Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire Good vs. Evil

A lot of the Harry Potter series emphasizes the way that evil creeps into the everyday. Sure, there's the big evil that is Voldemort, but there's also the regular cruelty of bullying and gossip, which can still destroy people's lives even if they don't seem as significant. This little passage about the murder of the Riddles highlights exactly how small-scale prejudices can contribute to larger badness. The villagers don't waste "their breath pretending to feel very sad about the Riddles" – who have just been murdered, for crying out loud. Even if the Riddles weren't popular, the fact that the villagers immediately use their murder to cast out town oddball Frank Bryce is tasteless at best and downright immoral at worst. What's more, the town's willingness not to care about the Riddles' real murderer leaves a terrible act unresolved – with awful consequences for our own Harry Potter and many others.

It's striking how often cruelty is tied to cowardliness: these wizards can laugh and jeer as they expose poor Mrs. Roberts the Muggle in her underwear. But they're all safely behind masks while they do so. How exactly does it show wizarding pride to harass Muggles in the dark, without showing their faces?

We love Moody's message here – it's "stinking, cowardly" and "scummy" to attack when your opponent's back is turned. But what do you think of his method of teaching Malfoy a lesson? What might Moody's goal be here, in punishing Malfoy so violently and humiliatingly? How does your impression of what Moody is trying to achieve in this scene change once you've reached the end of the novel and figured out who he really is and what he's up to?

Good and evil isn't just a topic within the Harry Potter books; it's also been a problem about the Harry Potter books. A range of religious organizations have denounced the series as subtly celebrating a pagan lifestyle. It's not only that these novels describe witches and wizards (loaded terms for Christian groups). It's also that the everyday details of the novel don't represent a Christian religious tradition. Even Professor McGonagall's offhand mention of a "Yule" Ball – Yule, of course, being a pre-Christian Germanic mid-winter celebration – might be tricky for some groups. But we do think that the novel tackles moral issues that any religious practitioner would find valuable: Harry learns to identify and fight evil, after all. What do you think about the moral universe of Harry Potter? How might these books be helpful – or hurtful – for teaching strong ethical values?

We might think Hagrid is like a perfect experiment in nature vs. nurture. He knows that it wasn't in his mother's nature to be "the maternal sort" – to be gentle or kind (since that's not what giants are, after all). But Hagrid is both of those things, because he was raised by a decent wizard. Even though having giant blood appears to be a very serious thing in the wizarding world, Hagrid seems as good-natured and decent as any other character in the novels, thanks to his upbringing. At the same time, Harry is brave and loyal, and he was raised by abusive cowards. And Sirius Black is noble and honest, and he was raised by Dark wizards. Hm. So, there doesn't seem to be an easy formula for who's going to turn out good or evil in these books – just like in real life.

Harry's intensity about making sure that everyone is all right demonstrates a key fact about his personality. He's ambitious and he wants to win, but winning will always take a back seat to doing the right thing. We can't help but wonder if Harry's example in this scene inspired Cedric to try and share the cup with Harry at the end of the novel – with tragic results. While it may appear trite, it seems like one message of the Harry Potter novels is that life isn't fair. Bad things happen to people who try to do the right thing. Yet, even if doing good sometimes comes with a price, that doesn't mean the price isn't worth paying. Under what circumstances do you think it's necessary to stick by your ethical code, no matter what the cost? And when is it OK to compromise a little?

Mr. Crouch's struggle out in the forest strikes us as unbelievably sad. In the moments when he's obeying the Imperius Curse and behaving as though he's at the Ministry, he is clearly reliving good times when his wife and son were both around (and, you know, not Death Eating). But then, when he shakes free of the curse, he thinks only of warning Dumbledore because it is "[his] son" and "[his] fault." This moment really humanizes Mr. Crouch. We know from Sirius that Mr. Crouch is a proud, unbending, power-hungry wizard. And we have to wonder what role Mr. Crouch's coldness and ambition played in the development of Barty Crouch, Jr. But, at the same time, he's bitterly aware of the mistakes that he has made and he dies trying to correct them. There's some redemption in that.

The thing is, Severus Snape looks the part of a Death Eater. He's pale, snake-like, greasy-haired, and mean. Igor Karkaroff also looks like a Death Eater: he's vain, smarmy, and slimy. But Ludo Bagman doesn't look like a Death Eater. He's young, handsome, affable, and a stellar Quidditch player. So, even though he was "caught passing information to Lord Voldemort's supporters" (30.94), he doesn't seem to serve any jail time at all. What role does appearance play in determining the public's opinion of a person's moral character? Do you think a person is more likely to get away with a crime if he's good-looking? Yikes.

What's the difference between an explanation and an excuse? Voldemort's personal history gives some explanation for why he has become the monster that he is. Still, it's difficult to feel pity for a monster that has destroyed so many families. It's also interesting to think that Voldemort and Harry share so many similarities (e.g., both are orphans, raised in isolation from the wizarding world). Yet Voldemort has become a deranged Muggle-murdering monster while Harry is a decent, generous guy.

So even though Voldemort's past provides context for why he is the way he is, we also know that he wasn't fated to become a monster. Both he and Harry have faced similar obstacles, but Voldemort chose to become a monster. It's not enough to look at Voldemort's past and say, "Ah ha! So that's why he's a mass murderer!" By that logic, Harry should be a mass murderer, too. Obviously, the importance of free will has been one of the themes of the Harry Potter series from the moment Harry chose to be in Gryffindor and not Slytherin in the first book. And Voldemort's background story only affirms Rowling's emphasis on personal choice in the fight between good and evil.

Fudge is putting into practice the old saying that all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. He's so afraid of the "disruption in his comfortable and ordered world" that he refuses to take any of Professor Dumbledore's advice about removing the Dementors from the prisons and sending emissaries to the giants. Not all evil has to take the form of a red-eyed, snake-faced monster, though. By refusing to take a stand against Voldemort, Fudge is basically working for him. We bet he didn't think of it that way.