This is the first of a series of posts (which may not appear sequentially) on those elements in the Potter books which, in one's opinion, seem to be directly inspired by the culture and history of Eastern Europe. Before beginning, however, a general definition of Eastern Europe should be given. When one refers to Eastern Europe on this post and on subsequent postings, one is referring to all those inhabited lands which stretch from Germany's eastern border to the Russian Federation, but which ends at the Ural Mountains. All inhabited lands to the east of the Urals, is, to this author, considered to be of Asiatic heritage, although some of it is the sovereign territory of Russia. Eastern Europe is bordered on the north by the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) and in the south by Turkey and Greece. (One does not consider Turkey and Greece part of Eastern Europe). Furthermore, all lands that had once belonged to the former Yugoslavia, though also being a part of Eastern Europe, will frequently be referred to as Southeastern Europe.
Both of the prior analysis posts on this blog have mentioned some of the Eastern European elements which need not be repeated here. The first analysis essay on Ravenclaw's Diadem focused on Helena Ravenclaw's flight to Albania (Southeastern Europe) and the second analysis essay disucssed the possibilities of Fyodor Dostoevsky's influence on J. K. Rowling through two of her characters: Dolores Umbridge and Hepzibah Smith.
The Eastern European elements of the Potter series that one would like to tackle in subsequent essays include but are not limited to:
1. Viktor Krum and the Bulgarians (with a side note on "Veela")
2. Igor Karkaroff
3. Slytherins and Scythians
4. Gregorovitch and the Elder Wand
5. Ruling through Fear: Voldemort as Stalinist
6. Grindelwald in Nurmengard: German History in Harry Potter
7. Ideas about Durmstrang and the School's Ship (Germans, Vikings (Varingians), etc.)
The last two ideas on the list are related to Germany, which may be on a technical level considered Central Europe, but Central and Eastern Europe are so culturally and historically interrelated that these essays should be presented in the context of the others.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Pennsylvania Loves Harry Potter
This is perhaps old news, but I love the fact that the town in which I live is in the top ten of Amazon.com's "Harry-est" towns in America. Amazon apparently used the data from the U.S. census (town population) versus the number of pre-orders of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows per capita (per person). The 2007 population estimate at the website of the U.S. Census Bureau for Doylestown, PA is 8,149. In 2000, the U.S. census revealed the population in Doylestown to be only slightly higher (~8,200), of which nearly 14% were those under 18 years of age.
Now, the "Harry-est" town in America was Falls Church, VA, which in 2000 had a population of 10,377 people (according the U.S. census), and which steadily rose through the year 2007 (the U.S. Census Bureau reports this info as a 10,948 population estimate). The second "Harry-est" town was Gig Harbor, WA, and this is impressive - they only had as their population estimate in 2007 by the Census Bureau, 6, 621. So Falls Church was the "Harry-est", but had over 3,000 more people living there than the second "Harry-est" town, and over 2,000 more people than my hometown, which was the 9th "Harry-est" town. Are you confused yet? The point is this. There were less people in Gig Harbor and in Doylestown, which means that there were probably more Potter books in Gig Harbor per square mile than in Falls Church, VA, and you can be sure that there were many Potter books in households per square mile in Doylestown, PA. Of course, this doesn't account for all the books sold by the local bookstores and the chain bookstores (Borders, Barnes & Noble, etc.). I had reserved my book at the local Doylestown Bookshop, and picked it up at midnight on July 21st. I luckily got about fifth place in line - the line itself went around the block outside and I heard that the cashiers were in place until after 2 AM.
At any rate, why do I find this so fascinating? People sometimes smile awkwardly when I talk about Harry Potter analysis in Doylestown, acting as if this is a foreign subject, but let's get some things straight. We were the 9th "Harry-est" town in America for that last book, and while some of the people here might be closet Harry readers, the books certainly aren't gathering any dust.
As a side note, the "Top 100 Harry-est Towns" list includes some other towns in Pennsylvania. I will bold the towns that I've visited in the past.
