In the next part of the discussion, Mateusz, Krzysztof, Eliza and Michał talked about several key characters from the universe and believe us, some of them have become the source of a really hot dispute!
Michał: It cannot be denied that one of the most important characters in the series is the director of Hogwarts – Albus Dumbledore. How would you rate him as a mentor to Harry and the human being in general? In my opinion, it is the epitome of a true sage and pure, uncontaminated goodness. Of course, he had a rather confusing and tragic past, but that’s what made him a better person and someone to be considered a role model. By the way, the author made his character much more realistic, more human, which makes it possible to identify with him even more and like him even more.
Eliza: I will not agree that Dumbledore is the epitome of pure, unadulterated goodness. He is undeniably one of the brightest characters in the series, but in the following parts of the series we learn that his original motives for action were dictated by sheer selfishness and a desire to exalt himself above other wizards. His behavior often makes Harry feel insecure and self-doubt. In fact, the Hogwarts Headmaster was “breeding” Harry, denying him all the truth and manipulating him, starting with taking away from him the opportunity to grow up among wizards so that he wouldn’t become vain. Did he have the right to do so?
Many things Harry learns about his mentor after his death. Therefore, I believe that Dumbledore’s intentions towards Harry were not entirely sincere. The image of the director’s character evolves tremendously over the course of the books – as the Boy Who Lived learns more and more about him. We get to know him as an impeccably good person, and then it turns out that he is just like everyone else: driven by whims, making mistakes, disregarding his loved ones. Nevertheless, we forgive him, of course, because after all, everyone has the right to be wrong, and his actions were aimed at fighting evil. He only walked a little over the dead bodies to his goal. This is another lesson from Rowling: not everything is as it seems at first.
Mateusz: For me, Dumbledore is an example of an anti-hero who is guided by his goals instead of the good of others. I agree with Eliza that she has good intentions, but ultimately takes advantage of everyone around her. He breeds Harry, directs his fate from the back seat, so that he defeats Voldemort on his behalf. I wonder if he had any remorse.
Najgorsze jest jednak to, co wyrabiał ze Snapem. Latami zwodził go, zmuszał do działania wbrew sobie i najgorszych czynów, takich jak przeprowadzenie własnego morderstwa/samobójstwa, samolubnie wykorzystując do tego miłość Severusa do Lily Potter i jego chęć ochrony Harry’ego. Sam przy tym unikał konfrontacji z Voldemortem, choć był jedynym czarodziejem, który mógł stanowić dla niego wyzwanie. Podobny wątek obserwujemy też w drugiej części Fantastycznych zwierząt, kiedy przyszły dyrektor Hogwartu wysyła Newta, aby spróbował powstrzymać Grindelwalda.
Krzysztof: Wizerunek Dumbledore’a znacząco zmieniał się z tomu na tom. Kilkukrotnie zresztą zastanawiałem się, ile z tego Rowling planowała dla jego postaci na etapie pisania Kamienia Filozoficznego czy Komnaty Tajemnic, a ile pomysłów i zwrotów zrodziło się w jej głowie dopiero później, w miarę rozwoju fabuły. Przez większość czasu oglądamy go oczami Harry’ego, dla którego na początku jest właśnie nieskazitelnie dobrym mędrcem. To w końcu poczciwy, lekko zwariowany dziadek, który wyrwał chłopca z przykrej pułapki domu Dursleyów. Mamy poczucie, że dyrektor jest niemal nieomylny, wie jeszcze więcej, niż wydaje się na pierwszy rzut oka, a także roztacza wokół siebie aurę niezachwianego bezpieczeństwa –w końcu w pierwszym tomie siły zła czekają z atakiem, aż Albus opuści szkołę.
Później ten wizerunek zaczyna się chwiać. Stary czarodziej nie radzi sobie z bazyliszkiem, okazuje się bezsilny wobec Ministerstwa, które najpierw umieszcza mu w szkole Dementorów, a później znienawidzoną Umbridge, otwarcie występując przeciw niemu. Coraz mniej w nim z ikony, a więcej z człowieka. Kolejne informacje o jego przeszłości i metodach walki z Voldemortem również rzucają na niego coraz więcej cieni. Przestajemy mieć pewność, kim właściwie jest, i czy my – oraz oczywiście Harry – słusznie uczyniliśmy, ufając mu bezgranicznie i wierząc w tę fasadę dobroci i nieomylności. Myślę, że nie da się go jednoznacznie ocenić, a Eliza i Mateusz słusznie zauważyli, że jak na bohatera tak potężnego i obdarzonego przenikliwym umysłem, podejrzanie często unika on bezpośrednich konfrontacji i w ten czy inny sposób wysługuje się swoimi sprzymierzeńcami, nie mówiąc im przy tym całej prawdy. Takichakich zagrywek spodziewalibyśmy się raczej po antagoniście, prawda?
