Dolores Jane Umbridge : Character Analysis

Of all the DADA teachers Harry has had, I think I like Umbridge the least. I didn't care for her teaching methods, I was outraged by her detentions/punishments and thoroughly appalled that she somehow retains a job at the Ministry. In spite of that, I do expect to enjoy seeing her again in Book 7. :evil:



JKR: [Laughter] Awww. Well, Umbridge, she's a pretty evil character.

MA: She's still out and about in the world?

JKR: She's still at the Ministry.

MA: Are we going to see more of her? [Jo nods] You say that with an evil nod.

JKR: Yeah, it's too much fun to torture her not to have another little bit more before I finish.


Some questions to ponder/discuss, with the understanding that the topic may well evolve beyond the following:

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 do you think Jo will give Umbridge her due in Book 7? What personality traits or actions could lead to her being involved in the plot?

Please remember that this is a discussion thread. All criticism should be constructive. Arguments that "Umbridge is an evil, insane sadist" require support. Posts that are considered bashing (especially of any characters other than the one under discussion, namely Umbridge--it's hard not to give her a good beating when there is so much canon support that she IS an evil, insane sadist!) may be deleted by staff.

Nicole wrote
-it's hard not to give her a good beating when there is so much canon support that she IS an evil, insane sadist!
I disagree with this - the gorgeous Dolores is a classic characterisation of a bureaucrat. The Ministry is what matters to her and specifically her position in it. Whilst she does awful things I don't think she sees them as awful. Harry, for example, by claiming that Voldemort is back is contradicting the Ministry. Therefore he must be made to see the error of his ways.

There is nothing in the books to suggest she actually took pleasure from his pain. Turning to the questions

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?

In a way she is worse than Voldemort - he is the big bad villain and proud of the fact. Dolores is utterly vile but doesn't realise it (That makes her a much more believable character to me)

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 was of course an utterly uselss teacher (and I suspect not a very good bureaucrat either) but she did as you say drive the plot forward (and in addition give us someone other than Snape to hate)

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?

Bureaucracies don't sack people because they're nasty and by the Ministry's standard she didn't do a bad job. As far as they can see she was up against Dumbledore who is a much better wizard than them. Of course had they realised that she failed to control the students and that the DA was actually nothing to do with Dumbledore they might have taken a different view. So she's back at the Ministry no doubt actively securing her own position. There are people like her in all ministries - none too bright but exceedingly good at sucking up to the boss. She will have transferred her loyalty to Scrimgeour imo and would happily betray Fudge is she could see advantage in it.

4) How do you think Jo will give Umbridge her due in Book 7? What personality traits or actions could lead to her being involved in the plot?

This is one of the things that I am most looking forward to. Of course in a family friendly forum I cannot say what I want to happen to her but I have a sneaking suspicion Fenrir Greyback will have a role to play.

My analysis of: Dolores Umbridge was a great plot device. She was highly unlikable and brought a vibe to Hogwarts that made the atmosphere outside the school more believable. As a character I can't find any positive qualities to discuss.
I believe that Dolores is of the same mindset as the villain Lord Voldemort. She illustrates the quote (the world is wasn't divided between good people and Death Eaters) perfectly. I don't think she is a Death Eater, but her actions do unknowingly support Voldemort.

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 only favorable thing she did was to make the threat feel more real to the students and get Harry to become more proficient at DADA on his own with the DA. Other than that I don't know.

3) How is it that Dolores is still employed at the Ministry?

She definitley deserves to be fired because of her extreme punishment methods at least. I think it just shows how out of touch the ministry are. It reflects poorly back on them that they chose a person like that to be headmistress of the school.

My analysis of Dolores Umbridge…

… is a combination of that of Mundungus Fletc (http://www.cosforums.com/member.php?u=28826) and HardtoImagine (http://www.cosforums.com/member.php?u=128094). She is a monster-stereotype of a bureaucrat, only interested in advancing her own career and gaining more influence within the Ministry. That is best done by not rocking the boat, i.e. sticking to the 'established' truth. Anything that contradicts that truth is dangerous, and therefore needs to be destroyed. She is so entangled in this web that she probably really thinks she is doing the right thing, even if it requires breaking the Ministry's own rules. She is also a great narrative element to illustrate that evil can take different forms, and world is not black and white.

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?

By denying the raise of Voldemort, Umbridge is helping him, of course, but that's not her intention. She simply prefers delusion to the uncomfortable truth. I wouldn't completely rule her out as DE, but I find it highly unlikely. A wouldn't say he is worse than Voldemort, but in some sense she is more culpable, as she does have feelings, and maybe even enjoys making people suffer. I also think that the hard evidence she is sadistic is lacking, but there is a lot subjective observation that suggest it indeed be the case, so I guess she most probably is.

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"?

Indeed, it gave Harry and other students a sort of growing experience, which may be important for them ín going through the rest of the battle. I wouldn't give her a medaillon for that, though.

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 her loyalties lie first an foremost to herself, second to herself, and third, perhaps, to the Ministry as an organisation. Whom she would decide to cooperate with at any given time depends only on how useful she thinks that person to be for her own power quest at that particular time. I believe in OotP it was Umbridge using Fudge and not the other way around. I was not at all surprised to see her back in the Ministry in HBP (in fact, I was betting her to become the Minister herself). The customary way in civil service to deal with people who have blundered is not a dismissal, but a promotion.

4) How do you think Jo will give Umbridge her due in Book 7? What personality traits or actions could lead to her being involved in the plot?

Here I have no idea, but I'm anxiously waiting to see.

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 agree with Mundungus in that she is delightfully loathsome because she doesn't know she's loathsome, whereas Voldemort clearly knows and embraces his evilness. I doubt she is a DE. It's scarier, somehow, to think that an ordinary government employee, dressed in fluffy pink cardigans and hairbows could be so sadistic as to use a punishment quill on a child's hand or threaten a child with veritaserum or the crucio curse and consider that the right course of action. Her actions do support Voldemort in a way because they are designed to hurt and diminish Harry.

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"?
Her tenure forced Harry to try to use legilimency to get his message to Snape across; it provided a living example of a truly sadistic teacher masquerading as a "nice" person and how much it is necessary to se beneath the surface of people; it forced the Weasley twins to finally start their own magic shop which will probably be a big success in Book 7 and beyond and it brought Firenze into the safety of Hogwarts. Harry and his friends honed their DADA skills so that they were ready for the hands-on class in HPB.

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's a survivor and she's shrewd. Dolores Umbridge will go with the winning team, whomever that is. Perhaps Scrimgeour will do a thorough cleansing of Fudge's senior people and get rid of her, but my bet is she will somehow ingratiate herself to him by playing up Harry's "disloyalty".

