Chamber of Secrets

Chamber of Secrets (http://www.cosforums.com/index.php)
-   Legilimency Studies (http://www.cosforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163)
-   -   Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=107884)

hermy_weasley2 July 13th, 2007 12:21 am

Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis
 
Welcome to the post-DH discussion of Umbridge. Previous discussion without spoilers can be found here: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis


1) Jo herself describes Umbridge as evil. How does Dolores rate against the series villain, Lord Voldemort? When Harry was told the world wasn't divided between good people and Death Eaters, did that rule her out as a DE? Do you think her actions support Voldemort even if she isn't a DE?

2) Umbridge did her share of driving the plot in OotP, the trio would never have formed Dumbledore's Army without her influence, for instance. Did her tenure at Hogwarts--as DADA professor, High Inquisitor and Headmistress--produce other effects favorable to Harry and company? How do you feel about the handling of her "duties"?

3) How is it that Dolores is still employed at the Ministry? Is she still 'loyal' to Fudge or has her loyalty shifted to Minister Scrimgeour? Is she Scrimgeour's Senior Undersecretary or does she now have another title/job?

4) How did Umbridge come across the horcrux locket? How come it didn't have the same impact on her when she was wearing it as it did on the trio? Did she realise what the locket really was?

vickilind July 24th, 2007 9:07 am

Re: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis
 
What character? ha ha She didn't have any!

1) Jo herself describes Umbridge as evil. How does Dolores rate against the series villain, Lord Voldemort? When Harry was told the world wasn't divided between good people and Death Eaters, did that rule her out as a DE? Do you think her actions support Voldemort even if she isn't a DE?
I think she ranks right up there with LV; both evil, just different shades of it. She would never have been an "official" DE; too much baggage to go along with that, but she was, in essence, a DE. Her actions supported LV; just look back at Order; I think LV would have been proud to call her one of his.


2) Umbridge did her share of driving the plot in OotP, the trio would never have formed Dumbledore's Army without her influence, for instance. Did her tenure at Hogwarts--as DADA professor, High Inquisitor and Headmistress--produce other effects favorable to Harry and company? How do you feel about the handling of her "duties"?
By her actions, she spurred the kids into action. That happens in real life. You try to get people to do this (conform) and they do that (rebel) and she was so myopic, she didn't even see it coming.

3) How is it that Dolores is still employed at the Ministry? Is she still 'loyal' to Fudge or has her loyalty shifted to Minister Scrimgeour? Is she Scrimgeour's Senior Undersecretary or does she now have another title/job?
She is still employed because her loyalties were with the ministry, albeit, I think there might have been a bit of a crush on Fudge(YUCK!). She transferred to Scrimgeour because she was good at what she did. Then she transferred to Thicknesse, because not only was she good at what she did, she took delight in it.


4) How did Umbridge come across the horcrux locket? How come it didn't have the same impact on her when she was wearing it as it did on the trio? Did she realise what the locket really was?
How could it's evil really impact her when she was already evil.
She had no idea what the locket really was.

Max_Peterson July 24th, 2007 9:12 am

Re: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hermy_weasley2 (Post 4629913)
Welcome to the post-DH discussion of Umbridge. Previous discussion without spoilers can be found here: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis


1) Jo herself describes Umbridge as evil. How does Dolores rate against the series villain, Lord Voldemort? When Harry was told the world wasn't divided between good people and Death Eaters, did that rule her out as a DE? Do you think her actions support Voldemort even if she isn't a DE?

2) Umbridge did her share of driving the plot in OotP, the trio would never have formed Dumbledore's Army without her influence, for instance. Did her tenure at Hogwarts--as DADA professor, High Inquisitor and Headmistress--produce other effects favorable to Harry and company? How do you feel about the handling of her "duties"?

3) How is it that Dolores is still employed at the Ministry? Is she still 'loyal' to Fudge or has her loyalty shifted to Minister Scrimgeour? Is she Scrimgeour's Senior Undersecretary or does she now have another title/job?