6. Media (this is west of Doylestown; dang, they beat us on the list)
14. West Chester (I went to college here)
20. Downingtown (15 mins. from West Chester)
24. Mechanicsburg
35. Collegeville (between Doylestown and West Chester)
51. Kennett Square (15 mins. from West Chester)
82. Ambler (on the way to Philly from Doylestown, about 40 mins. away)
89. Lewisburg
97. Stroudsburg (WCU marching band was better than East Stroudsburg's, sorry East Stroudsburg, the truth hurts)
The majority of these locations are Philadelphia suburbs, and Mechanicsburg and Lewisburg are closer to the center of the state, but not quite the center. Mechanicsburg is in the south of Pennsylvania and Lewisburg is further north. So, Pennsylvania did have nine towns out of a hundred as the "Harry-est" in the nation according to Amazon.com. Whew! Alas, Pennsylvania was the 23rd "Harry-est" state in the nation according to Amazon.com's ranking of the states. But I guess we Pennsylvanians can content ourselves with the fact that one of the two epithets in Deathly Hallows that Rowling selected was by William Penn, after whom Pennsylvania is named. So, take that, capital of the nation, Washington, D.C. (who is the "Harry-est" state - which is not a state). Or take that, Vermont, who is actually a state and is the "Harr-est" after D.C. HAH!
Oh, and don't forget that Amazon.com's list doesn't include the free-loaders at the library. lol.
Now, the "Harry-est" town in America was Falls Church, VA, which in 2000 had a population of 10,377 people (according the U.S. census), and which steadily rose through the year 2007 (the U.S. Census Bureau reports this info as a 10,948 population estimate). The second "Harry-est" town was Gig Harbor, WA, and this is impressive - they only had as their population estimate in 2007 by the Census Bureau, 6, 621. So Falls Church was the "Harry-est", but had over 3,000 more people living there than the second "Harry-est" town, and over 2,000 more people than my hometown, which was the 9th "Harry-est" town. Are you confused yet? The point is this. There were less people in Gig Harbor and in Doylestown, which means that there were probably more Potter books in Gig Harbor per square mile than in Falls Church, VA, and you can be sure that there were many Potter books in households per square mile in Doylestown, PA. Of course, this doesn't account for all the books sold by the local bookstores and the chain bookstores (Borders, Barnes & Noble, etc.). I had reserved my book at the local Doylestown Bookshop, and picked it up at midnight on July 21st. I luckily got about fifth place in line - the line itself went around the block outside and I heard that the cashiers were in place until after 2 AM.
At any rate, why do I find this so fascinating? People sometimes smile awkwardly when I talk about Harry Potter analysis in Doylestown, acting as if this is a foreign subject, but let's get some things straight. We were the 9th "Harry-est" town in America for that last book, and while some of the people here might be closet Harry readers, the books certainly aren't gathering any dust.
As a side note, the "Top 100 Harry-est Towns" list includes some other towns in Pennsylvania. I will bold the towns that I've visited in the past.
6. Media (this is west of Doylestown; dang, they beat us on the list)
14. West Chester (I went to college here)
20. Downingtown (15 mins. from West Chester)
24. Mechanicsburg
35. Collegeville (between Doylestown and West Chester)
51. Kennett Square (15 mins. from West Chester)
82. Ambler (on the way to Philly from Doylestown, about 40 mins. away)
89. Lewisburg
97. Stroudsburg (WCU marching band was better than East Stroudsburg's, sorry East Stroudsburg, the truth hurts)
The majority of these locations are Philadelphia suburbs, and Mechanicsburg and Lewisburg are closer to the center of the state, but not quite the center. Mechanicsburg is in the south of Pennsylvania and Lewisburg is further north. So, Pennsylvania did have nine towns out of a hundred as the "Harry-est" in the nation according to Amazon.com. Whew! Alas, Pennsylvania was the 23rd "Harry-est" state in the nation according to Amazon.com's ranking of the states. But I guess we Pennsylvanians can content ourselves with the fact that one of the two epithets in Deathly Hallows that Rowling selected was by William Penn, after whom Pennsylvania is named. So, take that, capital of the nation, Washington, D.C. (who is the "Harry-est" state - which is not a state). Or take that, Vermont, who is actually a state and is the "Harr-est" after D.C. HAH!
Oh, and don't forget that Amazon.com's list doesn't include the free-loaders at the library. lol.
A Meet-Up with John Granger!