4) How do you think Jo will give Umbridge her due in Book 7? What personality traits or actions could lead to her being involved in the plot?
I most certainly hope she gets her due in Book 7. The centaurs have already had a go, that leaves the werewolves....... Her obsession with Harry will eventually do her in, I believe.

My personal opinion on Umbridge - she is the character we all love to hate.

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 Umbridge was the classic example of how someone can be evil and vile without being a DE. In a way helping to deny Voldemort's existence helped him to carry out his plan. In another ironic way, motivating Harry to create the DA helped to foil Voldie's plan.

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 made me want to squirm and pull my hair out, but as I said above, she was the reason behind forming the DA. I think that she just showed them that they have the capacity to carry things out on their own and that you can't trust politicians. I think that she also helped to unite at least 3/4 of the school behind Dumbledore. That other 1/4 I refer to is the Slytherin Inquisitorial squad. She also helped Harry's story get out to everyone by banning the Quibbler. She also handled her headmistress "duties" very well. The way she stood up to Fred and George really showed who was boss.:lol:

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 so sweet and caring. Why would the ministry want to fire her? I would hope that Scrimgeour would be smarter than to keep her around as his secretary.
4) How do you think Jo will give Umbridge her due in Book 7? What personality traits or actions could lead to her being involved in the plot?
Turn the dementors in on her like she tried to do to Harry. That should give her a nice little lesson. I think it would be interesting if Scrimgeour hires Umbridge to try to get Harry to be the ministry's poster boy. That would be a ton of laughs. Umbridge trying to sweet talk Harry after all the misery she put on him. :lol:

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

These kind of people support evilness in a dangerous way. She spreads fear and unmotivation. She makes it easy for Death Eaters to enter the magical world.


How is it that Dolores is still employed at the Ministry?

I think JK created a quite accurat picture of real world there. Politicans and poeple in public jobs hardly loose their job, whatever they do. I doubt she's still in a high position, but she's still there and still able to visit Dumbledore's funeral ie as a well respected member of the MoM. Phlegm comes to mind - much more describing as poor Fleur. ;)


How do you think Jo will give Umbridge her due in Book 7? What personality traits or actions could lead to her being involved in the plot?


Maybe she will be involved in the plotline around the discrimination of magical beings again. I think this will be a part of 7 and so I could imagine her there. Maybe she's again working in that department. Maybe she will interact with Lupin for a while. :evil:

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?
Though Umbridge is evil, she’s definitely not as evil as Voldemort. A big difference is that Umbridge doesn’t try to split her soul and make horcruxes by committing murder. I don’t think Sirius’ statement ruled her out as a Death Eater per se, but I truly don’t believe she is one because 1) she’s never really shown herself to be in league with any known Death Eaters and 2) I believe it’s important to keep in mind that this lesson applies to even the nastiest people (which Umbridge certainly is). However, in a way, her actions do support Voldemort in that they are mean-spirited and designed to harm people. She even uses Dementors, which are known to support Voldemort, and she shows a willingness to use an Unforgivable Curse. So all in all I think Umbridge’s character shows us that even though a person might not be a Death Eater, they can still be evil and the spirit of their actions can still support Voldemort.

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"?
In the long run I do think that Umbridge’s presence at Hogwarts served to help Harry and company in several ways. For one thing, it showed the students that they could unite, and in unity they would be stronger than if they stood alone. I believe the formation of the DA is a foreshadowing to a future unification of Hogwarts among all the Houses. For another, it gave the students a chance to gain some independence and put together an organization that would benefit many. Also as Olwen mentioned, it was the catalyst for Fred and George to start their joke shop. Regarding Umbridge’s handling of her duties, I’d say she did it in a way that shows her desire for authority and control, as well as her “by the book” nature and her enjoyment of feeling superior and of causing others to suffer.

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 is likely still at the Ministry because the situation might not have been completely understood by Fudge. Either that or she twisted some of the facts of the situation to prevent herself from being fired. I agree with those who said Umbridge’s loyalty lies first with herself and anything that would serve to further her career. So at this point, I assume her loyalties lie with Scrimgeour because Fudge won’t help her stay in a position of power within the Ministry now that he’s not Minister anymore. I’m not sure what job she has at this point – I guess she’s still the Senior Undersecretary.

4) How do you think Jo will give Umbridge her due in Book 7? What personality traits or actions could lead to her being involved in the plot?
I’m not sure how Umbridge will make her appearance in book 7, but I’m sure Harry won’t like it! If she’s closely affiliated with Scrimgeour she may show up with him as he tries to once again convince Harry to be his “poster boy”. I also agree with gertie that she may show up again in relation to her discrimination laws for werewolves and other magical creatures.

Though Umbridge is evil, she’s definitely not as evil as Voldemort. A big difference is that Umbridge doesn’t try to split her soul and make horcruxes by committing murder. I don’t think Sirius’ statement ruled her out as a Death Eater per se, but I truly don’t believe she is one because 1) she’s never really shown herself to be in league with any known Death Eaters
Actually, she does say that she has communicated with Lucius Malfoy, in the scene at the end of the book, when Snape walks in and she demands the Vertitaserum, she says:

"You are on Probation!. . . You are being deliberately unhelpful! I expected better! Lucius Malfoy always speaks so highly of you! Now get out of my office!"

The word "always" implied to me that she had, indeed, discussed her plans for the school with Lucius Malfoy, a known DE. Of course, that doesn't mean she knew he was a DE or that she was one - but that is a connection to them.

We don't know what the effect of seeing Malfoy go to Jail has been on Dolores, or the fact that Dumbledore saved her from the Centaurs, or that Voldemort has returned. She attended Dumbledore's funeral, which is interesting.

There were a couple of articles that came out right after OotP was released, in which educators in the U.S. and U.K. reacted to the "Hogwarts High Inquisitor" and her rules and regulations.

The first is an American review of the book - and this just says it all for me:

http://edrev.asu.edu/reviews/rev246.htm


In my reading, J. K. Rowling has written a scathing critique of the current politics of schooling. She rips the veil of illusion from Hogwarts, showing it to be the pawn of political agendas. Educators, especially those imbued with notions of teacher and student agency may be especially discomforted by Rowling’s deconstruction of a number of cherished beliefs: that schools have autonomy, that teachers have authority in their classrooms, that truth and rationality win over brute force, and that one who is brave should “speak truth to power.”

. . . As the fall term begins, the Ministry reaches out to exert control over Hogwarts. A new teacher, Dolores Umbridge, is sent by the Ministry to teach “Defense against the Dark Arts.” . . .