Michał: Doprecyzuję może moją opinię – miałem na myśli, że Dumbledore koniec końców stał się ucieleśnieniem dobra, a nie, że zawsze taki był. Zgodzę się z wami wszystkimi, że popełniał on po drodze wiele błędów (do czego zresztą sam przyznaje się podczas rozmowy z Harrym w tzw. limbo w Insygniach Śmierci), ale według mnie właśnie to czyni go jeszcze bardziej ludzkim, bo jednak omylnym. Być może nie jest postacią kryształową, ale wszystkim jego działaniom przyświeca nadrzędny cel, dzięki któremu przywraca równowagę w świecie czarodziejów.Myślę, że to usprawiedliwia wszelkie jego potknięcia i błędy, jakie popełnia po drodze. No i, jak zwróciła uwagę Eliza, to również jest coś, z czego możemy wyciągnąć wnioski.Choć ja lekko przeformułowałbym jej stwierdzenie na takie, że wielka mądrość zawsze naznaczona jest cierpieniem i błędami popełnionymi w przeszłości.
Eliza: Bardzo ciekawe jest to, co napisał Mateusz o relacji Dumbledore’a ze Snapem. Rzeczywiście, Snape musiał tańczyć, jak mu dyrektor zagrał. Albus wykorzystywał go do realizacji własnych celów na każdym kroku. Być może miało to być dla Snape’a formą odkupienia dawnych grzechów, ale znowu – dlaczego Dumbledore stawia się w roli wyroczni moralności, kiedy sam nie zawsze postępuje moralnie?
From what Michael writes, it follows that the end justifies the means – if it is noble, you can sacrifice a few lives. I do not agree with that. Even in the Order of the Phoenix, no one knew all of Dumbledore’s plan, everyone just trusted him and followed his orders. They knew they were risking their lives, but that doesn’t change the fact that Dumbledore only admitted to himself the right to decide the fate of the wizarding world. This is, in my opinion, highly self-centered. And of course I agree that that makes him more human. Only at the same time takes away from him the image of a good-natured old man.
Well, but I have to admit one thing. I criticize his actions so ruthlessly and I regret many things, but after his death I shed many tears …
Mateusz: Unlike Eliza, I did not shed any tears, because finally his character after the Order of the Phoenix became more episodic than actually influencing the plot. It was more emotional to say goodbye to Sirius, giving up his life in Harry’s defense. For me, Dumbledore, by committing suicide (or euthanasia with the help of Snape) did what he always did, i.e. transferred the problem onto the shoulders of others.
Krzysztof: Yes, here I completely agree with Mateusz. Somehow I didn’t feel sorry for Dumbledore, and the way he left did not solve anything, but only burdened many people with various unpleasantness. Draco and Snape felt guilty, and Harry and the team had to feel the case in the dark – after all, the director did not play open cards with anyone. About the whole school, which for a year fell into the hands of Death Eaters, not to mention. I was also more sorry for Sirius, Remus with Nymphadora, or even Dobby.
Eliza: Oh yes, I felt much more sorry for the heroes you mentioned, and I couldn’t come to terms with the death of Sirius for a long time. And I also think that Dumbledore has not solved anything like this. I shed those tears perhaps more because of Harry, for whom Dumbledore was a kind of guardian and who, in this sense, was again orphaned. In the end, it is as you write: it changed nothing. But it was such a symbolic moment for me as Harry entered adulthood and became independent.