4) How did Umbridge come across the horcrux locket? How come it didn't have the same impact on her when she was wearing it as it did on the trio? Did she realise what the locket really was?

I don't think she was actually evil. I think that the horcrux was affecting her, she didn't know it, and that's why she was so mean all the time.

Evin290 July 24th, 2007 9:32 am

Re: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis
 
She's pure evil. At her characterization, I'd say I'd rather have a spot of lunch with Voldemort than with her any day.

ktanne11 July 24th, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis
 
4) How did Umbridge come across the horcrux locket? How come it didn't have the same impact on her when she was wearing it as it did on the trio? Did she realise what the locket really was?

In a way, the locket did affect her in the ways that it affected the trio. In OOTP, she really wasnt evil, she just saw harry as a threat to her boss and hero. We see that Harry has a hatred for her because of her reluctance to accept the truth. When we see her in DH, she acts with much more creulty, and acts in ways that Voldemort would applaud. She is punnishing muggle-borns for having "stolen" magic. If this were her true nature, wouldnt she have had a vendetta against other muggle-borns at the shool when she taught there?...i know that it can be argued that she only reflects the beliefs of her current leader, and therefore acts not on her own principiles, but on those of the current Minister of Magic.

notsure08 July 25th, 2007 1:06 am

Re: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis
 
I doubt she was a death eater but in the dh she went along with LV because she didn't really have a choice.

quiditchwitch July 25th, 2007 1:45 am

Re: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis
 
4) How did Umbridge come across the horcrux locket? How come it didn't have the same impact on her when she was wearing it as it did on the trio? Did she realise what the locket really was?

I think she was blissfully ignorant to what the locket really was - I just think in the scramble to hide the trail of muggle ancestry she scrabbled at the chance to grab hold of a wizarding artefact that could've tied her to a distinct pure-blood family. She likely wouldn't have noticed the effects because she thought it was just a normal locket. The effects she could've likely associated with many other things that were going on in her life at the moment.

However, I would've liked a twist to have been that she herself was a muggle-born or of some muggle descent, but alas we're going to have to wait for the encyclopedia if we'd like to know a bit more about that!

hpfan1000 July 25th, 2007 6:39 pm

Re: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hermy_weasley2 (Post 4629913)

1) Jo herself describes Umbridge as evil. How does Dolores rate against the series villain, Lord Voldemort? When Harry was told the world wasn't divided between good people and Death Eaters, did that rule her out as a DE? Do you think her actions support Voldemort even if she isn't a DE?

2) Umbridge did her share of driving the plot in OotP, the trio would never have formed Dumbledore's Army without her influence, for instance. Did her tenure at Hogwarts--as DADA professor, High Inquisitor and Headmistress--produce other effects favorable to Harry and company? How do you feel about the handling of her "duties"?

3) How is it that Dolores is still employed at the Ministry? Is she still 'loyal' to Fudge or has her loyalty shifted to Minister Scrimgeour? Is she Scrimgeour's Senior Undersecretary or does she now have another title/job?

4) How did Umbridge come across the horcrux locket? How come it didn't have the same impact on her when she was wearing it as it did on the trio? Did she realise what the locket really was?



I don't think she's on the same level as Voldemort, but she comes pretty darn close--so close, in fact, that I'd say she's a DE in everything but action. By condoning the psychological abuse of Muggleborns and Squibs, she is supporting the DEs and making it possible for them to destroy everything good. After all, doesn't Dumbledore say that "indifference and neglect often do more damage than outright dislike" (OotP, Chapter 37)?
Umbridge has never, ever done anything remotely helpful to Harry & Co. She's hated them all from the beginning.
Question 3--I'd say she's loyal to whatever leader will let her get on with being an evil psychopathic control freak. In the new regime, I think her job description's probably either really vague or something totally made-up, like "Squib-Interrogator" or something.
Question 4--I'm not sure how she got her hands on the locket, but I doubt she knew what it really was, or at least not its full significance. It's more likely that she just likes shiny things. As for why it didn't affect her, that's easy--she's pretty close to pure evil, while the Trio is all good. Communing with a Horcrux isn't going to affect Umbridge that much.

purplehawk July 26th, 2007 3:09 am

Re: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis
 
1) Jo herself describes Umbridge as evil. How does Dolores rate against the series villain, Lord Voldemort? When Harry was told the world wasn't divided between good people and Death Eaters, did that rule her out as a DE? Do you think her actions support Voldemort even if she isn't a DE?

