Fudge
>> carried the "vision" for the Ministry (which might be an augment for his being
>> the "most evil,"), Umbridge liked to punish the students "just because she
>> could.... and because it would get her off."
>>
>>And to me, that's what wins her the title.
>She was even worst in the last book. Moody's eye on her door. the "THE
>MUGGLE-BORN REGISTRATION COMMISSION"
I suppose so. But I wonder how much of that was "pure evil" (ie. originating
from her own deep, dark vision), and how much was "reaction" to what had
happen to her (ie. revenge for being bested by the OOP members and
Hogwarts students, and also a reaction to the humiliation of Fudge/Ministry,
as well as the desire to be loyal to the new regime in the Ministry, as
"imperiused" as it may have been....
I guess it's all about how one defines "evil." To be "pure evil" for me, 1) it
has originate from inside the person for a long period of time (eg. Voldie
developing a sense of evil since childhood), 2) they have to know the difference
between good and evil and thus, choose "evil," and 3) they also have to gain
pleasure from their acts (ie. "get off" on them). It becomes their "life vision."
This, as opposed to someone who has short term reactions to things that
happen to them (eg. someone who otherwise has led a good, upstanding life,
but snaps, seeking to kill the person who recently murdered their spouse/children etc.).
IMHO, I've seen little evidence that Fudge fits the "pure evil" definition. He's a
politician. And his motivations are all political in nature. Umbridge I think is a
cross between Fudge and Voldie, with Fudge's political side (loyalty to him and
the Ministry and to the following Ministry of Thikense)... but with a touch of that
deep seeded evil (ie. an understanding of good vs. evil, and her enjoyment of
punishing those considered "beneath" her). But not so "deep seeded"... I think
her motivations are more "short term"... a reaction to what's happening around
her... and short term revenge for being "bested" by those beneath her.
Only Voldie has that deep seeded vision in him.... And although the manifestations
might seem "over the top," the motivations for them, to me, are rooted in that evil
vision. JKR said, "We're dealing with pure evil here."
I believe her. The others are just his lackeys.
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
Toon
<neverwill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm not sure any were believable. Voldemort made many rookie
mistakes, such as egotism, risk taking (the guy hates death, is he
gives two Horcruxes to others to hide, and sues a living creature,
which is not the best idea ever), and obsessive tendencies (Ak
obviously doesn't work on Harry. Don't try to figure out why and get
past it, try something else. Transfiger him into a bug and stomp him,
sheesh.)
Umbridge had the right idea, but she was way to psycho. Ie, using the
Dementors.
Fudge really isn't a villain, just a typical politician who's all talk
and no action. He'd rather hide his head in the sand than face a real
problem.
Lucious seems a typical bigot, but is he really a villain? The most
villainous things were done as a DE, which we just don't have in the
real world.
Draco, perhaps? Typical bully, though not all bullies travel in
packs.
Sirius perhaps when everybody thought he was bad. Using his knowledge
to sneak into Hogwarts, getting into Harry's dorm. A constant threat
even when eh wasn't there. But again, not a villain, just a frame up.
Toon
wrote:
>I suppose so. But I wonder how much of that was "pure evil" (ie. originating
>from her own deep, dark vision), and how much was "reaction" to what had
>happen to her (ie. revenge for being bested by the OOP members and
>Hogwarts students, and also a reaction to the humiliation of Fudge/Ministry,
>as well as the desire to be loyal to the new regime in the Ministry, as
>"imperiused" as it may have been....
And it's believable, realistic villain. Was Umbridge all that
realistic and believable? Do we believe this is how people in the
real world would act? She seemed opportunistic. Taking advantage of
things to promote her own blood priority ideals and need to be in
charge.
>I guess it's all about how one defines "evil." To be "pure evil" for me, 1) it
>has originate from inside the person for a long period of time (eg. Voldie
>developing a sense of evil since childhood), 2) they have to know the difference
>between good and evil and thus, choose "evil," and 3) they also have to gain
>pleasure from their acts (ie. "get off" on them). It becomes their "life vision."