Important long scenes depict her classroom “inspections,” demonstrating how easy it is to spin assessment when one is wielding a political ax under the guise of raising standards. Her notes on Hagrid twist every word and mannerism to the worst possible effect: when he searches for a word, “appears to have poor short term memory” and when he waves his arms “has to resort to crude sign language.” She similarly uses selective student comments to accomplish her pre-determined ends. The firing of the divination teacher, Professor Trelawney is a classic degradation ritual. In front of a crowd of students and faculty, Umbridge announces: “Incapable though you are of predicting even tomorrow’s weather, you must surely have realized that your pitiful performance during my inspections, and lack of any improvement, would make it inevitable that you would be sacked.” Umbridge humiliates people, especially colleagues in public.

How are teachers supposed to maintain pedagogical authority when they are subjected to public disrespect? Scenes like this happen metaphorically all to often in Muggle schools, where centralized political regimes hold teachers publically accountable for the performance of students on high stakes tests.

Rowling gave us an object lesson and commentary on the current politicization of education. A number of lessons are embedded in the novel. One is that “speaking truth power” is most likely to lead to humiliation, degradation, and solitary punishment as in Harry’s painful detentions. The book argues that a far better strategy is to organize behind the scenes, use subterfuge and strike decisively when ready.

And here is another article that delightfully talks about the reaction of teachers in the UK to the portrayal of this sadistic bureaucrat:

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=735522003



. . . Rowling lampoons real-world school inspectors, central government decrees on the curriculum and even the parachuting-in of new staff to ‘failing schools’.

One Scottish teaching union last night urged ministers and civil servants to read the novel, which smashed sales records on its release two weeks ago.

Central to Rowling’s satirical scheme is a new character, Professor Dolores Umbridge, a grotesque parody of a modern-day school inspector.

Umbridge, described as looking like a large pale toad, starts the book as a civil servant in the Ministry of Magic.

She is then appointed as a teacher at Hogwarts, where she removes the magic from her lessons with a "carefully structured, theory-centred, Ministry-approved course of defensive magic", complete with a series of vague course aims.

Umbridge is then appointed as "high inquisitor" of Hogwarts, and introduces a cruel and negative regime of inspections, and sacks one teacher.

Ultimately, headmaster Dumbledore is stripped of his post and Umbridge is parachuted in to replace him. The manoeuvre is described by the ministry as "an exciting new phase in the minister’s plans to get to grips with falling standards", writes Rowling.

The ministry orders the school to stop extra-curricular activities so pupils can focus on rote-learning spells.

Rowling, a former teacher, also depicts staff as dumbing down their lessons in order to prepare Potter for his Ordinary Wizarding Level exams.

Teachers focus on duller spells and spoon-feed information on magical beasts, because they know what is likely to be in the wizarding equivalents of Standard Grades.

Pat O’Donnell, Scottish secretary of the National Association of Schoolteachers/Union of Women Teachers, said Rowling’s satire was "dead right".

He said: "I hope the politicians and inspectors read her book. We have now got a system where we have set up big national testing systems, and the consequences of your children failing are so high teachers are teaching to the tests. . . .

Umbridge=evil.
I didn't like her at all.

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 Umbridge and Voldemort are two very different types of villain.
They both seek power--for Voldy this is an obvious case, for Dolores I think this is best demonstrated by the slow creeping growth of her influence through those horrible decrees. I think they both seek power partially out of fear and a desire to overcome that which they fear--death for Voldemort, and a variety of things for Umbridge, including but not necessarily limited to nonhuman magical beings. OTOH their methods for gaining this power is very different. Tom has (or had, anyway) a great deal of charm. He can sway people to his will until they are stuck, entranced or petrified by his power over them. Umbridge, on the other hand, has very little personal power. She works through other people's power and rules and regulations. She can't face down people on her own strength or authority, she just twists the law so that she has the upper hand.
I don't think she's a DE but I definitely think that she is promoting Voldy's agenda--by alienating werewolves and centaurs and other members of the magical community she's creating and widening the schisms that make it so easy for him to divide and conquer the magical world.

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 Umbridge is loyal to Umbridge. She supports the laws and officials who can advance her agenda. As to how she stayed, I think that although she has little sincere charm, she has that whole sickly-sweet sucking-up thing going for her. She's a bureaucrat through and through, she knows how to work the system.

4) How do you think Jo will give Umbridge her due in Book 7? What personality traits or actions could lead to her being involved in the plot?
*eyes misting over* perhaps she'll be carried off by an angry mob of rebelling goblins...or werewolves...boy, I'd love for Lupin to get a crack at her. I think it'll be like the centaur thing, but on a bigger scale. Her mistreatment of nonhumans and parthumans is going to come back to get her.

I believe that Umbridge was included in the story because it proves the point that just because you aren't a Death Eater, that doesn't mean you can't be a vile, vindictive person like Dolores Umbridge is. Umbridge did so many unbelievable acts to her students, such as making them write into their skin, that it is amazing that she was still suppported by the Minsitry, and it was even more amazing that the Ministry fully endorsed her actions, and actually gave her more power to keep up what she was doing! Umbridge also, I believe, symbolized the corruption of the Ministry, and showed that the Minstry is at times quite corupt, and unfair, and that the the wizarding world can not always lean on the Minsitry in times of need.

Umbridge is Rowling's testimony to the corruption of absolute power... along with Cornelius Fudge. She is the consummate political hack.

Umbridge is Rowling's testimony to the corruption of absolute power... along with Cornelius Fudge. She is the consummate political hack.

Exactly. :agree: Umbridge proves that even in the magic wizarding world of Harry Potter, corruption still exists, and Fudge and Umbridge are symbols of that.

Of all her actions in OOTP what do you think was the one that was the most wicked and vile?
I would have to say sending the dementors on Harry was pretty much the lowest of all the things she did. Any thoughts?

Of all her actions in OOTP what do you think was the one that was the most wicked and vile?
I would have to say sending the dementors on Harry was pretty much the lowest of all the things she did. Any thoughts?Actually the whole thing and how she tried to get more and more power for her own aims. But if you want to have an example: as she tried to crucio Harry I was shocked again (after several times before, tough), because she forgot all of her (nonsenscial of course) rules then.

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?
Her actions, whilst vindictive and inhumane, do not support Voldemort. They may be aiding him, but I think the key word is support. The control over the school helped him secure a control, but they were not key to supporting his plans. I know I'm being picky, but I am a HP fan!

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"?
There's two sides to a coin. Whilst her actions may have aided Harry, I wonder what would have happened if she didn't go to Hogwarts. Well lets look back at the beginning. She sent Dementors after Harry to the MOM. If he hadn't have gone, he wouldn't have seen the DoM and any of the MoM. Now follow the train of thought!

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 suspect they keep her on in order not to embarrass themselves, and she's probably been taught enough of a lesson by the centaurs! I suspect she's loyal to whoever holds power, personally.