Jo used the right word: Umbridge was evil. She was also the consummate bureaucrat; she survived the tenure of Fudge and Scrimgeour and actually got a promotion under Thicknesse.

I sure hope KIngsley Shacklebolt sacked her on his first day in office. Or maybe she was killed when her head hit the balustrade after Harry's stunner.

2) Umbridge did her share of driving the plot in OotP, the trio would never have formed Dumbledore's Army without her influence, for instance. Did her tenure at Hogwarts--as DADA professor, High Inquisitor and Headmistress--produce other effects favorable to Harry and company? How do you feel about the handling of her "duties"?

She did a lot - unintentionally, of course - to bring the students of Hogwarts together in common purpose.

3) How is it that Dolores is still employed at the Ministry? Is she still 'loyal' to Fudge or has her loyalty shifted to Minister Scrimgeour? Is she Scrimgeour's Senior Undersecretary or does she now have another title/job?

She was still undersecretery to the minister and also "head of the Muggle-Born Registration Commission."

People like Umbridge thrive in an environment as corrupt as the Ministry of Magic. By the time Voldemort took over, she would have been in her in her element - lording her power over people who could not fight back.

4) How did Umbridge come across the horcrux locket? How come it didn't have the same impact on her when she was wearing it as it did on the trio? Did she realise what the locket really was?

She ham-handed it from Fletcher, didn't she? And, honestly, how could that locket make her any more evil than she was before she took it?

MagicalCreature July 26th, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis
 
Quote:

4) How did Umbridge come across the horcrux locket? How come it didn't have the same impact on her when she was wearing it as it did on the trio? Did she realise what the locket really was?
When I was reading DH, I wondered too, if it was the locket that had been making her evil all along. But then, when Kreacher explained that Mundungus stole the locket after Sirius had died- the timeline doesn't work out for all of her evilness to come from the locket. She was pretty nasty in OotP while Sirius was still alive. I do think she probably got worse after having worn the locket though. She was working in the Ministry before OotP and hadn't passed anti-muggle-born legislature.

I do hope that Jo addresses her in the Encyclopedia. I would like to see that she got what she's had coming to her for so long.

horcrux4 July 26th, 2007 4:59 pm

Re: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis
 
I thought Umbridge had changed in DH. Before that, I thought she was driven by her loyalty to the Ministry & Fudge, but in DH she seemed to enjoy humiliating and hurting people for its own sake. I don't think Fudge, for all his faults, would have gone along with that.

I think she took the locket, not knowing what it was but seeing it as a way of "proving" her own pure-blood ancestry. Which makes me suspect she may have had something to hide in that area. I daresay she was even worse when wearing it, but it didn't make her the evil woman she was - she already had sadistic tendencies when at Hogwarts.

LdyDumbledore July 26th, 2007 6:04 pm

Re: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis
 
1) Jo herself describes Umbridge as evil. How does Dolores rate against the series villain, Lord Voldemort? When Harry was told the world wasn't divided between good people and Death Eaters, did that rule her out as a DE? Do you think her actions support Voldemort even if she isn't a DE?

Evil, evil, evil. There's no other way to succintly describe her; as usual, Jo's choice of adjective is perfect. I don't think she was/is/would ever be a DE. She's got that holier-than-thou attitude and is truly convinced that everything she does is in support of the Ministry. She embodies the spirit of a DE, but doesn't see it that way.

2) Umbridge did her share of driving the plot in OotP, the trio would never have formed Dumbledore's Army without her influence, for instance. Did her tenure at Hogwarts--as DADA professor, High Inquisitor and Headmistress--produce other effects favorable to Harry and company? How do you feel about the handling of her "duties"?

