Dolores Jane Umbridge: Character Analysis

[MoonStarRaven]

Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this, but I thought it was interesting when I came across this definition on a Latin translation site:

doloris N (3rd) M 3 1 M [XXXAX]
pain, anguish, grief, sorrow, suffering; resentment, indignation;

Sounds like the affect she had on people. I wonder if that name was intentional?

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by MoonStarRaven

Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this, but I thought it was interesting when I came across this definition on a Latin translation site:

doloris N (3rd) M 3 1 M [XXXAX]
pain, anguish, grief, sorrow, suffering; resentment, indignation;

Sounds like the affect she had on people. I wonder if that name was intentional?

I'm absolutely sure it was. JKR takes great care over her names.

In answer to the first question on the first page of this thread:

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, I think her actions supported Voldemort; she might not have been a DE but she actively supported and furthered the cause of the pure-blood movement.

I regard Umbridge as the equivalent of those people who aided and abetted the cause of the Nazis because they were simply doing what they were told. She might not have been directly involved in torture herself, but by heck she helped to oil the wheels of the machinery.

[PureBloodGirl]

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 definitely is evil, but Voldemort is about ten steps up the scale of evil.
No way because I can see Umbridge as a Death Eater.

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"?
No, none that I can think of.
I think that she was very mean and did her "duties" poorly. Punishing students left and right, questioning them and interigating them, puting up all of these stupid, meaningless rules. I officially name her the worst Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher ever.

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 it's terible that she was still employed at the ministry. I think it's terible that she was able to find a job at all while poor Remus couldn't because he was a warewolf.
I'm sure her loyalty shifted to Scrimgeour. I think she was loyal to Fudge because he was the minister. Not because she liked him or because she found Fudge to be a very good minister, but for the sake of her job and for the possiblity of a promotion.
I can't think of anything else that she'd be than the Undersecretary. If there is a position at the Ministry of Punishment Offices she'd be Senior Punishment Advisor I think.

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?
That is still a mystery to me. One possibility might be that Voldemort himself gave it to her for safe keeping, but who knows if that possibility is true.
Probally because Umbridge is evil and seeing as the trio isn't it didn't give Umbridge the effect because either Voldemort made it so that it wouldn't or because it only has the effect on those who are good.
I doubt that she'd figure it out as dim witted as she is. There is the possibility though that she was in alliance with Voldemort and he told her the truth about it. But I doubt that Voldemort would tell a soul on earth what the locket truly was.

[Leslie33]

1) Jo herself describes Umbridge as evil. How does Dolores rate against the series villain, Lord Voldemort? She could easily be the female version of Voldemort. The only thing stopping her from being his equal is she hides behind her title. When the going gets really tough, she runs screaming in the opposite direction. Plus, she really knows how to pour on the sweetness to try to weasel her way out of trouble.When Harry was told the world wasn't divided between good people and Death Eaters, did that rule her out as a DE? No, absolutely not. Her actions spoke a lot louder than her words. Even if she wasn't an active participant, didn't have the Dark Mark, her actions made her a Death Eater. Do you think her actions support Voldemort even if she isn't a DE? Absolutely!

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?
No, her actions ignited that rebellious streak in the "Children". In a way, this was good, because she inadvertently taught even Hermione that you don't always have to be a "Good little Girl" who ALWAYS does as she is told. By belittling them, by sweet talking the Students as if they were Puppies, she ignited that desire to "Stick it to the Woman" and tell her off. Nobody likes being treated like they're Stupid. It only turns people off you and makes them want to rebel.
How do you feel about the handling of her "duties"? Inexcusable. The fact she was able to get away with it just because of her title of High Inquisitor was even more disgraceful. It shouldn't have taken Hermione and Harry luring her into the Forbidden Forest for someone to do something about her.

