Harry Potter: the good, the bad, and the ugly

[Coriolis]

I think that Umbridge and Voldemort were written to be pretty much two sides of the same coin. Umbridge was a version of the solid and lone tyrannical leader that Harry was to face later on in the series-the practice dummy. What she did seemed more emotionally based, primarily partially because it was- She was an Fe dom compared to Voldemorts...well I don't particularly know how to type Voldemort because you never get a real look at him, but since he is a villain and as you know all villains are INTJ... Well I'll just say that.

But anyways, their goals are fairly similar- or at least they end up being so-Get Harry Get Harry Get Harry by any means. That becomes the primary focus, the short term goal to use to focus their long term goals-control the system, do something specific to the system, manipulate it to reach their common vision.

Actually, I see their goals as essentially different. Voldemort goes after Harry because, according to the prophecy, only one of them can survive (or at least that's how he interprets it). Umbridge goes after him simply because he doesn't conform to her way of running things. Harry gets in trouble by objecting, by speaking up. If he could hold his tongue and just go through her motions, he might have had an easier time with her.

Umbridge's goals are almost petty compared with Voldemort's, who by the way I have come to see as INFJ. Think of religious zealots like Osama bin Laden or these ISIL/Boko Haram folks.

 

[Frosty]

Actually, I see their goals as essentially different. Voldemort goes after Harry because, according to the prophecy, only one of them can survive (or at least that's how he interprets it). Umbridge goes after him simply because he doesn't conform to her way of running things. Harry gets in trouble by objecting, by speaking up. If he could hold his tongue and just go through her motions, he might have had an easier time with her.

Umbridge's goals are almost petty compared with Voldemort's, who by the way I have come to see as INFJ. Think of religious zealots like Osama bin Laden or these ISIL/Boko Haram folks.

Well yeah, but I kind of think that in the end their intent, to shape the wizarding world to the way that they want it to be- an idealistic future or an idealistic leaning on the past, sort of blonds both othcthem and forces their primary intent on the tangible representation of what they believe to be standing in the way, the immediate block- Harry.

Neither was willing to give in to any alternative perceptions other than what they had already deemed as 'right', Either/both?, for them and for the wizarding world.

But the consequences for their actions surely would have had different results. While Umbridge may have indirectly lead to deaths due to her stringent upholding of restrictions and mandates while under the rule of a tyrant, it would have been nothing compared the direct affects of Voldemort. She was just an evil of whatever system she was in trying to masquerade as a hero- and under Voldemort... Less than pleasant.

Yeah I could see INFJ, the way that he was able to manipulate former professors, to maneuver words at such a young age(Fe), and his desire for change, innate drive for power, I would guess as pointing towards Ni. And Fe can bend unrecognizably. I would guess that he could be based on quite a few... Skewed leaders of history. I always saw him woth a sort of idealistic side. But this might be playing off stereotypes.

 

[Codex]

Why did people like Luna so much? I never understood it. I always found her dull and predictable... A little too pixie dream girl imo.

 

[senza tema]

Why did people like Luna so much? I never understood it. I always found her dull and predictable... A little too pixie dream girl imo.

Same, even though I get compared to her sometimes. There are some things I liked about her but on the whole ...

 

[Blank]

Some people like pixie girls with their heads in the clouds...they're "dreamy." Eheheh.

Neither, Umbridge. Umbridge is objectively the worst person in the entire series.

This fascinates me to no end, I think it's a compelling argument one can make that Umbridge (might not be objectively worst; after all, Voldemort literally committed genocide) is more hated than Voldemort. As a matter of fact, I was discussing this with a number of my colleagues, and it's pretty much unanimous that people would prefer to kill Umbridge over Voldemort. I mean, I get it, but also think it's totally off base that people would rather let Hitlermort live...considering he's the closest to "pure evil" the series has.

Is Voldemort's brand of evil less malicious because it's overtly evil? There's no surprises here, he's just going to slaughter by the thousands if he's free, but that Umbridge is an incompetent buffoon that represents the literal worst in a bureaucracy, so kill her?


Just spitballing here, but maybe it has to do with people holding their ideals more dearly than theirselves. Voldemort doesn't do this. He causes people to cling to their ideals more tightly. Umbridge tears them away. Could this be why she's regarded as the worst? <--This isn't rhetorical, I'd really like others' input.

 

[Frosty]

As was Sirius.

I really like Sirius but objectively, he was pretty awful. I just harbor affection for a particular variety of manchild.

Actually, I almost think that if one were to like and be able to justify Snapes actions and attitude, than they would almost have to be more understanding towards Sirius. I see both characters as being almost shadows for each other. Both of them came from what is likely to be abusive backgrounds rampant in disapproval, when they had to distinguish and separate from their situations, they both latched onto something from with they leeched support and identity. Eventually, something tragic happens and what they had placed themselves so strongly in- what they attached themselves to, disappears. So both of them, in an effort to sort of retain the essence of what was, really clamp down on whatever they can pull that is left. They recreate and blame the victims of their childhood in order to externalize their their hurt. And another parallel, they had both gone through some sort of additional destablizing extreme situation.
Both characters were stunted, and they were both too unhealthy to focus on finding a real way to move foreward.

James Potter is a different story.

 

[Totenkindly]

Dumbledore wasn't really a hero in 'Harry Potter.' In fact, his selfishness just made Harry's life harder.

The Hogwarts headmaster was a selfish person who put too much pressure on teenage Harry while leaving him in the dark and leading him to danger.

www.yahoo.com

I never actually read the entire series but I've seen the films (some of them a number of times) and this was fairly clear even in the cinematic exposition. The films do try to cushion it, and Michael Gambon (who replaced Harris in the third film onwards after the latter's death) comes across as kindly much of the time, but the end matter is that so many secrets are kept that it's clear Dumbledore is orchestrating many of the things that are happening and viewing people as objects on a game board ultimately. (At least in the films, Dumbledore also treats himself similarly when he is faced with catastrophe, and engineers things to take advantage of the bad things that happen to himself as well.)

It even sometimes places Snape (whose faults are openly obvious) in a position to raise legitimately moral objections to Dumbledore's behavior.

Ultimately Dumbledore seems to be doing these things for the right reasons but sometimes they might still be the wrong things.