J.K. Rowling‘s newest work, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, is in cinemas now. This marks the first time that the famed author has written a screenplay and… it kinda shows.
Curious Adaptations and Where to Find Them
Harry Realities: Voldemort is a Dweeb
Lord Voldemort: the Dark Lord, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, You-Know-Who… That Guy. Everyone knows the story of Harry Potter (available in seven books or eight movies). Lord Voldemort is the evil villain and main antagonist of the books. He is a murderer, his most prominent victims being Harry’s parents. Many people have drawn comparisons between Voldemort and the likes of Hitler and Satan. At first glance it makes sense, I mean he did bring the wizarding world to its knees before being defeated by a conveniently resurrected teenage Messiah. Hold on one moment… teenage? Yes, J.K. Rowling may want Voldemort to come off as threatening but really – who is she kidding? Let’s take a good look at “the Dark Lord” of the Harry Potter universe as he is presented.
The Dark Mark
Here is the definition on the Harry Potter Wiki (of course there’s one): “The Dark Mark is the symbol of Lord Voldemort and his Death Eaters. It refers both to a magically induced brand that every Death Eater bears on his or her inner left forearm, and to the same symbol conjured in the air by the spell Morsmordre.”
Sounds pretty cool, like an evil-summoning rally cry. How does it actually look?
Oh wow… a snake and a skull. That’s really bad-ass. Not the type of thing that would be included in EVERY SINGLE WASHABLE TATTOO SET FOR KIDS EVER.
This does not look like an evil logo. This is trying too hard. It is the type of thing that someone named Devlin would get when he is sixteen to “express his dark and tortured soul.” Evil does need to try and be evil. It can look as simple as this:
Moving on.
The Death Eaters
Every villain needs followers and Voldemort is no exception. As a man obsessed with power and blood supremacy, it only makes sense that he would call his followers “death eaters”… except that it doesn’t. Where did that name come from? Were “Doom Bringers” and “Pain Makers” taken? Do they feed off the death they create – are they cannibals? I’m going to guess it just sounded better than “Evil Evildoers.”
At least they look cool right?
The Name “Voldemort”
God, how smug is the Tom Riddle when he explains this to Harry:
Ladies and gentlemen: Lord Voldemort has some daddy issues. Seriously, first the tattoo and now a new name? How much of this is screaming “you’re not the boss of me!” to anyone who will listen.
Tom Riddle Sr: “Tom, pick up your clothes. Did you clean your room like I told you?”
Tom Riddle Jr: “My name is Voldemort, dad! Voldemort! I am a great wizard!”
Tom Riddle Sr: “Sounds like one ‘great wizard’ isn’t getting any pizza this evening.”
Tom Riddle Jr.: “I hate you so much!”
Seriously, it would be like if Adolf Hitler renamed himself Nazi Maximus.
The Snake Thing
Every edgy teenager who wants to be taken seriously needs an edgy pet. Dogs and cats: only conformists have the loyalty of those creatures. Voldemort got into snakes in a big way. He has a pet snake (not an innuendo), he can speak to snakes, he even received body modification to make himself look more like a snake. Voldemort’s kind of a big deal in the snake world.
I get it, snakes are a symbol of evil in the Old Testament. J.K. Rowling was going biblical in her villains. It is just a little silly in this day and age. You know what else was evil in the Old Testament: women. Seriously, they were the source of a lot more problems than the snake. They were even closely involved in the whole snake debacle in the garden. So if Voldemort really wanted to be Old Testament evil, he should have lost his “snake” and gone for an operation.
He is Evil to Everyone
Yeah… people like that never gain a lot of power. In a world where people can be killed with a wand and a couple words (or a gun), fear is not enough to attain sublime power. Even if readers believe that Voldemort is the most powerful wizard who ever lived (and the next point speaks against that), he is still not immortal. Sure, he has the horcruxes so he will come back to life… eventually, but still – Voldemort is just one man. Every dictator in history has possessed the ability to manipulate. Voldemort is just too busy trying to be cool – I mean evil.