3) How is it that Dolores is still employed at the Ministry? She knows how to turn on the charm. There are people who know how to manipulate their Superiors. They know when to turn on the tears to avoid being fired, turn on the charm to get something they want. Plus, I honestly see her manipulating reports, making up new Decrees as she went along. Even if they were way off base, all she had to do was word them differently to hide her true intentions, kiss up to Fudge to get her own way. Is she still 'loyal' to Fudge or has her loyalty shifted to Minister Scrimgeour? She's Fudge's Pet and always will be. As I said, she was like a Teacher's Pet. Even if he was completely wrong, she would have that old school addage that "He's the Boss, he makes the rules and you have to follow them or leave." Is she Scrimgeour's Senior Undersecretary or does she now have another title/job? She has high power job. If anyone, even someone who disliked her method of operation tried to fire her, all she would have to do is flash her seniority over their head to threaten their job. Minister Scrimgeour was more concerned about his powress in the Ministry than how one of his Co-Workers/Under Secretary treated Children.
4) How did Umbridge come across the horcrux locket? All she had to do was threaten poor Kreacher by telling him he'd be homeless, Friendless, disrespected by other House Elves and Society in general to get him to hand over the Locket. Remember, the House Elves aren't taught to think for themselves. They're a lot like 3 year-olds. Some people are big enough Cowards to actually approach a 3 year-old and say "If you don't give me that, I'm telling your Mommy and you'll be in trouble". Kreacher saw Umbridge as being that "Scary Big Person" and was probably told he'd "get in trouble" if he "wasn't a good little House Elf" and hand it over to Umbridge. Plus, she knew how to put on the charm when dealing with "inferior beings". How come it didn't have the same impact on her when she was wearing it as it did on the trio? Because her mind was already warped. She didn't need help from a locket. It wouldn't have the hold or power over her as it did the Trio. Did she realise what the locket really was? I seriously doubt she even cared. She wanted it for the power it held and the potential money she could squander from it. The fact it was a Horcrux and could lead to the desctruction of Voldemort was probably made her even more motivated to keep it in her dirty paws.

[sevthemarytr]

1) Jo herself describes Umbridge as evil. How does Dolores rate against the series villain, Lord Voldemort?
Obviously she isnt as evil as voldemort. But she is extremely twisted ...she must be if she could knowingly cause the children pain.We turn against Umbridge quite easily ...she is a different kind of evil than voldermort. Unlike 'the dark lord' delores hides the evil behind rules and instructions e.g: she uses the high inquisitor status to create horrible rules and gives disgraceful punishments for rule break.And uses 'blood status' to clear all the muggle borns and half bloods from the magic world . She uses authority to create evil..which i think puts her in a high rated postition just below voldermort and bellatrix

When Harry was told the world wasn't divided between good people and Death Eaters, did that rule her out as a DE?
Yes, umbridge wasnt a death eater, but that by no means said she was any less evil than them. Umbridge did many things that would be worthy of a death eater but she wasnt important enough to be one. To be honest i think we can just see delores as a death eater without the title.

Do you think her actions support Voldemort even if she isn't a DE?

Of course. She tried to rid of muggle borns and half-bloods(like voldemort ) and tried to stop The order / DA from creating an army.Her actions were probaly for her own benefit as she hated 'half breeds' but all the same they were the same motives as voldemort used.


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"?
It brought everyone closer and allowed houses to mix as one (bar slytherin)
They learnt how to defend themselves, produce patronuses and learnt clever spells that would all help against the fight at the ministry. If the DA wasnt formed the fight at the ministry would of seen more deaths than just sirius

3) How is it that Dolores is still employed at the Ministry?
She is a very sneaky women and can get herself out of most tricky spots. If umbridge put on her bitter sweet smile and said the right words the ministry would forgive her easily.



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?
Umbridge works for her own benefit.She doesnt mind who she's working for as long as she has power.I think she would probaly be dropped down a rank or too since Ootp but she would still fight to be back on the top spot.