4) How do you think Jo will give Umbridge her due in Book 7? What personality traits or actions could lead to her being involved in the plot?
Anything that involves a toad. No, seriously, I believe Jo might make her useful. Not in a nice way for the character, but i suspect it will help Harry! :D

The control over the school helped him secure a control, but they were not key to supporting his plans. I know I'm being picky, but I am a HP fan!
I think I disagree with that more than a little - due to Umbridge, McGonagall was in the hospital and Dumbledore had fled the Aurors, so when Harry was in trouble with the vision about Sirius, he thought he had no one to turn to from the Order (he forgot about Snape). McGonagall and Dumbledore were the ones who covered up for Harry when he had the vision about the snake, so they would have helped him understand the vision of Sirius, and the whole thing with the thestrals wouldn't have been necessary.

I see Dolores as necessary for the plot to advance, but she's also a symbol of someone doing things in an evil way that helps Voldemort to grow stronger. She's a "lesser" evil, but still really, really bad. Alot like Kreacher. They both still have a chance to redeem themselves, in a way that Voldemort does not.

Anything that involves a toad. No, seriously, I believe Jo might make her useful. Not in a nice way for the character, but i suspect it will help Harry! :D

Interesting point. I wonder what Jo could have in store for Umbridge to help Harry? Would she somehow be forced to give information to Harry?

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?
Her actions certainly support Voldemort - if you remember, her making Harry and Dumbledore's lives miserable did a fair bit of good to him. However, I do think it was not intentional. In my opinion, she was so determined to get herself a high ranking within the Ministry, she didn't realize that her actions were actually benefiting the Dark side. I also don't really think she is a Death Eater; just because her actions benefited Voldemort, it doesn't mean she's a supporter of his. Of course, it would be very convinient, but unrealistic - a Death Eater would not care nearly as much as she did for getting a high ranking in the MInistry and a good relation with the Minister.

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"?
Of course I was cussing and swearing when I read the parts with her tormenting the trio, but the more I got to think of it, she has both benefited and damaged them so much. Of course if she had never been there, Harry probably would not have had to sneak into the fireplace to communicate with Sirius; he would just be able to talk to Dumbledore, who would in turn put Harry in his place and talk some sense into him. This would have prevented Sirius's death. But the thing that bothers me about that is if Sirius's death had never occured, Harry would have lost the incredible amount of knowledge, love, and passion for destroying Voldemort that he felt afterwards. All in all, that would hurt his performance in the 'final battle' or whatever it may be.

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 she is still employed at the Ministry simply because she's got nowhere else to go, and they need the extra person to do all the tiny, irksome tasks - getting coffee, etc. Of course, it may be the Ministry's way of just hushing everything up, and making sure no rumours are floating around.

4) How do you think Jo will give Umbridge her due in Book 7? What personality traits or actions could lead to her being involved in the plot?
I think Umbridge's drive to excel and to go up in ranking will lead to her doing most outrageous things in book seven. I have a strange feeling that she will do something seemingly trivial, or simply irritating - as we've seen her do in the past - which will ultimately lead to the plot being advanced a whole lot further, etc. For example, she may have a hand in something that drives the trio back to Grimmauld place, where they will be forced to stay for a while (speculating, people); maybe that way they'll find the locket. I don't know.. I'm sure it's going to be something wacky a la usual JKR style.

I see Dolores as necessary for the plot to advance, but she's also a symbol of someone doing things in an evil way that helps Voldemort to grow stronger. This is an very important point for me. JK showed how much these people can support evilness, although they're lying to theirselves and thinking they're still defending the gouvernment. That's in my opinion the main function Umbrigde had to do, so I'm not sure, if she really will return and play a bigger part in 7. (I know she will be there, because JK said so, but I doubt she will be shown in a different way).

(I know she will be there, because JK said so, but I doubt she will be shown in a different way).
I agree - I think she will provide a little light relief in what is likely to be quite a dark book. I'm looking forward to seing her get her comeuppance. :evil:

I agree - I think she will provide a little light relief in what is likely to be quite a dark book. I'm looking forward to seing her get her comeuppance. :evil:Of course. That was excactly the reason, why JK wanted to put her in again, if I remember right - hehe, at least that was what she said. ;)

Umbridge is every kind of sick.

She never even tried to discover the truth, before aligning herself with her boss AND sent two evil, soul-sucking creatures into a muggle-populated area after a child she believed (without ever having met him) was... *gasp* horrors!... lying.

What if Harry had merely been insane from trauma, as many others believed?

Anyway, I think she's still at the Ministry because of she has some kind of connections or blackmail power -- whatever got her in in the first place. It certainly wasn't competence.

I agree that she must have wiggled her way into the ministry some way other than being right for the job. She is sweetly poisonous. I also agree with whoever said that she is still there because the ministry doesn't want to face the embarassment of letting her go, especially with all they have suffered from Voldemort showing up under Fudge's nose. I have said this somewhere before, but I think it would be hilarious if the ministry assigned Umbridge the responsibility of getting Harry to be their poster boy. Harry could have some fun with than one.

Two things about Umbridge before I start:

She is indeed one of the best things that has ever happened to Hogwarts

and

She's the woman we love to hate!

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 agree with everyone who said Umbridge is not as evil as Voldemort. The world really isn't divided between good and DEs. Even in the Muggle world it is not the good people and the terrorists. Umbridge definitely falls in between - she is not a good person, for obvious reasons, and there's no canon to support or even hint that she is a Death Eater. She's like Fudge, both didn't want to believe You-Know-Who was back and did their best to stop the ones who believed he was - especially Harry.

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"?
In the long run I do think that Umbridge’s presence at Hogwarts served to help Harry and company in several ways. For one thing, it showed the students that they could unite, and in unity they would be stronger than if they stood alone.


:agree: Exactly why I think she is one of the best things that has ever happened to Hogwarts. Unity was needed and she successfully did it, without her own knowledge. If it weren't for the D.A., Neville wouldn't have tried to improve his skills, Luna would have been lonely, and what not.

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?
As I said before, Umbridge and Fudge think similarly. Fudge probably understood her situation, since he was in the same one himself, and understood she didn't mean any harm. Fudge must have persuaded Scrimgeour somehow.


4) How do you think Jo will give Umbridge her due in Book 7? What personality traits or actions could lead to her being involved in the plot?
I have no clue but I can say, the D.A. won't like her. :lol:

Unity was needed and she successfully did it, without her own knowledge.I disagree that house unity was achieved. There were no Slytherins in Dumbledore's Army. Umbridge prevented unity by making a bunch of Slytherins into the Inquisitorial Squad, something opposed to D's Army. Yes, 3 houses came together even while a Hufflepuff questioned Harry's every move in the early stages and a Ravenclaw betrayed the group. And only one non-Gryffindor answered the call of the coin in HBP, so it doesn't look like the unity lasted any appreciable length of time. It does show that 3/4 of them could unite, but also that any such alliance is likely to be temporary. Just mho, of course.