The handling of her "duties" showed her to be a fanatical, power hungry control-freak. I believe her tenure at Hogwarts made the majority of students realize just how committed and loyal they are to Dumbledore's school.

3) How is it that Dolores is still employed at the Ministry? Is she still 'loyal' to Fudge or has her loyalty shifted to Minister Scrimgeour? Is she Scrimgeour's Senior Undersecretary or does she now have another title/job?

On what grounds would the Ministry have fired her after OotP? I'm certain her version of her year at Hogwarts was waaaaaaaay different than what we saw. Her loyalty, I'm sure, shifted to Scrimgeour, and ultimately Thicknesse. Her hunger for power ties her loyalties to the position of Minister, rather than the man, himself. Of course the infatuation is another story... (yuck!)

4) How did Umbridge come across the horcrux locket? How come it didn't have the same impact on her when she was wearing it as it did on the trio? Did she realise what the locket really was?


She extorted it from Dung, didn't she? I can't imagine she realized what the locket really was. She's already shown a penchant for obnoxious jewelry. That, combined with the attraction of an old piece that she could use to show off her wizard bloodline, was irresistible to her.

I think it did have a similar impact on her when she wore it. Her cruelty was certaintly kicked up a few notches, and it appears the tiny bit of decorum she exhibited in OotP just went to Hades-in-a-handbasket.

lupislune July 27th, 2007 2:08 am

Re: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis
 
I think the locket horcrux amplified the feelings of the wearer, especially feelings that were similar to Voldemort. We see this in Harry and Ron, and it manifests itself in umbridge as well. I think this is apparent in Umbridge's suspicion of those around her evident by the eye in her door and her blatant attempt to go after non-pure bloods for no other reason than it would seem personal enjoyment.

eatus_Benevol1 July 27th, 2007 3:53 am

Re: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis
 
Originally Posted by hermy_weasley2
Welcome to the post-DH discussion of Umbridge. Previous discussion without spoilers can be found here: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis


1) Jo herself describes Umbridge as evil. How does Dolores rate against the series villain, Lord Voldemort? When Harry was told the world wasn't divided between good people and Death Eaters, did that rule her out as a DE? Do you think her actions support Voldemort even if she isn't a DE? I don't think Delores compares to the all consuming evil of Valdemort (if she did, she wouldn't have something as cute as kittens on her wall); having said this though, she was worst than most death eaters with her zeal to rid the magic world of impurities and anyone who spoke against the ministry (which she was blindly devoted to).

2) Umbridge did her share of driving the plot in OotP, the trio would never have formed Dumbledore's Army without her influence, for instance. Did her tenure at Hogwarts--as DADA professor, High Inquisitor and Headmistress--produce other effects favorable to Harry and company? How do you feel about the handling of her "duties"? She certainly mentally toughened Harry (he learned self control - not arguing with her all the time) and indirectly contributed to his physical toughness (torture). She also enabled Hermoine to break even more out of the "good girl always following the rules mode" that I think enabled Hermoine ultimately to take the plunge after 6th year to going on the road with Harry/Ron and thinking outside of the box when dealing with non-Hogwart circumstances.

3) How is it that Dolores is still employed at the Ministry? Is she still 'loyal' to Fudge or has her loyalty shifted to Minister Scrimgeour? Is she Scrimgeour's Senior Undersecretary or does she now have another title/job? I think that Delores was recognized as being a wholehearted devotee of Ministry principles and actions. Her greatest weakness (aside from enjoying torturing non pure bloods) was that as the Ministry principles changed toward Death Eater philosophy, she went right along with it.What Minister wouldn't want to have a totally dedicated employee such as Delores (as 2 of the 3 Minister's in the series were either inept or evil.