Michael:I do not agree with Matthew’s statement that Dumbledore simply shifted the problem onto the shoulders of others. Don’t forget that the Headmaster of Hogwarts was cursed by touching Marvol Gaunt’s Horcrux Ring, so his death was imminent anyway. On the other hand, by planning his death with Snape, he not only wanted to avoid suffering, but at the same time he wanted to lead – and this is the most crucial thing in the context of their relationship – to the loss of Black Wand’s power, making it no longer a threat and no one (in thus Voldemort himself) could not use it. On a different note, Dumbledore did not foresee that Malfoy would disarm him first, thus formally defeating him and unknowingly becoming the new master of the Scepter of Death. if Dumbledore had kept a cool head at the time of finding the Ring and had not tried to use the then enchanted Resurrection Stone that was part of it, but was he able to foresee everything and not succumb to ordinary human emotions and the desire to see his whole family again? In my opinion, this is one more proof that he is a figure full of humanity, with whom we can identify, but also at times evoking sympathy.
Michał: Whew … I have to admit that Dumbledore’s defense was not easy – you used really solid counter-arguments! But while we’re talking about Albus, we should also touch on someone who is the complete opposite of him. Well, Sami-Wiecie-Who is undoubtedly one of the – paradoxically – the highlights of the series, a character against whom, I think, one can confidently use the statement that he remains to this day one of the most expressive antagonists in the entire pop culture. Well, what kind of antagonist do you think Lord Voldemort is? In the world of Harry Potter himself, did he really deserve to be called the greatest wizard in history? And how does he compare with another legendary wizard, Dumbledore’s former friend, Gellert Grindelwald?
Eliza: Absolutely – it’s very expressive. It’s probably because he’s absolutely bad – we won’t find anything good in his character. This is one of the few characters in Harry Potter that is completely zero. Even the Malfoys will eventually find some scruples; and Voldemort had been cruel since he was a child, and never showed a hint of kindness. It combines the strongest features of typical villains – evil, the desire for power and power, the satisfaction of oppressing the weaker, ignorance of love, great intelligence and charisma. Today, the word “Voldemort” in popular culture has the same meaning as “incarnate devil”! Contrary to appearances, however, he is not the complete opposite of Dumbledore, whose character had many “shades of gray”.
Krzysztof: I agree that Voldemort is actually a completely evil character. However, in my opinion, this is not a plus. One-dimensional heroes are simply not interesting, and Voldemort himself seems a bit detached from the rest of the characters – he is almost an exaggerated, fairy-tale monster, designed to scare naughty children. This creation fits more “mythological” works – such Tolkien’s Sauron works well, because all characters are clearly good or bad there. Here, however, we have many human weaknesses, contradictions and heroes with problems, and at the same time, a cruel, irredeemable magic Hitler is on to all of them somewhere.
Rowling was probably trying to save this situation eventually. She presented us with scenes from the youth of Tom Marvol Riddle, full of sadness, alienation and abandonment, at the same time showing us – perhaps even inborn – the boy’s tendencies to sadism and calculation. She also informed us that the process of creating horcruxes “tears the soul apart” and completely literally dehumanizes their creator, turning him into a monster. So I appreciate this attempt of a kind of damage control , but still I would prefer an antagonist with a slightly more human face (no, this is not a joke about the lack of a nose, shame on you!) And understandable motivations.
Mateusz: Voldemort was a great boogeyman for young readers. He played the role of a scarecrow for children, an urban legend and the main motivator for Potter. However, with subsequent books, we do not see the development of this character, because even the aforementioned Hitler had his own broader plans and ideologies. In this case, we are only watching a powerful “evil”, which ultimately cannot cope even with Harry (let’s face it, a high level of skill was not needed here).
Grindelwald is definitely a more interesting character. Dumbledore once said of him that he did things that Voldemort never dreamed of. I see in him a magic version of Magneto, a hero fighting for equality, and even the superiority of his race / wizards over others. He also had extraordinary charisma, leadership skills and the ability to hit (theoretically) the commoners, and above all, he attracted crowds. He did not do it, as Voldemort did, causing fear, but playing on the needs and weaknesses of others.
Krzysztof: Oh, I called you with a mustache because Rowling was strongly inspired by the rule of this individual, for example when creating the vision of the Death Eater’s state in the last volume. And the foundations of their “ideology” are also similar – we hold everyone from their origins accountable, at the top only pureblood wizards, whoever does not support them ends up in propaganda as a public enemy, etc. a different world order, just a conglomerate of what historically we consider the worst and most criminal.