I have to agree with Nicole. Umbridge was a divider, not a uniter. There can be no unity when she is pitting student against student. She made that clear from her first day of classes, when she invited them to come to her office outside class hours to fink on each other.

Slytherins are never going to be good friends with Gryffindors, and the other Houses for that matter. She might have caused divisions --I'm not denying that-- but she brought the teachers and the 3 Houses together (Slytherin isn't counted). I guess I should have been more specific.

The D.A. was clearly influenced by her cruel ways of teaching and there were students from all three Houses in the D.A. Even if Umbridge created a barrier between the Slytherins and the other Houses, at least she brought 25 people together. (Make that 24, since Marietta betrayed the D.A. later on) 24 people who, otherwise, wouldn't be such good friends. Neville and Luna wouldn't be such good friends with the trio if it weren't for the D.A., in my opinion.

But then again, that's how I see it. :)

Yes, the D.A. never would have happened without Umbridge, but I think her list of good deeds stops there. Also, I am not sure that there was any uniting going on with the teachers. They all hated Umbridge, but I don't see where any of them really came together. Maybe McGonagall felt sorry for Trelawney, but that didn't change the way she felt about her.

Yes, the D.A. never would have happened without Umbridge, but I think her list of good deeds stops there. Also, I am not sure that there was any uniting going on with the teachers. They all hated Umbridge, but I don't see where any of them really came together. Maybe McGonagall felt sorry for Trelawney, but that didn't change the way she felt about her.

I need to make this clear: I am not pro-Umbridge. :lol: I hate her, and I'd give anything to *cough*kick*cough* her for the pain she gave to Harry. But I truly believe Umbridge's entrance in OotP was a benefit for the students in Hogwarts, along with the teachers. It opened the students' eyes, who, until now, had no idea of how wrong the Ministry could be. Umbridge helped them --unwillingly, of course-- see the real truth and what's really waiting for them "out there." Hufflepuffs, Ravenclaws, and even Gryffindors till now though Harry and Dumbledore were nutters, because they believed Voldemort was back. But Umbridge's arrival led to numerous positive things:

The D.A. which brought students together fighting for justice.
Harry's Quibbler Interview (thanks to Luna) which spoke the truth.
The Educational Decrees and my favorite one is the one where Umbridge bans the Quibblers because by doing that she ensured every student read them, hence, leading to the growth in Harry-DD believers.
As you pointed out, McGonagall felt sorry for Trelawny. No matter how much she dislikes Divination, I'd call it a bit of unity on the teachers' part. ;)
The most important one is that students were exposed to something outside Hogwarts --which rarely happened in the earlier books-- and they reall got to see even the Ministry was not correct in their ways. :tu:

Umbridge is different from Fudge though. Both idiotically refused to accept the truth, but he never sank to the level of torture and cruelty.

And if he'd been that type, she wouldn't have any motive for concealing her Dementor attack from him, she would have bragged and gotten credit for a nearly-successful attempt.

I think that Umbridge is tarred with the same brush as Barty Crouch Sr. He's definatly not evil in the way of LV, but she will stoop to their level, when she believe's she's right. She's most likely has OCD, and is single minded, if the Minister doesn't say it it isn't true. which is why she never heard Harry out to see if he could change her mind. Most honest good natured people would have at least heard what he had to say, before dismissing his claims. Her Fear of half humans, is probabley from a awful childhood experiance. But I can not make excuses for her manner in treating the students like small children, I hated it when one of my teachers did that to me. And I do not agree with her, that they should have been kept from learning how to do the spells practically. It goes against the reason for having the subject of Defense against the dark arts. And as for going to the extrems that she did by calling on the Dementors, and using a unforgivable, I think she's is on a power trip, and usuing such things almost makes her seem above the law. Now that Dumbledore is gone, I think Harry will be foreced to deal with the ministry, and I'm sure she is loyal to whom ever is in power. And Scrigmore who probabley doesn't know how much Harry hates her, will think, um, lets see, who at the ministry knows Harry, but wasn't loyal to Dumbledore like Arthur Weasley. Ah Doloras, here go make Harry our poster boy! use your influeance over him. she'll probabley come back with antlers or something.

The only redeeming quality in Umbridge's character is how she characterizes two things at once: idiotic bureaucrats, and those evil and falsely sweet teachers. I laugh every time I read Umbridge's first lesson, because it reminds me irrestistably of a substitute teacher I had once, the sadistic hand-cutting aside ("...say 'Good afternoon, Professor Umbridge!'")

As a teacher myself, Umbridge offends me in too many ways to list. Take her general twisted nature and evil nature as read (and someone made a good point about her being the epitome of a bureaucrat), and just look at her teaching style. Ecch.

I've got to think that JKR put her in the book as a slap against the bad teachers we've all had to suffer under, as well as all the other reasons she played such a large role in "Phoenix." But here are just a couple of things about Umbridge that grinds my professional gears.

She teaches completely through theory, not with any practical methodology whatsoever. In fact, she doesn't teach at all -- she presides over the class while the students read the textbook. The classes at Hogwarts, with the exception of Professor Ditto, er, Binns, are extremely hands-on, with lots of doing and very little bookwork except as a supplement. Not in her classes.

Secondly, we all know about the test-driven classes (in this case the OWL exams). Umbridge was teaching in a manner guaranteed to fail every student in there. There is no possible way any student can read their way into being able to pass those exams, when the first time they are asked to demonstrate a hands-on teaching item is when they're asked to do it for a test. Imagine you're in a chemistry class, and all you do is read about the various chemical reactions that are created when you mix this and that together. Then, for your final, you're actually placed at a lab table with a beaker and several substances and told to make something. It won't happen. Even Hermione needs some hands-on practice to perform a spell, though less than anyone else.

It's also a slap at the kind of "by-the-book" teaching that so many teachers do. If it's Monday, we're on thread 2B of the curriculum, if it's Friday, we're testing you on the content. Doesn't matter who's actually learned what, we're just going through the curriculum like little robots, step by step by boring step. The "Ministry-approved curriculum" is garbage, obviously, and designed NOT to teach the kids anything. If I had to make a wild stab, I'd say Umbridge is a secret Voldemort supporter, doing her best to make sure the kids in the class are unprepared to face the Death Eaters in any confrontations. (Hmmm, corruption and Death Eater collusion in the Ministry?)

Next, there's no fairness whatsoever in her class discipline. We've seen this all before, with Snape letting the Malfoys of the class get away with murder while the Potters get slammed for breathing hard, but Umbridge took that even farther. And don't get me started on writing lines of punishment in your own blood. What surprises me is that Dumbledore, knowing virtually everything that happens in Hogwarts, let her get away with assigning such punishments, even considering his tenuous position at the time.