4) How did Umbridge come across the horcrux locket? How come it didn't have the same impact on her when she was wearing it as it did on the trio? Did she realise what the locket really was? This was a good question - I suspect she had an idea Mundungus was associated with the Order so she kept an eye on him - taking "treasures" from him would be very simple (hand them over or go to Azkaban). She probably figured out that most of his hoard was stolen from the Black household, so she probably got a great kick out of wearing a locket she probably thought belonged to Sirius Black (S = Sirius to her). This was one more way to "put it in the face" of that Harry Potter whom she detested. Since she was already thinking evil thoughts, I think the only effect it had on her was to perhaps enhance her magic ability for the better - she could now produce a long lasting cat patronus, etc.

teardrops17 July 27th, 2007 11:49 am

Re: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hermy_weasley2 (Post 4629913)

1) Jo herself describes Umbridge as evil. How does Dolores rate against the series villain, Lord Voldemort? When Harry was told the world wasn't divided between good people and Death Eaters, did that rule her out as a DE? Do you think her actions support Voldemort even if she isn't a DE?

You don't have to be in league with The Dark Lord to be 'evil'... after all it's the character of Umbridge we were analyzing not her preferences... Grindelwald seems to be attracted by the Dark Arts, he became bad, but that didn't make him a DE (he's alive)... to make it short --Umbridge is like Percy.

of 3 bad characters, one chose to be superior, -The Dark Lord
one chooses to be bad in a way that she doesn't care about good and bad, it's those who contradicts her belief who become her enemies - Dolores
one chooses to redeem himself - Snape... see after all Snape loathed Harry yet he is still on the good side

:hmm: I think I made it too complicated... hope u understand the parallels...

Quote:

Originally Posted by hermy_weasley2 (Post 4629913)
2) Umbridge did her share of driving the plot in OotP, the trio would never have formed Dumbledore's Army without her influence, for instance. Did her tenure at Hogwarts--as DADA professor, High Inquisitor and Headmistress--produce other effects favorable to Harry and company? How do you feel about the handling of her "duties"?

Yes! I agree... the fire that melts cheese is the same fire that hardens steel... that fire is Dolores...

Quote:

Originally Posted by hermy_weasley2 (Post 4629913)
3) How is it that Dolores is still employed at the Ministry? Is she still 'loyal' to Fudge or has her loyalty shifted to Minister Scrimgeour? Is she Scrimgeour's Senior Undersecretary or does she now have another title/job?

her loyalties lie in the 'POWER' of the ministry :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by hermy_weasley2 (Post 4629913)
4) How did Umbridge come across the horcrux locket? How come it didn't have the same impact on her when she was wearing it as it did on the trio? Did she realise what the locket really was?

She bought it at Diagon Alley from Dung, ---Umbridge spotted it...
Dung was the one who smuggled things from Grimmauld Place.
It had it's effect on her --- we just can see it at first because she's already evil :lol:


:)

mshepnj July 27th, 2007 5:08 pm

Re: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hermy_weasley2 (Post 4629913)
Welcome to the post-DH discussion of Umbridge. Previous discussion without spoilers can be found here: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis


1) Jo herself describes Umbridge as evil. How does Dolores rate against the series villain, Lord Voldemort? When Harry was told the world wasn't divided between good people and Death Eaters, did that rule her out as a DE? Do you think her actions support Voldemort even if she isn't a DE?

Valdimort is the big cheese of evil, :lol: but Umbrage represents a mundane sort of evil, in my opinion. It's the sort of evil that allows ordinary people to do or enable horrible things by using the law as a cover. I would liken her the men who claimed as a defense that they were "just following orders" in putting Hitler's laws into effect. They were complicit either by not resisting, or directly carried out the laws and policies that allowed evil to happen.

Quote:

2) Umbridge did her share of driving the plot in OotP, the trio would never have formed Dumbledore's Army without her influence, for instance. Did her tenure at Hogwarts--as DADA professor, High Inquisitor and Headmistress--produce other effects favorable to Harry and company? How do you feel about the handling of her "duties"?
2.) She was a tool, literally and figuratively. She demostrates that power can be corrupting. Her injustice and corruption leads the students to become resistence fighters.

Quote:

3) How is it that Dolores is still employed at the Ministry? Is she still 'loyal' to Fudge or has her loyalty shifted to Minister Scrimgeour? Is she Scrimgeour's Senior Undersecretary or does she now have another title/job?
She is corrupt and will throw her allegiance to anyone who benefits her personally. She's loyal only to herself.