>This, as opposed to someone who has short term reactions to things that
>happen to them (eg. someone who otherwise has led a good, upstanding life,
>but snaps, seeking to kill the person who recently murdered their spouse/children etc.).
IE, Harry going to kill Sirius in the Shrieking Shack. Understandbale
since he thought he had the guy responsible for his parents death, but
not evil.
>IMHO, I've seen little evidence that Fudge fits the "pure evil" definition. He's a
>politician. And his motivations are all political in nature. Umbridge I think is a
>cross between Fudge and Voldie, with Fudge's political side (loyalty to him and
>the Ministry and to the following Ministry of Thikense)... but with a touch of that
>deep seeded evil (ie. an understanding of good vs. evil, and her enjoyment of
>punishing those considered "beneath" her). But not so "deep seeded"... I think
>her motivations are more "short term"... a reaction to what's happening around
>her... and short term revenge for being "bested" by those beneath her.
I thinks he ultimately wants to be Minsiter, and so sucks up to
whoever's in charge, Oppurtunistic, but not villainously evil. Wasn't
she offering leniency to Muggleborns who "confessed"?
Here in Minnesota!
> I guess it's all about how one defines "evil." To be "pure evil" for me,
> 1) it
> has originate from inside the person for a long period of time (eg. Voldie
> developing a sense of evil since childhood), 2) they have to know the
> difference
> between good and evil and thus, choose "evil," and 3) they also have to
> gain
> pleasure from their acts (ie. "get off" on them). It becomes their "life
> vision."
> This, as opposed to someone who has short term reactions to things that
> happen to them (eg. someone who otherwise has led a good, upstanding life,
> but snaps, seeking to kill the person who recently murdered their
> spouse/children etc.).
1. not sure
2. I agree. A dragon, insane man, etc is not evil. Knowledge between good
and evil is necessary; as you said to choose evil... except in the case of
the one who choose to blunt their own conscience where they no longer
recognize good and evil.
3. not sure again... in a sense I think of one as LESS evil if they enjoy
it... as least they are gaining something with their evilness... where as
someone who choose to evil even though they don't enjoy it... mmmmmm
Toon
I see it the other way. Choosing it if they don't enjoy it, can lead
to choosing not to be evil. If they do enjoy it, they revel in their
evilness, and have no desire to change. What can be worse than an
evil being who enjoys being evil? Then again, most evil people see
themselves as the hero. Trying to make their people's lives better.
IE, Bin Moron thinks he's the good guy, helping his people out against
the mean old USA. Try explaining to him how his wrong, a moron, and
how his actions prove him to be pure evil, and see how long you live
after insulting him. Of course, most evil people also use conditional
evil. They'll stop if or when. We've seen few truly evil people who
do evil just because, like the Joker (who's not real, mind you).
Here in Minnesota!
In a way it doesn't matter. If someone punches me in the face.. I don't care
if he [or she] enjoyed it or not... he's a bastard.
I think of it somewhat like the difference of stealing and vandalism... if a
stranger steals my TV or smashes my TV.... I'm out the use of a TV either
way... but my mind can understand stealing [even though I don't believe in
it] the stranger gained something... a TV... but my mind doesn't understand
vandalism... the stranger gained nothing. I read enough to understand the
psychology behind vandalism but I don't grasp it in a way that seems real.
In the same way, I understand, somewhat, a person doing evil for gain or
enjoyment... but for a person to choose to do evil for no gain or
enjoyment... I can not grasp.
mag3
>In the same way, I understand, somewhat, a person doing evil for gain or
>enjoyment... but for a person to choose to do evil for no gain or enjoyment...
>I can not grasp.
I think the "gain/enjoyment" in this case, is the "manipulation/control" over
people and/or things, and thus the satisfying of one's "control freak" factor.
That, and/or perhaps the satisfaction of causing another pain & suffering, most
likely because it was done to you. You know it's wrong, but you do it because
you want some payback.
It's not "physical/tangible" gain, but psychological.
____________________________________________
Regards,
Arnold
Welsh Dog
<neverwill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Who is the most believable villain of the Harry Potter book?
Gilderoy Lockheart.