I could go on, but I won't. (And I said in my last post, which was also my first post, that I wasn't going to be making any more posts in here. So much for that.) Anyone think that, after all the dust settles in Book 7, that Harry might one day end up being the DADA teacher? He will need some practical experience first, but taking out Voldemort and the various Death Eaters should give him more than enough -- especially considering the attrition likely to occur among the Order and Ministry Aurors in the final conflicts. No way to know, but it would have a certain symmetry that I find appealing. Maybe Harry's first step towards eventually being the Headmaster...? (I'm sure I'm not making any speculations others haven't already made, but still, it's an interesting idea.)

I've got to think that JKR put her in the book as a slap against the bad teachers we've all had to suffer under, as well as all the other reasons she played such a large role in "Phoenix."I think Umbridge represents more than just bad teachers in real life. I’ve had a boss whose general behaviour, ‘incentive system’ and IQ seemed quite close to Umbridge.

If I had to make a wild stab, I'd say Umbridge is a secret Voldemort supporter, doing her best to make sure the kids in the class are unprepared to face the Death Eaters in any confrontations. (Hmmm, corruption and Death Eater collusion in the Ministry?)
I still don’t really believe she’s a Voldemort supporter, but I see two other explanations with similar outcome. First, she doesn’t seem a very powerful witch in terms of magical abilities (cf. failed swamp removal attempts) so she might not want the students outperform her. Second, by keeping ordinary population unskilled, there is more ‘use’ and scope for the MoM – make-yourself-useful principle.

By the way, if you are interested in the corruption in the MoM theme, we have a little thread Bewitched Bureaucracy Relaunched (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=97603) for that.

Next, there's no fairness whatsoever in her class discipline. We've seen this all before, with Snape letting the Malfoys of the class get away with murder while the Potters get slammed for breathing hard, but Umbridge took that even farther. And don't get me started on writing lines of punishment in your own blood. Snape belongs to other threads, but I don’t think there’s actual evidence of him letting anybody get away with murder. I do agree that Umbridge is an incarnation of unfairness and a truly sadistic person based on her disciplinary methods.

What surprises me is that Dumbledore, knowing virtually everything that happens in Hogwarts, let her get away with assigning such punishments, even considering his tenuous position at the time.Dumbledore appears quite hands-off headmaster in most respects – he allows all teachers significant freedom. And it also seems that the wizarding word is quite behind time in many respects regarding human rights and pedagogic standards…

Dear Dolores Umbridge. What a horrible woman. But I think she exemplifies what happens when a small-minded but determined person manages to acquire power.

She was deeply loyal to her Minister of Magic, who most unfortunately was corrupt, which led to her carrying out a Dementor attack on Harry during his summer holiday.

Her ridiculous Educational Decrees became more extreme with every challenge to her complete control, although the idea that she could control an entire school full of teachers and students is ridiculous. She had a good idea how to find people's vulnerabilities and exploit them to achieve her own control. That's something that's fairly common in the business world and in government. Her idea of doing what 's right was figuring out how to consolidate her power.

The cutting quill she used to drive her point home, into Harry's hand, is so saddistic that I wish I could discover she was a Death Eater. Unfortunately, Sirius was right about her. The world is not divided between good people and Death Eaters.

I look forward to seeing what JKR has in store for her in Book 7.

I agree with those who say that Umbridge was not a Death Eater. Voldemort would describe her as a useful idiot.

Her viciousness induced some positive developments, like the D.A. The D.A. helped Harry on the train home when some members got the drop on Malfoy who was trying to ambush Harry.

Interestingly, after Dumbledore's Army was busted Umbridge formed her own student group, the Inquisitorial Squad.

Some real-life teachers have pointed out Umbridge as a fictionalized account of what happens at their schools when a central government tries to interfere in education.

I agree with those who say that Umbridge was not a Death Eater. Voldemort would describe her as a useful idiot. Scrimgeour probably thinks of her the same way.

Her viciousness induced some positive developments, like the D.A. The D.A. helped Harry on the train home when some members got the drop on Malfoy who was trying to ambush Harry.

Interestingly, after Dumbledore's Army was busted Umbridge formed her own student group, the Inquisitorial Squad. Well, the staff wasn't going to support her, so she'd have to recruit some people to help control that huge school. Filch couldn't do it all, could he? The way she uses people, encouraging them to do horrible things for the greater glory of Dolores Umbridge, is one reason I have no respect for the Ministry of Magic. She's not a young person, and must have been perfecting these tactics for years, in her career at the Ministry.

Some real-life teachers have pointed out Umbridge as a fictionalized account of what happens at their schools when a central government tries to interfere in education.i think JKR knew precisely what she was doing when she designed Dolores Umbridge. It's an excellent piece of satire.

I have to say that I found Dolores Umbridge a wonderful character. Obviously, she is mean, crude and horrible, but I can't help but chuckle to myself when she responds to the situations that arise in the book. Everytime she tries to make herself look, great and powerful, she ends up looking like a fool.

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 that Umbridge is a death eater, but we do know that if a death eater would be able to help her out in a situation, she would not worry about using their help. Obviously her anti-half-blood tirates would help out Voldemort. By attempting to strip half-bloods of their liberties, she would effectivley drive them away from regular wizarding population and push them to revenge and to Voldemort would would be more than happy to take them in.


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 am sure that Dolores had shifted her loyalties to Scrimgeour, she loves power and ad Fudge doesn't have it any more I bet she dropped him as fast as she could. Since J.K. said that Dolores has "good connections" with in the ministry, I am sure that she is still holding a high-powered job, if she is still not the senior undersecretary.

4) How do you think Jo will give Umbridge her due in Book 7? What personality traits or actions could lead to her being involved in the plot?

It would be interesting to see Dolores being placed back into Hogwarts, if it reopens, but I'm sure that she would not be placed there. I'm sure in Dolores's mind she did a wonderful job at Hogwarts and was wrongfully ousted, due to those two "pesky kids". I think she would have to be an idiot to except a job back at Hogwarts, but then again look at who we're talking about. Probably though, she will end up staying at the Ministry. Dolores will probably try to get revenge on Harry and Hermione and use her ministry might to try again to disprove "the chosen one" or either make life real tough for him.......

either way I am so ready for book 7, and cant wait to see Umbridge again.

JK must have been to my school back in 1980. Umbridge is the splitting image (appearance & personality) of my sixth grade teacher with a falsely sweet demeanor but could get downright nasty!:grumble:

I've been thinking alot about Umbridge's torture pen and how it would make an excellent nomination for a Horcrux. It could even, somehow, be linked to Gryffindor, because it is the pen she would have used to write all the anti-werewolf legislation that has pretty much wrecked Remus Lupin's life.

no, it wouldn't make a great nomination for a horcrux...and if she'd been using that pen to write the werewolf legislation then I think it would be carved into the back of her hand and I don't think she'd like that.