This past Saturday, February 21st, I had the opportunity to meet (for the second time) John Granger and discuss the Harry Potter books. The HP discussion was hosted by Potterdelphia, a group of which I am now a member. They had a general Potterdelphia meeting the following day, but I fell ill overnight and so could not attend. There were only five people in attendance, but this didn't depress John; he gave a wonderful lecture called "The Eyes of Deathly Hallows" in which he explained that the last Harry Potter installment was all about eyeballs. (Really all about the logos, and to understand that you should really read his book, The Deathly Hallows Lectures in which this particular lecture is a chapter).
We also got to hear his interesting story of how his first Potter-analysis book was published, and some other experiences in the Potter-world he'd had over the years. When I asked him if he'd read logospilgrim's bring forth the best robes (lower-case letters are intended here), he stated that he knew logospilgrim, herself. This was a delight to me, as I loved that small work. And I also asked him what he thought about Nancy S. Villacruz's new book, Does Harry Potter Tickle Sleeping Dragons? I told John that I thought her book was intriguing, but entirely too arrogant in either disregarding or merely waving away other Potter analysis books. Villacruz then says that her book is unique (you can find this phrase firstly on the dust jacked back flap). But she hasn't quite proved this, because she hasn't compared herself to any of the other books (ex. Granger's, Prinzi's, Thomas', Neal's, Heilman's, etc.). Please don't take this as a message not to read her book. No, no. Not at all. To me, all Potter-analysis is intriguing. Just as a person holding a BA in History, I know that in any analysis, while we are supposed to rely on primary sources (in this case, Harry Potter canon and all the other canon pieces that Villacruz mentions in a nice three-way definition - props to her here), we are supposed to acknowledge secondary sources. And if we don't agree with them, we are supposed to take them on and contest their points. Anyway, I think John Granger found my analysis of her book interesting.
I can't wait for John Granger's new book, Harry Potter's Bookshelf, to become available this summer, and apparently he speaks in Princeton, NJ next month. I wish I could be there! It was, as a whole, a delightful early afternoon in Philadelphia.
As a side note, I had a long discussion with Skott of Potterdelphia after John had left. We spoke on a whole bunch of Potter topics including Nurmengard (of which I hope to post an essay shortly) and the splitting of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (questioning where the split would occur).
We also got to hear his interesting story of how his first Potter-analysis book was published, and some other experiences in the Potter-world he'd had over the years. When I asked him if he'd read logospilgrim's bring forth the best robes (lower-case letters are intended here), he stated that he knew logospilgrim, herself. This was a delight to me, as I loved that small work. And I also asked him what he thought about Nancy S. Villacruz's new book, Does Harry Potter Tickle Sleeping Dragons? I told John that I thought her book was intriguing, but entirely too arrogant in either disregarding or merely waving away other Potter analysis books. Villacruz then says that her book is unique (you can find this phrase firstly on the dust jacked back flap). But she hasn't quite proved this, because she hasn't compared herself to any of the other books (ex. Granger's, Prinzi's, Thomas', Neal's, Heilman's, etc.). Please don't take this as a message not to read her book. No, no. Not at all. To me, all Potter-analysis is intriguing. Just as a person holding a BA in History, I know that in any analysis, while we are supposed to rely on primary sources (in this case, Harry Potter canon and all the other canon pieces that Villacruz mentions in a nice three-way definition - props to her here), we are supposed to acknowledge secondary sources. And if we don't agree with them, we are supposed to take them on and contest their points. Anyway, I think John Granger found my analysis of her book interesting.
I can't wait for John Granger's new book, Harry Potter's Bookshelf, to become available this summer, and apparently he speaks in Princeton, NJ next month. I wish I could be there! It was, as a whole, a delightful early afternoon in Philadelphia.
As a side note, I had a long discussion with Skott of Potterdelphia after John had left. We spoke on a whole bunch of Potter topics including Nurmengard (of which I hope to post an essay shortly) and the splitting of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (questioning where the split would occur).
Friday, February 13, 2009
Claymation Deathly Hallows!
Everybody who is a fan of Harry Potter needs to head over to YouTube, big time. A fan of the series, and apparently a film student to boot, has posted in 26 parts a four hour and twenty minute film of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. It is in claymation, and while it is an amateur work, the whole thing is unique and inspiring. There are even special effects.