Bearing in mind he was based on a real person... and was willing to
not only leave Ginny to die in the Chamber of Secrets but to all bar
murder both Ron and Harry (by stripping them of their memories) in
order to maintain his false identity as a superb magician I'd say
Lockheart is up there with the worst.
Ok he might not be murdering etc the way the others did... but they
were at least true to their personalities and principles (sort of)
whereas he was just a horrible little man!!!
Welshdog
--
Don't just whinge - make your opinion count!
Australian Opinion
http://australianopinion.com.au
Here in Minnesota!
"Welsh Dog" <wels...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:62qmg5dnan84djfg4...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:45:45 -0600, "Here in Minnesota!"
> <neverwill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Who is the most believable villain of the Harry Potter book?
>
> Gilderoy Lockheart.
>
> Bearing in mind he was based on a real person... and was willing to
> not only leave Ginny to die in the Chamber of Secrets but to all bar
> murder both Ron and Harry (by stripping them of their memories) in
> order to maintain his false identity as a superb magician I'd say
> Lockheart is up there with the worst.
>
> Ok he might not be murdering etc the way the others did... but they
> were at least true to their personalities and principles (sort of)
> whereas he was just a horrible little man!!!
>
> Welshdog
> --
>
good call
Welsh Dog
<neverwill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"mag3" <zmpmag...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:um4ef51elo2rbg2ov...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:45:45 -0600, "Here in Minnesota!"
>> <neverwill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>...
<snip>
>She was even worst in the last book. Moody's eye on her door. the "THE
>MUGGLE-BORN
>REGISTRATION COMMISSION"
Don't forget tho that by then she was well under the sway of the soul
piece in the locket!!
It affected Ron badly who was supposed to be the good guy. He said
himself he was already thinking the things he'd said before he left
but the locket had affected him more than the others
Imagine what effect it would have had on someone who was already
fanatically convinced of the 'rightness' of Ministry policy and
thereby even more susceptible than Ron?
Yes she was a horrible old baggage who hated kids... but she might not
have been *quite* as evil had she not been so affected by the locket.
On the other hand... I've *met* people like Aunt Marge - they really
do exist and Pam portrayed at Marge as if she'd met this person in
real life!! :)
Deevo
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 00:21:49 -0600, "Here in Minnesota!"
> <neverwill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"mag3" <zmpmag...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:um4ef51elo2rbg2ov...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:45:45 -0600, "Here in Minnesota!"
>>> <neverwill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>...
>
> <snip>
>
>>She was even worst in the last book. Moody's eye on her door. the "THE
>>MUGGLE-BORN
>>REGISTRATION COMMISSION"
>
> Don't forget tho that by then she was well under the sway of the soul
> piece in the locket!!
Like she was when she was prepared to use an unforgivable curse on Harry?
No wait ...
> It affected Ron badly who was supposed to be the good guy. He said
> himself he was already thinking the things he'd said before he left
> but the locket had affected him more than the others
>
> Imagine what effect it would have had on someone who was already
> fanatically convinced of the 'rightness' of Ministry policy and
> thereby even more susceptible than Ron?
>
> Yes she was a horrible old baggage who hated kids... but she might not
> have been *quite* as evil had she not been so affected by the locket.
I think anyone who is prepared to torture a minor has little to redeem
themselves.
> On the other hand... I've *met* people like Aunt Marge - they really
> do exist and Pam portrayed at Marge as if she'd met this person in
> real life!! :)
I liked the DVD comment when she said that she was happy to look better when
the make up came off.
--
Deevo
Geraldton Western Australia
Toon
wrote:
She's quite evil, but is her evil believable? Do we think this is how
someone would really act?
Here in Minnesota!
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:33:34 GMT, "Deevo" <dee...@NOSPAMbigpond.com>
> wrote:
> She's [Umbrige] quite evil, but is her evil believable? Do we think this
> is how
> someone would really act?
I find it believable because it's parallel what people actually did in
Germany in the 40s and then in Romania during the 40s 50s and 60s.
richard e white
There are people out there who act just like her. Most sooner or later wind up
behind bars.
--
Richard The Blind Typer.
Lets hear it for talking computers.
Lets go for talking i-pods!