JK must have been to my school back in 1980. Umbridge is the splitting image (appearance & personality) of my sixth grade teacher with a falsely sweet demeanor but could get downright nasty!
My condolences.

I know what you mean. She's very excellent at capturing types, isn't she? I've definitely had teachers like her in one or another qualities (though not usually all at once). I thought her bizarre (and ironic) overgirlishness is an often overlooked touch, too.

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?

Just like Voldemort, Umbride's decision to try and kill Harry was motivated by a fear of change. She wanted to protect her position, thinking that Dumbledore is planning to dispense with the Ministry.

Umbridge had the Dementors at her beck and call. She surely has used them in the past before. Assuming that she has ordered Dementor attacks in the past, these misdemeanors rank equal to spy Snape's tips that lead to death of innocents. If that doesn't qualify as evil, then Azkabaan should be empty.

Her parlour maid style should not be mistaken for ambiguity. Of course Umbridge is a villain. Occasionally a buffoon, a feeb in magic compared to the genuine teachers of Hogwarts, she does not even know the proper way to use Veritaserum. She is like Filch in some ways, except that Filch is a squib and is not biased towards Slitheryn.




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"?


Umbridge's duties were based on a fallacy, because there was no plot to unsettle the Ministry from Dumbledore. However Umbridge came to Hogwarts to thwart the Voldemort-is-back brigade.

She was at home at Hogwarts only when enforcing decrees. Her apparently safe mission of deepening Minstry influence in the school was wrapped in a disadvantage:- she was no longer hidden behind the bureaucratic cogs of her office. That mistake was magnified when, still in trying to succeed in her mission, she ventured into the Forbidden Forest. She thought that she was playing in her own backyard, and while it's true that she could enforce her own rules, they were easily bent. Whether be it the I squad, or the ban on the Quibbler, or her belief that Shacklebolt is an accomplice(shades of DUmbledore/Snape), she was increasingly alone on the terrain.


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?

Those questions neither drive the future plots nor connect to any recurring themes of her own personality. I think that we never have high hopes of the intricacies of any type of governments! Umbridge definitely has her supporters. At best we can say that Scrimegeour tolerates her.


4) How do you think Jo will give Umbridge her due in Book 7? What personality traits or actions could lead to her being involved in the plot?

I don't understand, firstly, how Umbridge doesn't get affected by the Dementors in the first place. But now that they are on Voldemort's side openly, maybe she will feel their clammy chill. But any punishment from Rowling would rather be of the slapstick kind...her come uppance with the centaurs was not clearly explained, so I cannot venture on this kind of guess.

3) I think mbridge has some fear over the ministry balanced out by her sweet exterior. If she was able to pull that stuff without getting Dumbledore aggravated, why coudln't she do something to gain support through fear in the ministry? I'm not sayign she amde the naughties write anythin into their hands, but something I'm not sure what.

If that is true, it makes her very very similar to Voldemort.

Whatz Up!

Anywayz I think Umbridge is a looking frog brat. She's one of my least favorite character and she always take some points to Gryffindor and gave some more points to Slytherin hmph I hate her:td:

So what do you think about Umbridge???

She is a nasty woman who cares more about keeping the status quo than to stand up for what is right. I bet she was in Slytherin house in school.

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 a worse kind of evil than Voldemort because she is the example of an evil some people have the misfortune of working with every day, unlike Voldemort. She is a bureaucrat, (sp?) of the worst kind. I don't think she's a Death Eater, and I don't think she supports Voldemort, I think she supports herself, and only herself and her position.

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"?

Plot driving, the DA, motivation, unification of the students are some things that I would say she helped with in OotP. I think she was a horrible teacher, as the class learned nothing, as far as I can tell. High Inquistor, she was unfair with the inspections, like with Hagrid. Headmistress, she had no control over the kids and was absolutely useless at stopping the mayhem. :no:

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 she is loyal to whomever has the most power right then, because she wants what is best for herself. She is still employed because no one reported what she did, as far as I know, and if they did report her, the people that reported her weren't believed. I think she is still Senior Undersecretary because we haven't heard any different yet.

4) How do you think Jo will give Umbridge her due in Book 7? What personality traits or actions could lead to her being involved in the plot?

I think her trait that she has to be in control and flaunt superiorty might get her in trouble, and, I don't know why, but I think it will have something to do with werewolves or centars, both of which she hates and fears, and considers "beneath" her.

She is mean to Harry, is a control freak for passing all those Educational Decrees, and ulgy. I mean the book says she looks like a toad, doesn't it.

I like the term control freak. She makes things quite clear through her course aims and tries very desperately to stick to them. I thought she would faint when Harry took his owl. She couldn't stop him from performing the patronus, and I think she suspected that he was teaching it to others. She knew that they were meeting.
Her punishments. She obviously would approve of paddling in muggle schools. Writing lines in your own blood is worse than a "good" paddling. Some people think that if the punishment includes some physical or emotional pain, it will stick with the person longer.

Umbridge is probably one of the scariest of all HP characters. Calling herself the high inquisitor and that reference to the spanish inquisition with all of its examples of torture and obscene corruption show just how perverted the ministry has become. She is scary because we know her in our daily lives and we know she keeps her job and gets promoted so yes we all cheer on the days the centaurs terrify her and the weasly boys tell her off.

I once worked for someone with a personality like Umbridge - she even loved pink! :lol: One strong characteristic that I notice in both Umbridge and that woman is the deep need for control, even to the point of using deception to maintain it.

Control for them becomes more important than morality, because with enough control they can shape what people believe, even shape what thought to be moral and what is not.

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 exactly say that her actions support Voldemort, but on the other hand, she is extremely cruel and heartless. Voldemort is out for power - but what is Umbridge out for?? For me that's what makes her a scary and shady character. I think that people become more frightening when you don't know what driving them. For instance, Voldemort wants power - so take power away from him. But what do you do with someone like Umbridge? I mean really, what could be possibly driving a groan woman to threaten and toture a fifteen year old boy?

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 that her "duties" were handled poorly. And yes Umbridge did drive the plot. I think that the character of Umbridge was an important one, because this was the first character that hated Harry, without having any ties to him or his family. You know, Snape has a grudge against his Dad, the Dursleys were forced to take care of him... but Umbridge was the first character to come along and give Harry a hard time for no apparent reason. She seems to think of herself as some high powder in the wizarding world, just because she work(ed) for Fudge.

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?

Quite frankly I'm amazed, and yet not surprised in the least that she still has a job at the MoM. I'm not sure if Umbridge is now employed directly under Scrimgeour - she just seemed WAY too loyal to Fudge. Then again, she seems to have deep respect for the Ministry and it's rules - she's much like Percy that way.