The artist has an amazing talent, and I really hope PotterCast interviews this person.
Here's a link to the first part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvUCJU1a7dI
Enjoy!
The artist has an amazing talent, and I really hope PotterCast interviews this person.
Here's a link to the first part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvUCJU1a7dI
Enjoy!
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Analysis Post #2: The Two Wicked Hufflepuffs... and Some Who Aren't So Wicked
The inspiration for this posting came from two sources: a "Canon Conundrum" in PotterCast 142: "British Dogs and Fuzzy Hats" and John Granger's essay "High Inquisitor = Grand Inquisitor," posted at his website on April 8, 2008, and still available online at http://hogwartsprofessor.com/?p=363#more-363. Oh, and various fans of Hufflepuff out there, before you "badger" me for writing the following, please make it through all of the essay. I have no specific biases against Hufflepuff House. In fact, I think they're responsible for the Pittsburgh Steelers winning the 2009 SuperBowl. But that's just mere conjecture.
On to the subject at hand. Let me make a blatant statement, which will send yellow and black badgers forever flying my way: Dolores Umbridge and Hepzibah Smith were Hufflepuffs. Yes, I did say Umbridge's name. Ouch. ::flying badger smacks me in the face::
Let's start with Hepzibah, because I believe that her placement in Hufflepuff House seems the most likely. She's a descendant of Helga Hufflepuff; this much we know. She has Hufflepuff's Cup and is murdered for it (as well as for Slytherin's locket that she bought from Caractacus Burke). Her last name is Smith, which alludes to Zacharias Smith, and I think Rowling is leading us to believe that the two characters are relatives.
Dolores Umbridge is harder to see as a Hufflepuff; even the majority of PotterCast thought that she was a Slytherin. But I believe that she is a Hufflepuff with Slytherin characteristics; that Slytherin is her sub-house. This idea I read about in Geo Athena Trevarthen's book, The Seeker's Guide to Harry Potter. In the third chapter, "Four Houses, Four Elements," Trevarthen explains that there is a balance to the houses, that there can be an "admixture" of the different houses (p. 81). As she explains in her book for example, the four Gryffindor characters, Harry, Ron, Hermione and Neville each exhibit, besides their dominant Gryffindor characteristics, the characteristics of another house, Slytherin, Gryffindor, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, respectively.
Now what are the qualities of a Hufflepuff as described by Professor Trevarthen? That they are loyal and hard-working. In her chart under "Magical Precepts," she writes that they "keep silent" and while describing the badger totem, she writes "the term 'badgering' comes from the badger's savage and persistently determined quality" (p. 77).
All of these qualities, however, can be turned to evil purposes, and are done so by both Hepzibah and Dolores. Furthermore, their characters seem to parody two other characters in two other famous works of literature by a single author.
John Granger writes in his essay, "High Inquisitor = Grand Inquisitor?" of the connection between the Harry Potter series and Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, regarded by some as one of the best, if not the best piece of literature in the history of the world. The tale of "The Grand Inquisitor," a part of the story, is even sold separately, just because of its extreme resonance. But as Granger points out, "Inquisitor" is a pretty unique word, barring its historical references to the Spanish Inquisition. Granger sums up the link between the Grand Inquisitor and Dolores Umbridge, Hogwarts High Inquisitor as such, that
Granger then later goes on to say that "for his several, superficial differences with the High Inquisitor, the Grand Inquisitor is her [Rowling's] original. Both insist on the silence of the unwelcome Savior in the name of protecting the innocent from a truth which they “cannot handle” and, in that process, to safeguard the authority of the regime." Granger also goes on to contrast the differences in the situation between Dostoevsky's novel and Rowling's series, so you really should get on over to hogwartsprofessor.com and read the whole essay (it's so marvelous), but this is enough for now.
Hepzibah, however, I believe can be compared to a character from one of Dostoevsky's other great pieces of literature, Crime and Punishment, in which the old-woman money-lender (virutally a pawnbrokeress) is murdered by the main character, Raskolnikov (who is himself used in comparison to elements of the Potter series in other articles) as he believes that committing this single act of murder is for "the greater good." Sound familiar? Unfortunately, he also murders the woman's half-sister, Lizaveta, who stumbles in on the murder (bad timing for her). The rest of the book is a look at Raskolnikov's shambling soul. But you should really read that classic - I can't give the whole plot away here.