Michał: You’ve said a lot about Voldemort, but I think I can add something from myself. In general, it is interesting that You-Know-Who, despite being a largely one-dimensional character, is a very broad field for analysis. I found out about it when I wrote the aforementioned Harry motif series – while writing the newest part, I realized that there is actually no motive where I would not mention Harry’s nemesis, and sometimes even more where it would not be a specific point references to my considerations.
Without going into details, let me just say that it turns out that JK Rowling used the figure of Voldemort as a kind of prism through which she shows how to end up understanding certain phenomena in the wrong way. The two most striking examples are love and death. It is significant that Voldemort cannot understand what love is and what value it has, and his whole story shows what can happen to a man who lacks this love in his life. The fear of death and the desire to run away from it (which led to the creation of horcruxes) result in turn from the inability to accept the fact that it is something we should accept, because it is inevitable and sooner or later it will reach us – just as it finally reached us. the Dark Lord himself. Voldemort is therefore not only the embodiment of the worst human qualities, but also a mirror (in this case in the negative sense of the word) reflection of those that should be interpreted as rather positive. In addition, I agree with Krzysiek that he is a direct reference to Hitler – professing purity of race as the supreme value (while being a wizard not necessarily pure-blooded), combined with the lack of love, being hated and inflicting countless harm to others, makes Voldemort really becomes its magic counterpart.
Comparing it with Grindelwald, I would refer, unlike Mateusz, who probably based his observations to a greater extent on the films from the Fantastic Beasts series .(which we will go to later), to books, and one fact in particular. Regardless of what Grindelwald was, what he did not do, and how much harm the wizarding world did not suffer from him, it was able, even after many years in Nurmengard, to repent and regret his actions. This is something that definitely distinguishes him from Voldemort, who, even during the final confrontation with Harry, seemed to be doing nothing about the evil he had done during all these years (being outraged by the main character pointing it out to him). In the end, Voldemort has exceeded the limits of humanity that Grindelwald did not want to exceed, and this is what makes the latter, after all, a better person.
By the way – when talking about characters who balance on the edge of good and evil, one cannot fail to mention the most mysterious and unusual hero of the series – Severus Snape hated by Harry. How would you rate his motivations and actions? Can it be clearly defined as positive or negative? Or is he someone in the middle?
Eliza: A bit in the middle, but I am leaning closer to the negative character nonetheless. His hatred for Harry was completely real. A person so filled with this feeling cannot be entirely positive. Even if it does a lot of good for others. His motives were never entirely clear to me. He acted out of love, with incredible courage, but still under the influence of hatred. This is one of the most complex characters in the series, and it probably shouldn’t be pigeonholed.
Krzysztof: Honestly speaking, I judge him very negatively and in my case the attempt to whiten his image at the end of the series did not work at all. At the beginning, we recognize him as a rude and simply unpleasant type who treats students unfairly – he intimidates some and favors others. In addition, he consistently treats Harry badly, who only blamed him for looking like James. We think he’ll be a villain, but he’s not … luckily, he turns out to be just a shag.
His entire backstory and relationship with Lily also do not clear him of the “accusations” in my eyes. Snape voluntarily surrounded himself at school with dark-star types and experimented with dark magic, and rejected Lily’s friendship when she tried to get him out of this company. In Pensieve we can see that the girl tried to help him later anyway, but he rejected her. However, when she finally became interested in James, Severus could not survive it and hated his rival even more, blaming him for “taking away” the woman he had pushed himself away earlier. So I think our Potions Master had no love for Lily at all, but rather had a toxic, selfish obsession with her. Ultimately, he became more of a stalker than a friend or potential partner.
After school, however, he voluntarily became a Death Eater and revised his views only when his “beloved” became the target of the Dark Lord. If Voldemort had decided to kill Neville and the Longbottom family instead, Snape would probably never have left him. So his change of sides was a coincidence and another manifestation of selfishness, and not a praiseworthy positive internal change.
Mateusz: And I will stand up for Snape! The visitor fell in love with the only girl who saw him differently. They understood each other very well being, due to their origin, a bit to the side. Everything was great, until the handsome Mr. Potter, the typical high school athlete and girl in the form of a “magic tinsel” appeared, flew at him. In flashbacks, we observe his behavior towards Snape, – he almost lowered his head in the toilet (although in the world of magic it is done a bit differently) – and yet the empathetic Lily “followed” Potter. A story like many.