4) How did Umbridge come across the horcrux locket? It explains in the DH she got it free from mundungus fletcher when he was running an illegal store on diagon alley , she bribed him saying she wouldnt shop him if she gave her the locket (for free).

How come it didn't have the same impact on her when she was wearing it as it did on the trio?
J.K.rowling has explained that Delores was evil enough all ready that the locket only increases her power/evilness. Comparing umbridge in Ootp to DH it is obvious she has become more evil..which would be down to the locket.

Did she realise what the locket really was?
No, I think the truth would scare her to know she was carrying round a piece of the dark lord's soul .Therefore she wouldnt wear it. Then again umbridge is bitter and twisted. But no i dont believe for a second she did.

She was evil before she even wore the locket (e.g ootp). She didnt have the locket till after sirius' death therefore the evilness in Ootp is purely herself.

[Vig]

When the topic for writing contest was to write about young Dolores at Hogwarts, I realised how little we know about her past and even presnt for that matter...She and Peter could have made a great pair...

[halfbloodsnape]

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 wouldn't know what is the level of evilness that would frighten Umbridge, but I believe she could go to some depths. I see her as a pretty good candidate for a tyran, she has all the makings for it: she's powerhungry, she is eager to control everything, she has a very odd opinion about laws, seeing them as merely tools to achive what one wants (as opposed to tools for a peaceful living-together of people), though she's not really fussed about breaking them herself if her goals 'require' it, she doesn't have the merest trace of empathy...
She probably wouldn't make a good DE for I don't see her the type to subordonate herself to others too much.

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"?

Well, usually the level of awareness is higher under tyranny, thus it could be said that in a way it was good for them (the trio) to experience it: they understood that they have to take initiative, they have to resist, they have to fight not just to save their lives but also because it is cowardice not to stand up to it one way or the other, because youáll be trodden on if you don't.

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 reckon she shows a different side of herself there. She was never loyal to Fudge, she is loyal to the 'ministry', that is, she is loyal to the position of power.

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 came across it by accident, but I imagine it had an allurement to her. A bit of Voldy and her are well-matched.

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by halfbloodsnape

I wouldn't know what is the level of evilness that would frighten Umbridge, but I believe she could go to some depths. I see her as a pretty good candidate for a tyran, she has all the makings for it: she's powerhungry, she is eager to control everything, she has a very odd opinion about laws, seeing them as merely tools to achive what one wants (as opposed to tools for a peaceful living-together of people), though she's not really fussed about breaking them herself if her goals 'require' it, she doesn't have the merest trace of empathy...
She probably wouldn't make a good DE for I don't see her the type to subordonate herself to others too much.

I don't think Dolores Umbridge would make a successful tyrant, nor would she try to take over under her own steam. I agree, she has the necessary attributes, she's power-hungry, sadistic, willing to do whatever it takes. However, she uses the power given her by a superior - (the Minister of the day, be it Fudge, Scrimgeour or Thicknesse) to justify her actions - she seems to tell herself it's her duty to do these things - e.g. in OotP - she rants about how several people at the Ministry were going on about needing to silence Harry, yet she was the only one to do anything about it. Also, despite her eagerness to use the Cruciatus Curse on Harry, she goes on quite a bit about "What Cornelius doesn't know won't hurt him/he'll understand it was necessary". While turning his photo upside down on her desk. She likes power and cruelty, no douby about it, I think, but it seems she needs to feel (or at least be able to claim) this is just doing her job.

Interestingly, if she was going to go with an Unforgivable to make Harry talk, she could have just gone with Imperius, and ordered him to tell, instead she chooses the painful curse. Imperius would have been far more effective on somebody unable to fight it than the Cruciatus curse. (And the Ministry refused to believe at that point that Harry had fought off Voldemort's Imperius, which may have been mentioned in the Quibbler interview.) Maybe she knew from Fake Moody's plans that Harry had fought off the curse - she complained about her predecessor using dark curses on students, after all.