At any rate, yes, Hepzibah Smith is very like the old woman in Crime and Punishment. It's easy to imagine Voldemort thinking about stealing Hufflepuff's Cup and Slytherin's Locket from her and murdering her "for the greater good" - at least the "greater good" that he imagines making Horcruxes and "purifying" the Wizarding World to be.
But let's look at the two characters and bring this back to a discussion of Hufflepuff characteristics: one is extremely loyal to the wealthy and one is extremely loyal to the letter of the law (even if the government is bankrupt). After all, what exactly was Umbridge's role in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince during Rufus Scrimgeour's time as Minister of Magic? She certainly did not have a big one. But she did during Fudge's reign as Minister, especially in Order of the Phoenix, and during Pius Thicknesse's reign as puppet Minister in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. We know that in Voldy-War I, as it's come to be known in the fandom, that Scrimgeour used extra-legal means with Barty Crouch, Sr. at hand to hold down the ministry. I'm not sure that "loyal to the law" Umbridge would have agreed with that.
But she could agree with Fudge. She could be loyal to Fudge. And in fact, she was placed as the Defense Against the Dark Arts intructor at Hogwarts because of her loyalty to Cornelius Fudge. Sure, she had some Slytherin ambition, as I believe Hepizbah, who we know much less about, also probably did, in her dealings with both Caractacus Burke and Tom Riddle, Jr. (the latter of which got her killed). Did Cornelius Fudge really go against the letter of the law and try to be above it? Quite frankly, I don't think he did. That doesn't mean that he's a real idiot and didn't have any ambition himself.
And look closely in Deathly Hallows at Umbridge's role in the Ministry. She was too low on Voldemort's radar, as PotterCast 142 rightly pointed out, to be in direct dealings with Voldemort. After all, how would Voldemort react if he'd met her and seen his Horcrux around the neck? For all the foreshadowings of decapitation in the Harry Potter series up to Book 7, I would not be surprised in hindsight for her to lose her head, walking around with that around her neck. (It also proves Voldemort's trust in his followers - I do imagine that Bellatrix, Lucius and Severus Snape would have seen Umbridge once with that necklace during their relations with the ministry and in the Wizarding World, and none of them apparently did anything about that fact). So what is Umbridge doing in the Ministry in Deathly Hallows besides executing the law in the lower levels? She's making law leaflets and pamphlets. Why did Rowling show us this? Yes, she's loyal to the government now that it's the law that has changed. Remember, she's for theory, not for practicality. We know this from the fifth book.
But these two characters have opposites in the series as well, examples of good Hufflepuffs. Their opposites help to resolve, in a sense, their wicked characters.
Amelia Susan Bones was the Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, and participated in Harry's trial in book five as a member of the Wizengamot. She was killed by Voldemort in the summer prior to the start of Harry's sixth school year. Now, we don't know for certain her Hogwarts House, but I think we're very easily led to believe that she was a Hufflepuff due to her niece, Susan Bones, in Harry's year at Hogwarts, who is a Hufflepuff. She is quintessentially Umbridge's opposite. After all, the word "umbrage," which many agree is the word from which Dolores' name is taken, means shade or shadow. Your bones, on the other hand, are an essential element of your body, your essence and your core, and bone is used to describe a light beige color (this is opposed to shadow as darkness).
Hepzibah Smith finds her opposite in Cedric Diggory. Hepzibah held on to her treasures and acquired them through wicked means. Through them, she exhibited the sin of pride and of greed. Diggory offered the cup to Harry, and offered up what would have been a big win for Hufflepuff House, a treasure all it's own. He gave it all up. In the end, Diggory let go of pride and of greed (for there was a thousand Galleons on the line to the winner of tournament). He was also murdered by Lord Voldemort, just like Amelia Bones.
What do the four characters teach us? That loyalty and determination is a good thing, but it can serve evil purposes as well. But by acting like Bones and Diggory, both remembered as symbols of Hufflepuff qualities, the world can be a better place.
extra: Umbridge looks like a toad. Neville, the Gryffindor-Hufflepuff, has a pet toad. Something to think about.