Quote:

4) How did Umbridge come across the horcrux locket? How come it didn't have the same impact on her when she was wearing it as it did on the trio? Did she realise what the locket really was?
She was immune because she was already corrupted.

LoonyMagic July 27th, 2007 5:24 pm

Re: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis
 
1) Jo herself describes Umbridge as evil. How does Dolores rate against the series villain, Lord Voldemort? When Harry was told the world wasn't divided between good people and Death Eaters, did that rule her out as a DE? Do you think her actions support Voldemort even if she isn't a DE?

Yes, she is completely evil. I think she could come into the same league as the Death Eaters but I don't think she ever became one, or would unless it meant her getting a higher status at the Ministry. She is pure evil, though. Only a purely evil and sick woman would have put a dead man's eye on her door.

2) Umbridge did her share of driving the plot in OotP, the trio would never have formed Dumbledore's Army without her influence, for instance. Did her tenure at Hogwarts--as DADA professor, High Inquisitor and Headmistress--produce other effects favorable to Harry and company? How do you feel about the handling of her "duties"?

She caused Harry and his friends to fight back. She was suc an irritating, evil and infuriating woman that she almost forced Harry to start Dumbledore's Army just to get back at her. And of course, it was completely just for them to want to rebel.

3) How is it that Dolores is still employed at the Ministry? Is she still 'loyal' to Fudge or has her loyalty shifted to Minister Scrimgeour? Is she Scrimgeour's Senior Undersecretary or does she now have another title/job?

Dolores seeks power and will do anything she can to get her hands on it. She has some useful contacts and friends at the Ministry and is an important figure there and that is how I believe she's still employed there. I think she was a little upset that Fudge had left - lets face it she had a strong hold over him. I' sure Scrimgeour wasn't as easy to manipulate. I'mnot sure what her job title would be, but she'd be somewhere high up.

4) How did Umbridge come across the horcrux locket? How come it didn't have the same impact on her when she was wearing it as it did on the trio? Did she realise what the locket really was?

Like I said before, Dolores has useful contacts and I wouldn't be surprised if she had found out that way. I don't think she would have known what it really was or she wouldn't have worn it like a trophy. It could have made her even more nasty than she was before, but lets face it she was evil already.

Sheree July 31st, 2007 9:45 am

Re: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis
 
1) Jo herself describes Umbridge as evil. How does Dolores rate against the series villain, Lord Voldemort? When Harry was told the world wasn't divided between good people and Death Eaters, did that rule her out as a DE? Do you think her actions support Voldemort even if she isn't a DE?
Er... Seems kind of like an obvious answer to me (but maybe it's just me...) In some ways, I think Umbridge is worse than dear old Voldy. People being brought up against Voldemort knew he was evil - even if they were also crazy, I don't believe his particular brand of cruelty went unnoticed by anyone. As for Umbridge, she was actually able to convince enough people that she wasn't all that bad (like a great many members of the MoM). Even after everything she did at Hogwarts, she was allowed to stay on at the Ministry - I'm willing to bet that loads of her "ahems" and those awful pink clothes had something to do with it... :shrug:

2) Umbridge did her share of driving the plot in OotP, the trio would never have formed Dumbledore's Army without her influence, for instance. Did her tenure at Hogwarts--as DADA professor, High Inquisitor and Headmistress--produce other effects favorable to Harry and company? How do you feel about the handling of her "duties"?
Ergh. I hated her since her first "ahem." Call it personal experience, but I've never had a teacher who "ahemed" that I liked. As for the favorable effects she ha on Harry and co., I think she showed that there are evil people out there who may not have anything to do with the DE.... Although, even without definitive proof, I was never absolutely convinced that she wasn't in league with them to some extent (knowingly, that is).

3) How is it that Dolores is still employed at the Ministry? Is she still 'loyal' to Fudge or has her loyalty shifted to Minister Scrimgeour? Is she Scrimgeour's Senior Undersecretary or does she now have another title/job? Somebody didn't take the message home that evil people should have no place in authority. I never liked Scrimgeour, but I could never imagine that he would have tolerated Dolores Umbridge for one second - he wasn't my favorite character, but I think he was smart enough that he would have seen her for what she really is. Now, as for why she was never just plain out fired...you got me. I guess she's just that good of an actress.