[halfbloodsnape]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

I don't think Dolores Umbridge would make a successful tyrant, nor would she try to take over under her own steam. I agree, she has the necessary attributes, she's power-hungry, sadistic, willing to do whatever it takes. However, she uses the power given her by a superior - (the Minister of the day, be it Fudge, Scrimgeour or Thicknesse) to justify her actions - she seems to tell herself it's her duty to do these things - e.g. in OotP - she rants about how several people at the Ministry were going on about needing to silence Harry, yet she was the only one to do anything about it. Also, despite her eagerness to use the Cruciatus Curse on Harry, she goes on quite a bit about "What Cornelius doesn't know won't hurt him/he'll understand it was necessary". While turning his photo upside down on her desk. She likes power and cruelty, no douby about it, I think, but it seems she needs to feel (or at least be able to claim) this is just doing her job.

Interestingly, if she was going to go with an Unforgivable to make Harry talk, she could have just gone with Imperius, and ordered him to tell, instead she chooses the painful curse. Imperius would have been far more effective on somebody unable to fight it than the Cruciatus curse. (And the Ministry refused to believe at that point that Harry had fought off Voldemort's Imperius, which may have been mentioned in the Quibbler interview.) Maybe she knew from Fake Moody's plans that Harry had fought off the curse - she complained about her predecessor using dark curses on students, after all.

Umm, I think the turning of the photo is in the movie, not in the book, but yes, you're right, she always just "doing her job", I just think she would be able to make that one small step: that her 'doing of the job' requires her to step up a bit more. WHen she comes to be in the highest position in Hogwarts she merely uses Cornelius to achieve more power. It's easy to switch one's boss to an ideology that requires things to be done.

Yes, the Imperius might have been more effective, but I think she enjoys watching others suffer, gives her satisfaction (her quill, the sacking of Trelawney, the Weasley twins, the banning of Harry and the twins playing ever again...).

[FurryDice]

[quote]

Originally Posted by halfbloodsnape

Umm, I think the turning of the photo is in the movie, not in the book, but yes, you're right, she always just "doing her job", I just think she would be able to make that one small step: that her 'doing of the job' requires her to step up a bit more. WHen she comes to be in the highest position in Hogwarts she merely uses Cornelius to achieve more power. It's easy to switch one's boss to an ideology that requires things to be done.

Ooops. The Ministry and her duty is her justification for everything she does.

Yes, the Imperius might have been more effective, but I think she enjoys watching others suffer, gives her satisfaction (her quill, the sacking of Trelawney, the Weasley twins, the banning of Harry and the twins playing ever again...).

She does enjoy seeing others suffer. I think she is similar to Bellatrix in that regard. Both are devoted to a cause -the Death Eaters, or the Ministry, and willing to cause pain to achieve their aims and enjoy it. I think the differences are largely that Umbridge wants to be seen to be in the right, whereas Bellatrix only cares about Voldemort's opinion. All the pink and the sweetness and light exterior wouldn't be Bella's style- she's much more forward about her taste for cruelty than Umbridge. I also can't see Umbridge being as fanatically loyal as to be delighted to spend time in Azkaban for any cause.

[halfbloodsnape]

[quote=FurryDice;5294413]

She does enjoy seeing others suffer. I think she is similar to Bellatrix in that regard. Both are devoted to a cause -the Death Eaters, or the Ministry, and willing to cause pain to achieve their aims and enjoy it. I think the differences are largely that Umbridge wants to be seen to be in the right, whereas Bellatrix only cares about Voldemort's opinion. All the pink and the sweetness and light exterior wouldn't be Bella's style- she's much more forward about her taste for cruelty than Umbridge. I also can't see Umbridge being as fanatically loyal as to be delighted to spend time in Azkaban for any cause.

I had a sudden vision of Bella in a pink cardigan going 'hem, hem'.