On to the subject at hand. Let me make a blatant statement, which will send yellow and black badgers forever flying my way: Dolores Umbridge and Hepzibah Smith were Hufflepuffs. Yes, I did say Umbridge's name. Ouch. ::flying badger smacks me in the face::
Let's start with Hepzibah, because I believe that her placement in Hufflepuff House seems the most likely. She's a descendant of Helga Hufflepuff; this much we know. She has Hufflepuff's Cup and is murdered for it (as well as for Slytherin's locket that she bought from Caractacus Burke). Her last name is Smith, which alludes to Zacharias Smith, and I think Rowling is leading us to believe that the two characters are relatives.
Dolores Umbridge is harder to see as a Hufflepuff; even the majority of PotterCast thought that she was a Slytherin. But I believe that she is a Hufflepuff with Slytherin characteristics; that Slytherin is her sub-house. This idea I read about in Geo Athena Trevarthen's book, The Seeker's Guide to Harry Potter. In the third chapter, "Four Houses, Four Elements," Trevarthen explains that there is a balance to the houses, that there can be an "admixture" of the different houses (p. 81). As she explains in her book for example, the four Gryffindor characters, Harry, Ron, Hermione and Neville each exhibit, besides their dominant Gryffindor characteristics, the characteristics of another house, Slytherin, Gryffindor, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, respectively.
Now what are the qualities of a Hufflepuff as described by Professor Trevarthen? That they are loyal and hard-working. In her chart under "Magical Precepts," she writes that they "keep silent" and while describing the badger totem, she writes "the term 'badgering' comes from the badger's savage and persistently determined quality" (p. 77).
All of these qualities, however, can be turned to evil purposes, and are done so by both Hepzibah and Dolores. Furthermore, their characters seem to parody two other characters in two other famous works of literature by a single author.
John Granger writes in his essay, "High Inquisitor = Grand Inquisitor?" of the connection between the Harry Potter series and Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, regarded by some as one of the best, if not the best piece of literature in the history of the world. The tale of "The Grand Inquisitor," a part of the story, is even sold separately, just because of its extreme resonance. But as Granger points out, "Inquisitor" is a pretty unique word, barring its historical references to the Spanish Inquisition. Granger sums up the link between the Grand Inquisitor and Dolores Umbridge, Hogwarts High Inquisitor as such, that
"Both... are convinced that they are performing heroic service for their
organizations, and, through this organization, for the people who are best off
not knowing what is done in their name or enjoying real freedom. Dolores and the
Grand Inquisitor do not hesitate to act boldly and independently for what they
believe is best for the Ministry/Church; one arrests and plans to execute Christ
(again), the other looses Dementors on Harry, tortures him and other students
“for their own good,” and is even willing to use Unforgivable Curses if the
situation justifies those means."
Granger then later goes on to say that "for his several, superficial differences with the High Inquisitor, the Grand Inquisitor is her [Rowling's] original. Both insist on the silence of the unwelcome Savior in the name of protecting the innocent from a truth which they “cannot handle” and, in that process, to safeguard the authority of the regime." Granger also goes on to contrast the differences in the situation between Dostoevsky's novel and Rowling's series, so you really should get on over to hogwartsprofessor.com and read the whole essay (it's so marvelous), but this is enough for now.
Hepzibah, however, I believe can be compared to a character from one of Dostoevsky's other great pieces of literature, Crime and Punishment, in which the old-woman money-lender (virutally a pawnbrokeress) is murdered by the main character, Raskolnikov (who is himself used in comparison to elements of the Potter series in other articles) as he believes that committing this single act of murder is for "the greater good." Sound familiar? Unfortunately, he also murders the woman's half-sister, Lizaveta, who stumbles in on the murder (bad timing for her). The rest of the book is a look at Raskolnikov's shambling soul. But you should really read that classic - I can't give the whole plot away here.
At any rate, yes, Hepzibah Smith is very like the old woman in Crime and Punishment. It's easy to imagine Voldemort thinking about stealing Hufflepuff's Cup and Slytherin's Locket from her and murdering her "for the greater good" - at least the "greater good" that he imagines making Horcruxes and "purifying" the Wizarding World to be.
