HP Characters: Good, bad or just misunderstood?

[Samantuchy]

This recent comment from @RichardSly on our Dumbledore blog post got me thinking. All of us have our favourite characters. And many times there are other fans who dislike or hate them instead. We clearly read something different into the characters and their actions, or find something in them that redeems it all. Or perhaps you just like evil characters, like I maybe perhaps do, a little.
So join the thread, give us your take on any of the characters, maybe you'll even change our minds!

 

[Samantuchy]

So I'll start off with Regulus Black.
When I first read the book I didn't like anything about him. He represented what Sirius grew up with, and what he could've become if not for his friends.
But then we later learn that he eventually saw the error of his way, questioned everything he'd grown up believing, which I think is in fact much more difficult than never buying into it. Admitting your mistakes is hard.
And he took the necessary steps to follow through with his new beliefs. He lost his life trying to destroy Voldemort's Horcrux, trying to bring his former 'Dark Lord' a little closer to true death.

In my opinion, then: Regulus Black. Grey character. Largely misunderstood.

 

[casafei]

Good point of view. Sad death...

 

[RichardSly]

Ok, since I kind of started this off, I’ll go next.
Dumbledore: my views on the character changed as I got older and reread the books.
He pretends to be a kindly old man, and in a way I’m even willing to accept that he likes to believe that’s true. But he was willing to take action with Grindelwald as a young man (sure, he was angry about his sister, but his father’s actions seems more logical) and then throughout his life he carefully groomed his public persona and got himself in a position of power behind the scenes.

Just with what little ww know from the books, he manipulated and put Newt in danger (a naive magizoologist) to try to uncover Grindelwald.
He didn’t do much other than ‘keep an eye’ on Tom Riddle when he believed he was dangerous.
He put harry in an abusive home and even if it was because of Lily’s protection he did nothing to save him that pain growing up. This made harry ever so thankful when Hogwarts came to the rescue, and in a position to be easily manipulated.
I won’t even get into how he manipulated Snape into being a spy instead of turning him in when Death Eaters were being sent to Azkaban. He only did it to have someone he could control and who owed him everything.

So all in all, twinkly eyed Dumbledore: Definitely misunderstood, at least 70% bad.
Hope my diatribe made sense ?

 

[casafei]

I never though on Dumbledore this way...

 

[Charlie’s Boy]

Ok, since I kind of started this off, I’ll go next.
Dumbledore: my views on the character changed as I got older and reread the books.
He pretends to be a kindly old man, and in a way I’m even willing to accept that he likes to believe that’s true. But he was willing to take action with Grindelwald as a young man (sure, he was angry about his sister, but his father’s actions seems more logical) and then throughout his life he carefully groomed his public persona and got himself in a position of power behind the scenes.

Just with what little ww know from the books, he manipulated and put Newt in danger (a naive magizoologist) to try to uncover Grindelwald.
He didn’t do much other than ‘keep an eye’ on Tom Riddle when he believed he was dangerous.
He put harry in an abusive home and even if it was because of Lily’s protection he did nothing to save him that pain growing up. This made harry ever so thankful when Hogwarts came to the rescue, and in a position to be easily manipulated.
I won’t even get into how he manipulated Snape into being a spy instead of turning him in when Death Eaters were being sent to Azkaban. He only did it to have someone he could control and who owed him everything.

So all in all, twinkly eyed Dumbledore: Definitely misunderstood, at least 70% bad.
Hope my diatribe made sense ?

Wow, okay, you make some good points for sure, but I think that point of view takes his actions and intentions a little far. Here are my thoughts:
I think Dumbledore saw a reflection of himself in Grindelwald and that terrified him. He definitely craved power, he said so himself. So perhaps in cases like Newt’s it was more about self-protection out of fear than manipulation.
With Harry I do agree he could’ve easily made his life better and kept Lily’s protection, no defense there.
I think he feared Harry would become like Voldemort, or was scared of what his own influence would do, and tried to nudge him a certain way but also let him find his path.
So my take: not as good as he appears, not that bad either. But then again I’m a Hufflepuff, I try to find the good in everyone ?‍

 

[RichardSly]

Thanks for the reply, cool to see other POVs shared in such a thoughtful and friendly way! You’re good for a Hufflepuff

 

[WotcherTonks]

What do you think of Arthur Weasley? I always felt the books portrayed him as a nice, friendly but ultimately naive wizard, but he fathered the Weasley 7, including thr twins.

I think Ginny got her personality mainly from Molly, she seems quiet but extremely selfconfident when necessary, but tricksters like Fred and George I think tell us a lot about Arthur’s personality.

We see very little of him in the books, but he must’ve been a real spitfire. Just thinking of what he did with the Ford Anglia while his job was tracking down people who misused Muggle artifacts...

I think Arthur is probably as unique and fun as his kids, even with a little bit of Percy mixed in that calmed him down during serious matters.

So arthur Weasley, definitely good but also misunderstood!

 

[RichardSly]

I, too, think Arthur Weasley might just be an undercover bad*ss