Then Severus goes to the “dark side of the force”, experiences his youthful rebellion and finds himself in a group in which he is distinguished due to his high skills. Nevertheless, it turns out that he is no longer such a Cossack and a “bad guy” when it comes to the life of his beloved. The guy goes to Dumbeledore for help, and Dumbeledore takes advantage of his feelings and manipulates him. Snape feels responsible for Harry to Lily, but he hates the image of James in him. He is a bitter loser in life. It is worth noting that Harry never harassed anyone, unlike his father, which makes sense to me.
As I mentioned earlier, Rowling is referring somewhat to the gospel of Judas, in which the traitorous apostle gave Jesus up so that he could be elevated higher. It’s the same with Snape. He was hated and had to do a “black job” so that Harry Potter could achieve the goal set for him by Dumbledore. Nevertheless, he will eventually be redeemed in the eyes of society by Harry – otherwise his name would be cursed forever.
Krzysztof: Mateusz, this is just a commonly cited vision of the development of this relationship, but probably not in line with the sequence of events. Snape had an urge to black magic from the beginning, and dealt with future Death Eaters much earlier than his friendship with Lily had deteriorated. Well, that was the reason for their “parting” – the girl was unable to accept her fascination with this type of magic and the influence that the Slytherins had on Snape. James, on the other hand, was a buffoon and despised him until the last year, when Lupine said he had matured.
In Pensieve, anyway, we see a point “in between” where Lily is no longer friends with Severus, though she still cares for him, and still doesn’t digest Potter. Besides, reiterating Harry’s conversation with Lupine, that scene was just one of many skirmishes between Snape and Potter, and the whole conflict wasn’t bullying one over the other, but rather spiteful rivalry like Harry and Draco. So, despite Severus’ understandable dislike of James, which unfortunately later passed on to his son, it cannot all be called “persecution”.
Whatever the case, I appreciate the comparison to Judas – it never occurred to me before, and I think there is something to it!
Mateusz: Lupine’s opinion is not a determinant for me here, because he belonged to the same company. Of course, let’s treat my “high school” argument humorously. I try to show the situation on the part of Severus, treated with contempt as Longbottom. I have the impression that Rowling did not have a coherent, complete plan for the whole story, so some threads have holes in them, like Weasleys’ robes passed through. She wanted to create a wonderful, magical version of redemption, which was clearly beyond her, so I understand your ambiguous perception of this character.
Eliza:There are many threads in Snape’s story that explain, in a way, his bitterness and “mean” behavior, it is a fact. From an early age he was tormented at home, experienced violence, then he always remained strange and different, convinced that he was worth little. Many of his dark qualities later emerge from these complexes, such as a fierce hatred of Harry. We can also explain his interest in black magic by the fact that he found something similarly intolerated by others as himself. Suddenly there is a Lily who completely does not see this quirk, who befriends him – despite the fact that everything seems to be not worth the friendship. This relationship gives him a value he did not realize before. He only had her with Lily. That’s why I agree with Krzysiek that what he felt for Lily was not love, but rather gratitude for that she saw him as a valuable man. The classic attitude of an undervalued person manifests itself in his behavior later – not believing in his worth himself, he probably expected that Lily would eventually turn away from him and turn out to be like everyone else. Moreover, he pushed her to do it, knowing that she did not tolerate witchcraft and still dabbled in it. And here you have, not only did she leave him, one scum, but she also went with some self-righteous guy who was abusing him. Typical! that she does not tolerate witchcraft and still dabbles in it. And here you have, not only did she leave him, one scum, but she also went with some self-righteous guy who was abusing him. Typical! that she does not tolerate witchcraft and still dabbles in it. And here you have, not only did she leave him, one scum, but she also went with some self-righteous guy who was abusing him. Typical!
Except that Lily’s attitude is much more complex and deeply Snape knew about it, because he had finally departed from the Dark Lord for her. I wouldn’t even humorously flatten her character to the level of a “magic blachara”, c’mon! She accepted Severus as he was, consciously seeing that black magic was drawing him to the dark side of his character. And, as Krzysiek noticed, she was not at all sympathetic to James until he stopped making a fool of himself.