But let's look at the two characters and bring this back to a discussion of Hufflepuff characteristics: one is extremely loyal to the wealthy and one is extremely loyal to the letter of the law (even if the government is bankrupt). After all, what exactly was Umbridge's role in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince during Rufus Scrimgeour's time as Minister of Magic? She certainly did not have a big one. But she did during Fudge's reign as Minister, especially in Order of the Phoenix, and during Pius Thicknesse's reign as puppet Minister in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. We know that in Voldy-War I, as it's come to be known in the fandom, that Scrimgeour used extra-legal means with Barty Crouch, Sr. at hand to hold down the ministry. I'm not sure that "loyal to the law" Umbridge would have agreed with that.
But she could agree with Fudge. She could be loyal to Fudge. And in fact, she was placed as the Defense Against the Dark Arts intructor at Hogwarts because of her loyalty to Cornelius Fudge. Sure, she had some Slytherin ambition, as I believe Hepizbah, who we know much less about, also probably did, in her dealings with both Caractacus Burke and Tom Riddle, Jr. (the latter of which got her killed). Did Cornelius Fudge really go against the letter of the law and try to be above it? Quite frankly, I don't think he did. That doesn't mean that he's a real idiot and didn't have any ambition himself.
And look closely in Deathly Hallows at Umbridge's role in the Ministry. She was too low on Voldemort's radar, as PotterCast 142 rightly pointed out, to be in direct dealings with Voldemort. After all, how would Voldemort react if he'd met her and seen his Horcrux around the neck? For all the foreshadowings of decapitation in the Harry Potter series up to Book 7, I would not be surprised in hindsight for her to lose her head, walking around with that around her neck. (It also proves Voldemort's trust in his followers - I do imagine that Bellatrix, Lucius and Severus Snape would have seen Umbridge once with that necklace during their relations with the ministry and in the Wizarding World, and none of them apparently did anything about that fact). So what is Umbridge doing in the Ministry in Deathly Hallows besides executing the law in the lower levels? She's making law leaflets and pamphlets. Why did Rowling show us this? Yes, she's loyal to the government now that it's the law that has changed. Remember, she's for theory, not for practicality. We know this from the fifth book.
But these two characters have opposites in the series as well, examples of good Hufflepuffs. Their opposites help to resolve, in a sense, their wicked characters.
Amelia Susan Bones was the Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, and participated in Harry's trial in book five as a member of the Wizengamot. She was killed by Voldemort in the summer prior to the start of Harry's sixth school year. Now, we don't know for certain her Hogwarts House, but I think we're very easily led to believe that she was a Hufflepuff due to her niece, Susan Bones, in Harry's year at Hogwarts, who is a Hufflepuff. She is quintessentially Umbridge's opposite. After all, the word "umbrage," which many agree is the word from which Dolores' name is taken, means shade or shadow. Your bones, on the other hand, are an essential element of your body, your essence and your core, and bone is used to describe a light beige color (this is opposed to shadow as darkness).
Hepzibah Smith finds her opposite in Cedric Diggory. Hepzibah held on to her treasures and acquired them through wicked means. Through them, she exhibited the sin of pride and of greed. Diggory offered the cup to Harry, and offered up what would have been a big win for Hufflepuff House, a treasure all it's own. He gave it all up. In the end, Diggory let go of pride and of greed (for there was a thousand Galleons on the line to the winner of tournament). He was also murdered by Lord Voldemort, just like Amelia Bones.
What do the four characters teach us? That loyalty and determination is a good thing, but it can serve evil purposes as well. But by acting like Bones and Diggory, both remembered as symbols of Hufflepuff qualities, the world can be a better place.
extra: Umbridge looks like a toad. Neville, the Gryffindor-Hufflepuff, has a pet toad. Something to think about.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
The Two Wicked Hufflepuffs - or So I Believe...
I will soon be posting a new essay, inspired in part by previous held beliefs about a certain character introduced in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and another certain (major) character introduced in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. The other part of inspiration for this upcoming essay is from listening to The Leaky Cauldron's archived PotterCast episode #142. Can you guess the two characters I am writing about?
Dun Dun DUN!!!
Hepzibah Smith
and
Dolores Umbridge.
Dun Dun DUN!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