4) How did Umbridge come across the horcrux locket? How come it didn't have the same impact on her when she was wearing it as it did on the trio? Did she realise what the locket really was?
She saw it, realised that she could benefit from it (pretending all along that she'd inherited it) and I very seriously doubt that she recognized it for what it was (No matter what, I don't think she was a very GOOD witch, now was she? Harry says about the same when he mentions that any other teacher could have cleaned up the mess Fred and George made when they left the school, and Umbridge and Filch never could quite figure it out). And I do think it had the same effect on her, but because she wasn't aware of what it was, she wasn't openly aware of the change. She was already sadistic and cruel while at Hogwarts, and the locket emboldened her to become openly cruel with her personal (and possibly magnified) beliefs.

Also, I wanted to mention that the idea that Umbridge wasn't evil is kind of a strange one for me. She had to know that it was Moody's eye - after all, Moody was a very well-known Auror, member of the Order, and he had once taught at Hogwarts (sort of), while having numerous run-ins with the MoM over the years. Remember that Moody's body was never found by the Order? Obviously, someone found it... And whoever it was saw fit to hand over the eye to Umbridge... The whole thing strikes me as suspicious, and it's what makes me question whether or not Umbridge was, in actuality, working in league with known DEs.

RavenEye July 31st, 2007 6:55 pm

Re: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis
 
1) Jo herself describes Umbridge as evil. How does Dolores rate against the series villain, Lord Voldemort? When Harry was told the world wasn't divided between good people and Death Eaters, did that rule her out as a DE? Do you think her actions support Voldemort even if she isn't a DE?
Umbridge is more comparable to Bellatrix rather than Voldemort, I think. She's cruel and sadistic for whatever cause she latches on to - Voldemort seems to be cruel just because of his nature. Her actions in DH support Voldemort's anti-Muggleborn cause, but her actions prior to that supported the corrupted Ministry; this suggests those causes were not supported passionately by Umbridge but were a means to an end for her.

2) Umbridge did her share of driving the plot in OotP, the trio would never have formed Dumbledore's Army without her influence, for instance. Did her tenure at Hogwarts--as DADA professor, High Inquisitor and Headmistress--produce other effects favorable to Harry and company? How do you feel about the handling of her "duties"?
I think it brought corruption in the wizarding world to the surface - it was visible to the student population, who might not otherwise have formed an opinion. They were then more prepared when bigger injustices to sections of wizarding society came to the fore once Voldemort took over. There would be no room for denial anymore.

3) How is it that Dolores is still employed at the Ministry? Is she still 'loyal' to Fudge or has her loyalty shifted to Minister Scrimgeour? Is she Scrimgeour's Senior Undersecretary or does she now have another title/job?
I'm sure her loyalty shifted to Scrimgeour, since that would have been necessary if Umbridge wanted to continue her cruel regime. She must have changed allegiance again, once the Imperiused Thicknesse took over as Minister for Magic.

4) How did Umbridge come across the horcrux locket? How come it didn't have the same impact on her when she was wearing it as it did on the trio? Did she realise what the locket really was?
I don't think there's anything mysterious about how she came across it: she happened to be in Diagon Alley when Mundungus was trying to get rid of his cache. Seeing as she attributed the S to Selwyn rather than Slytherin it's probable that she didn't know of its provenance, although it's not inconceivable that the locket caused her to think that. You'd think she ought to recognise Slytherin's mark - it's on the school crest anyway.

General_Ridley July 31st, 2007 8:24 pm

Re: Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis
 
on the locket: she was so evil that having the locket only amplified her existing evil, empowered her mentality, and masked the faint traces of niceness she had in the first place.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 4:54 am.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Original content is Copyright MMII - MMVIII, CoSForums.com. All Rights Reserved.
Other content (posts, images, etc) is Copyright its respective owners.