Granted, but it’s possible to be unpleasant without being evil. In fact, that was my original point—you said “we never need to think about who’s evil”, and then went through my list and sorted 2⁄5 into the wrong box. Yes, Percy’s a jerk and Slughorn’s a single-minded social climber, but neither of them actually means ill any more than Hagrid does. That doesn’t make them evil.
In fact, that was my original point—you said “we never need to think about who’s evil”, and then went through my list and sorted 2⁄5 into the wrong box.
Wrong box? I think you might be giving your interpretation a bit too much credit, especially with Lockhart.
Yes, Percy’s a jerk and Slughorn’s a single-minded social climber, but neither of them actually means ill any more than Hagrid does. That doesn’t make them evil.
‘Evil’ isn’t a synonym of ‘malicious’.
Indifference combined with the aggressive seeking of a particular incompatible goal can well and truly result in fitting the description of ‘evil’ so long as the judged remains sufficiently socially near that making a moral judgement makes sense. “Actually meaning ill” is not required.
Maybe “evil” is a word with too many connotations. Let’s try “bad”. If a character is “bad” in the Potterverse, then they will be the same level of “bad” 100% of the time, whether that level is “being obnoxious and sucking up to authority” or “casual murder of anyone who gets in the way”. They will never display moral complexity unless their name is Severus or Draco.
I’m reminded of the attribution fallacy. The protagonists act well or badly in response to the circumstances they’re in. The antagonists have “badness” of one sort or another as an integral feature of their character, and all their actions reflect it.
Granted, but it’s possible to be unpleasant without being evil. In fact, that was my original point—you said “we never need to think about who’s evil”, and then went through my list and sorted 2⁄5 into the wrong box. Yes, Percy’s a jerk and Slughorn’s a single-minded social climber, but neither of them actually means ill any more than Hagrid does. That doesn’t make them evil.
Wrong box? I think you might be giving your interpretation a bit too much credit, especially with Lockhart.
‘Evil’ isn’t a synonym of ‘malicious’.
Indifference combined with the aggressive seeking of a particular incompatible goal can well and truly result in fitting the description of ‘evil’ so long as the judged remains sufficiently socially near that making a moral judgement makes sense. “Actually meaning ill” is not required.
Maybe “evil” is a word with too many connotations. Let’s try “bad”. If a character is “bad” in the Potterverse, then they will be the same level of “bad” 100% of the time, whether that level is “being obnoxious and sucking up to authority” or “casual murder of anyone who gets in the way”. They will never display moral complexity unless their name is Severus or Draco.
I’m reminded of the attribution fallacy. The protagonists act well or badly in response to the circumstances they’re in. The antagonists have “badness” of one sort or another as an integral feature of their character, and all their actions reflect it.