And here is a great comparison between Snape and Neville Longbottom: both ridiculed, both “inferior” among their colleagues and underrated in their family homes. What happened to each of them afterwards is for me the ultimate confirmation that Snape was not a positive character. Well, Neville, when a hand was reached out to him, accepted himself, his shortcomings, focused on his strengths and did not take revenge on everyone else for his own wrongs. Snape, despite the fact that in his life he had met people who were kind and willing to help him (Lily, Dumbledore), he turned towards the darkness anyway. Theoretically, he finally switched to the “light side of the force,” but these were rather attempts to redeem his past sins, not the result of goodness of heart.
Michał: Let me put it this way – for me, Snape is the greatest mindfuck of the whole Harry universe. His ambiguous motivations, keeping the reader in doubt as to what page he really took, and finally the surprising ending of his story in the form of memories in the Pensieve make him an incredibly complex character that is difficult to feel only like or hate at. However, I do not agree with Mateusz and Krzysiek that his story is full of holes. On the contrary – I think his character is just as ambiguous as it is very well thought out. After all, it is all about love, and when that feeling is involved, you are always torn by extreme emotions. One might think that Snape was selfish, acting only in the name of that love, but only up to a point – for it should be noted that after Dumbledore’s death he was already working to restore peace in the wizarding world, being faithful to the deceased director. Anyway, Harry himself in the epilogueThe Deathly Hallows notes that Snape has shown incredible courage, plotting right under Voldemort’s very nose (that’s a metaphor of course!), Which proves that even in the eyes of the main character he was redeemed. Therefore, although I do not feel unequivocally positive about Snape, as in the case of Dumbledore, I will also stand up for him, believing that although he has made many mistakes in the past (including joining the Dark Lord in the service), however, he eventually realized them and did everything to atone for them – first for purely selfish reasons, and then for a higher purpose.
Krzysztof: Oh, you touched on so many things at once that I don’t know where to start! I think it would be best with Lily… Yes, Lupine was probably not quite objective, but he was clearly embarrassed in his conversation with Harry and admitted that James and Sirius were often acting out of order and even then he felt silly for not reacting to it. Since he could confess this to Harry, he probably had no reason to further lie. I don’t think that Snape’s story seems too full of holes, but Rowling did try to patch it up afterwards – I don’t remember where I found it anymore, but I once read an English text by her, describing the moment when Severus, Sirius and James met for the next time first on the Hogwarts train. And she did draw mutual aversion and malice there, and not typical bullying.
Like Eliza, I obviously understand most of Snape’s motivations, and what he has become as he was. I don’t see him as a “monster” like Voldemort. It’s just that we have to deal with our demons in such a way as not to hurt others, and this clearly failed, so somehow I can’t like him and believe in his selfless conversion. And here, indeed, the juxtaposition with Neville shows the gist of the matter – Longbottom also had a hard time, indeed, he was probably worse, because he was not considered a shammy weirdo, but a complete, useless hack that can be pushed around. Neville, however, patiently endured these adversities, and by dealing with them, he grew tighter, gained confidence in himself, and eventually became one of the leaders of the school’s “resistance”.
And speaking of the work of “converted” Snape for Dumbledore, I am tempted to make a comparison, only from outside the universe – this situation reminds me a bit of Darth Vader. The latter, too, at a critical moment changed sides in the name of love, and then ended up in solitude, as the right hand of man to whom he had joined by necessity. I think, like the erstwhile Anakin Skywalker, Snape was already broken at this point and burdened with the knowledge that there was no way to return to his former life and former allies, so he did not care if Dumbledore was using him, and the case was right. He did what he was supposed to do, because he had nothing else to do. Besides, we don’t know how much of his fight with Voldemort in the last volumes was due to his will to save the world,
Mateusz: Note, our discussion shows that Snape is a combination of Judas (the theme of sacrifice) and Anakin Skywalker (transformation as a result of love) – it seems illogical. This was not what I expected, but I would also see him as a lone gunslinger bringing justice to Voldemort for Lily’s death. Nevertheless, each of our opinions is supported by strong arguments, showing the complexity and multidimensionality of this character in an interesting way.
Michał: And this is probably the best summary of the whole Snape theme, Mateusz! And since we have already exhausted its topic, I would like to ask you about one more hero, who was definitely not spared by fate (although, unlike all the characters discussed so far, he survived the Second Wizarding War). What do you think Hagrid’s fate would have been if he had not been framed by Tom Riddle and completed his education at Hogwarts? Was it even right to throw him out of school?