Harry Potter
Last but not least, a villain can be defined by the protagonist he is opposing. Voldemort, supposedly the greatest wizard who ever lived, has a teenager for an arch-enemy. Sure, Harry is supposed to be gifted… but seriously. There is still a gap between strong student and greatest ever. It would be like if Stephen Hawking battled a college student with a strong G.P.A. Harry is not even the most intelligent person among his friends and yet: he is still able to outwit the Dark Lord on a regular basis.
Yeah, Voldemort is really terrifying. Remember that time he lost to an eleven year old?
Bottom line: J.K. Rowling tried too hard. Voldemort is a cartoon bad guy, complete with evil laugh and sidekick. It is simply not possible to take him seriously. Yes, he is a murderer, yes he hurts people… but seriously – he is kind of a dweeb. Maybe Voldemort will amount to something when he finally grows
On a more serious note, I uncovered an excerpt from an interview with J.K. Rowling that I would like to share:
“Ravleen: How much does the fact that voldemort was conceived under a love potion have to do with his nonability to understand love is it more symbolic
J.K. Rowling: It was a symbolic way of showing that he came from a loveless union – but of course, everything would have changed if Merope had survived and raised him herself and loved him. The enchantment under which Tom Riddle fathered Voldemort is important because it shows coercion, and there can’t be many more prejudicial ways to enter the world than as the result of such a union.”
Yes, it seems like sex matters to J.K. Rowling, and bad people only come from loveless unions… or single parents. I may be reading too much into this but I stand by that: every time J.K. Rowling opens her mouth, the magic of Harry Potter dies that much more.
Leave Harry Potter Alone, J. K. Rowling!
In 2007, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was released. The seventh book in the series concluded the adventures of Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, and Hermione Granger. The three finished Hogwarts, defeated Lord Voldemort and went on to live happily ever after. In short: series done. With this finale came the expected sadness. The adventures were over and, short of fanfiction, there would be no future installments to talk about with friends. What a horrible existence. Thank god for J.K. Rowling.
Less than four months after she finished with Harry Potter, J.K. Rowling came out to announce the important facts not already covered by her book series. Burning questions were answered and finally everyone knew: Dumbledore was gay. Obviously questions were asked after this revelation by a thankful reading public. Gratitude-filled inquiries like: “What does this have to do with the series?” and “Why did she say that?” and “Who really cares?”. Yes, everyone was happy. J.K. Rowling especially. For an arbitrary declaration, she got to see her name once more decorate the headlines. It was like casting a magic spell.
Evidently J.K. Rowling enjoyed the response to her post-series declarations so much that she decided to do it again. Very recently, the author has come out with new information: Hermione should have ended up with Harry Potter. It’s funny how well those old questions reapply themselves here.
Rowling isn’t the first author to be unable to let go of her beloved creation. Look no further than J.R.R. Tolkien to see an author who became consumed with his created universe. The difference here is: Tolkien kept writing books to expound upon the history of Middle-Earth. What a sucker. J.K. Rowling hasn’t made a significant contribution to Harry Potter in years and her name still keeps making headlines.
True, Rowling could write another book. One shaped by her personal growth and more reflective upon the universe, but that would be too drastic. A book like that would completely change the tone of the series and might, in all likelihood, discard or contradict everything said in previous installments. I mean, no other book in history has done that, at least no other really famous book in history… like really really famous:
Okay but when is lightning going to strike twice?
I know I’ve been really tongue-and-cheek, but a serious comparison does exist here for Rowling. George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars, angered his fans for years with constant and continued changes to his creations. Lucas’ defense was simple: he made it, he decides what’s best. But is that true with major works? There is a real argument to be made that creations such as Harry Potter and Star Wars have become bigger than their creators. They have entered the public space and thus: belong to the public.
That same public does not want the change. If J.K. Rowling has new insights to say on Harry Potter then new books should be written. Sequels, prequels (look how well those worked out for George Lucas), just something new. At the moment: no such plan exists. There was a joke released last year that claimed Rowling was working on new installments, but it was just that.
Who knows what the future will bring for Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling. Maybe next year she’ll announce that she regrets writing the fifth book, or that Harry should have ended up with Ron or that she never should have written that unbelievably sappy epilogue to end her series. The good news for the fans is this: Harry Potter won’t change. There is an advantage to books over movies: it’s that much harder to make Special Editions.
Colin McMahon 