But yes, you're right. I somewhat find Umbridge's character similar to a bigotted religious persons who can make people hurt and in the mean time she'd be fully convinced that she is acting for the good.

[PotterRules420]

I haven't read all the post. But I have to say evil doesn't even begin to describe how I feel about this woman. I have hated many a fictional characters over the years. I loathe Dolores Umbridge. Those moments were Harry shakes with anger when being antagonized by Snape, that is how I felt the first time I read OotP. I could not believe a school teacher could be so cruel and that no one did anything. A wretched, wretched character indeed.

[hpfan795]

like only ONE thing of her. Her bossy personality!

[SybillOnWheels]

Whenever I read about Dolores Umbridge, I am eerily reminded of a certain Alaskan politician.

[FleurduJardin]

Originally Posted by SybillOnWheels

Whenever I read about Dolores Umbridge, I am eerily reminded of a certain Alaskan politician.

That's funny - But why? That Alaskan politician doesn't look like a toad, does she?

[SybillOnWheels]

Originally Posted by FleurduJardin

That's funny - But why? That Alaskan politician doesn't look like a toad, does she?

Oh no, she's very pretty...but similar personality.

[FleurduJardin]

Originally Posted by MoonStarRaven

Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this, but I thought it was interesting when I came across this definition on a Latin translation site:

doloris N (3rd) M 3 1 M [XXXAX]
pain, anguish, grief, sorrow, suffering; resentment, indignation;

Sounds like the affect she had on people. I wonder if that name was intentional?

I'm quite certain it was intentional. "Dolores" is not a very common name in England, though it is in Hispanic countries (Personally, I would never name a child "Pain" or "Grief" but to each his or her own). That JKR chose that particular name for Umbridge is very revealing.

Originally Posted by SybillOnWheels

Oh no, she's very pretty...but similar personality.

I have neither love nor respect for the politician in question, but she's not as sadistic as Umbridge, is she? Though she is known to be vindictive. But this is OT again...

[SybillOnWheels]

Originally Posted by FleurduJardin

I have neither love nor respect for the politician in question, but she's not as sadistic as Umbridge, is she? Though she is known to be vindictive. But this is OT again...

Yes, it is indeed OT.

Anyway, yes, Dolores is a piece of work. The definition of her name is hilarious.

[Severine]

Honestly, I don't think she even compares to Voldemort. She may have a crazy impulse to have order and loyalty to the Ministry, but Voldemort strives for almost exactly the opposite. He wants the ministry ransacked and crumbling from within. Dolores, although crazy with power, would, I am sure, never want Voldemort to take over the Wizarding world, because it would upset her precious Fudge. Even Though she Hurts Harry, she believes she is doing him good, while Voldy only wants to hurt Harry to further his power over wizards and to shred any hope left.

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by Severine

Honestly, I don't think she even compares to Voldemort. She may have a crazy impulse to have order and loyalty to the Ministry, but Voldemort strives for almost exactly the opposite. He wants the ministry ransacked and crumbling from within. Dolores, although crazy with power, would, I am sure, never want Voldemort to take over the Wizarding world, because it would upset her precious Fudge. Even Though she Hurts Harry, she believes she is doing him good, while Voldy only wants to hurt Harry to further his power over wizards and to shred any hope left.

I agree she never had what it took to try to take over the magical world herself. She did love her power, though - all the titles she mentioned continually, for herself - High Inquisitor, Headmistress, Senior Undersecretary, Head of the Muggleborn Registration Commission.

I don't think her loyalty lay with Fudge himself, but with the institution of the Ministry - she was happy to work for Scrimgeour when he succeeded Fudge and was positively in her element with Voldemort's puppet Thicknesse as her boss.

Also, I don't think her treatment of Hary was because she thought it was for his own good. How is sending Dementors after someone for their own good, or torturing them by making them use that horrible quill? I think her treatment of Harry was because he was stirring up trouble for her beloved Ministry.