Mateusz: On this matter we will probably agree that Hagrid did it for good. Let’s face it, he had no potential for an Auror, much less a teacher at Hogwarts (we could find out later). He would have ended up as a drunk in an inn, and so Dumbledore found him a job for which he was (relatively) fit. I would also agree with the theory that he deserved to be thrown out because he was irresponsibly and illegally detaining a dangerous animal. I guess that’s what he left school for? Nobody, as far as I remember, ultimately judged him for Martha’s death.
Krzysztof: Just when it comes to Hagrid, I’m not really able to come up with any spectacular and unexpected career path for him. We know very well that he has a hand for animals and, in fact, he cares about them the most in life, so even if he graduated and everything went according to his plan, he would most likely become a teacher of the Care of Magical Creatures. Or possibly some other creature and monster explorer like Charlie Weasley.
However, about throwing him out, I have mixed feelings. Keeping a huge spider in school is clearly not a good idea, and Hagrid has proven many times that he is not very capable of realistically assessing the murderous tendencies and destructive potential of his students. Technically, Riddle was under a duty to report him, and the punishment was due to him. But would Rubeus have been punished so severely – expulsion from school and the destruction of the wand, and therefore exclusion from the wizarding community – if it were not for the insidious and untrue connection of Aragog with the murders and the Chamber of Secrets? Probably not. So, in my opinion, the punishment was neither fair nor fair – had it not been for Riddle’s tricks, the matter would have certainly been solved better.
Eliza: Hagrid was kicked out of school in the third grade, so I wouldn’t be too quick to prejudge that he wouldn’t be an Auror. Many of his magical abilities may not be revealed yet. Neville, for example, also initially seemed to be useless, but later discovered an extraordinary talent for herbalism. I agree with you, Mateusz, that if Dumbledore had not got him a job at Hogwarts after he was removed from school, he would have probably ended up miserably without education and prospects. But only in the version of events presented in the books. If he had graduated, passed the exams, etc., he might have had a lot to do. Most likely, because of his love of dangerous creatures, he would have taken this type of job. Could be of use to the Ministry to tame dangerous creatures, and maybe even to tame them for defensive purposes against Voldemort and the Death Eaters. After all, probably no one in the entire series has had such an approach to animals as Hagrid – not even Charlie Weasley. Anyway, the relationship was mutual – these creatures also respected Hagrid. This is a unique skill that could be a powerful weapon in the wizarding world.
Hagrid of Hogwarts was kicked out for opening the Chamber of Secrets. His monster, Aragog, was accused of killing Martha. Riddle saw him as a sacrifice to blame for what he had done. Because he was breeding a giant spider in the castle, Hagrid was to blame for himself. Although he did nothing that he was accused of and for which he was eventually fired, he posed a threat to others and that was what Tom used. But, if this was the first such incident, he could be punished otherwise, rather than taking his only opportunity to develop. If his offense were merely to breed a monstrous creature, it might serve as a warning to him that he must protect others from the dangers of magical animals, even if Hagrid himself believes they are not dangerous. In fact, he couldn’t properly judge it. He had no chance to learn it, because he was kicked out for a monster who hadn’t done anything to anyone – unfairly. That might have convinced him that the creatures weren’t really that bad. That’s why I believe he was thrown out wrongly. Unfortunately, he never regained his lost years. After all, he was fine on the Hogwarts grounds, but I think he had a lot more potential that he didn’t have a chance to reveal.
Michael:I have always considered Hagrid to be the most disadvantaged character in the entire series. Wrongly accused (along with Aragog) of a murder he did not commit, he was expelled from Hogwarts, which certainly changed his life forever. And although on the one hand I am not sure if, had it not been for Tom Riddle’s trick, Hagrid would have shone in the wizarding world (after all, let’s be honest, he was quite a simple person, although of course he cannot be denied kindness), on the other I think, that he could have achieved much more if he had actually completed his education. I am inclined to Eliza’s vision that she would most likely be of use to the Ministry to tame magical creatures, and that would be a concrete achievement and a more meaningful career. But would his and Harry’s paths cross then? I think Riddle’s act could, paradoxically, influence his and Harry’s relationship in a positive way – otherwise, their relationship might have been completely different (if only because they would have met under completely different circumstances), and Hagrid would not have become one of Harry’s closest friends. In the end, our half-giant was at his job well – after all, he did what he loves, and that’s probably the most important thing in life, right?
More discussion to come soon!