4) How do you think Jo will give Umbridge her due in Book 7? What personality traits or actions could lead to her being involved in the plot?

I believe that we will meet Umbridge again when Harry and others are in need of the Ministries help - or will bump into them along the way. I believe that Umbridge will be one of the people who will tell Harry to leave Lord Voldemort to the Ministry. Or she could just butt in big time and actually try to stop him in his actions along the way. Anyways, whatever happens, it will definitely be interesting.

I once worked for someone with a personality like Umbridge - she even loved pink! :lol: One strong characteristic that I notice in both Umbridge and that woman is the deep need for control, even to the point of using deception to maintain it.

Control for them becomes more important than morality, because with enough control they can shape what people believe, even shape what thought to be moral and what is not. I've been thinking about Umbridge lately, and her character is a beautifully rendered example of a deeply destructive person.

Something I've noticed is that when a person like Umbridge gains power, and you're right, OMGzilla, control is the key, she changes the group around her. You said this amazingly well and it obviously resonated with me.

Shaping the beliefs of others, manipulating the idea of what is moral, is something Umbridge excels at. Many people at Hogwarts, staff and students, loathe what she does. However, she finds enough weak-minded and/or not very bright people and 'frees their inner Umbridge.' She flatters and sweet talks people into giving her what she wants, and instills fear in those who oppose her goals. She effectively divides the Hogwarts community and with a quite small number of followers manages to terrorize the majority of inhabitants.

Those who follow Umbridge may have impulses toward cruelty in them, but she allows them scope to exercise those impulses in a way that they may not have imagined before. Others, like Marietta, are cowards, who give Umbridge what she wants out of fear. The quill helps to demoralize those who oppose her.

More than a teacher or a bureaucrat, Dolores Umbridge is a brilliant portrait of a person who gains power simply for the sake of wielding it for her own twisted jollies.

Shaping the beliefs of others, manipulating the idea of what is moral, is something Umbridge excels at. Many people at Hogwarts, staff and students, loathe what she does. However, she finds enough weak-minded and/or not very bright people and 'frees their inner Umbridge.' She flatters and sweet talks people into giving her what she wants, and instills fear in those who oppose her goals. She effectively divides the Hogwarts community and with a quite small number of followers manages to terrorize the majority of inhabitants.

Oh yes, I definitely agree. Umbridge, overall, is an infuriating person. She disgusts the strong-willed, and controls the weak-willed. Also, she's probably very familiar with the dvidie-and-conquer concept. The way she divided Hogwarts is very telling. At the time when unity was most needed, she managed to divide the school.
It, of course, gives her more power. If the school is divided, there will be no great attempts at rebellion. Of course, the DA was a good example, but eventually, it fell because its own members got scared. As long as the students are in two separate camps, it's easy to control the school.

When the Weasley twins set off the fireworks, the school once again became more or less united, and immediately, Umbridge lost most of her power. She probably thrives on the division.

But Umbridge is a bureaucrat. She uses manipulation and decrees to obtain her goals, which, according to me, sets her apart from Voldemort and the Death Eaters. Voldemort has manipulated quite a bit as well, but he really threatened his victims, while Umbridge is a bit more subtle. She is mean, but manages to hide it with sweet words.

What puzzles me is her motives. I don't think she's out for real power, like being Minister of Magic. She's probably the one who wants to regulate everything behind the scenes. She wants power, but she doesn't want to be the one who officially controls everything.

Well, I really detest Umbrige, probably even more than Voldemort. Voldemort is plain evil, but you sort of know what to expect. Umbridge's sugary sweet attitude is terribly annoying and you never know when she's going to be nice, and when not.

What puzzles me is her motives. I don't think she's out for real power, like being Minister of Magic. She's probably the one who wants to regulate everything behind the scenes. She wants power, but she doesn't want to be the one who officially controls everything.

Well, I really detest Umbrige, probably even more than Voldemort. Voldemort is plain evil, but you sort of know what to expect. Umbridge's sugary sweet attitude is terribly annoying and you never know when she's going to be nice, and when not. It's interesting that you say this. The Minister of Magic, or anyone who's in an elected position, has constraints upon him. Umbridge has far more power as a useful, behind-the-scenes operator. Because she's useful to the Minister, she can influence his actions in ways that enhance her own power and influence.

Whether she's flattering, advising, making ugly things happen for him or any other unsavory act, she's a valuable asset. She allows the Minister to keep his very public hands clean. This gives her more power to operate with her own agenda. Her agenda is designed to collect more power into her hands. She can use people as pawns for her own amusement, and she enjoys watched the results of her cruelty toward real people. There are people who live simply for the thrill of causing frustration and pain to others, and if they oppose her openly, like Harry, it's even a bigger thrill to crush her opponent.

It makes me a bit sick even writing this, but I've known a couple of people like Dolores and the damage they do to the people and the community around them can be devastating.

Umbridge is definately the most frightening character Jo's written. I definately think she's scarier than Voldemort.

I think Umbridge is a pretty horrible excuse for a human being (no character bashing intended), but that doesn't necessarily mean she is or isn't a DE. I think if she felt like becoming a DE she would, but she probably feels that she has enough power and control over others in her position at Hogwarts and at the Ministry. I do, however, think that she wouldn't have too many qualms about working alongside DEs if they allowed her to continue her favorite hobbies (persecution, punishment, terrorizing, etc).

Umbridge is a weak minded character, taken over by delusions brought on my the Ministry, and maybe other factors that we aren't aware of. Her treatment of Harry is nearly as cruel as the Dark Lords, in the twisted nature and pure hatred she shows towards him, and others. However, I don't know if it is fair to call her evil--More like disillusioned and cruel. She sees a different state of the world than most.

Umbridge is definately the most frightening character Jo's written. I definately think she's scarier than Voldemort.

I agree, I find her terrifying!
I don't know if she'd join the Death Eaters - wouldn't she see them as too 'disorderly'? And I can't see her having any truck with Fenrir Greyback, too much of a messy eater!
She wouldn't associate herself with 'common criminals' either.
I think her only loyalty is to herself, she likes to be in charge and to torture others for her own enjoyment.

Yeah I totally agree...she would never in her right mind ever join the death eaters...She is only loyal to the ministry...But she is still pure evil..I felt so mad when I found out she sent the death eaters

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?

She is as Hagrid said in SS "as bad as they come". DE or not I think she is worse than Voldemort in some respects as she only physically & emotionally tortures people, she doesn't actually kill them. I think death would be better in some cases. Emotional torture is far worse. As Dumbledore has said there are far worse things than dying. Delores understood that where Voldemort did not. DE or not, she is her own DH as she created her own horror without needing to 'join the club' so to speak.

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"?

Forcing them to create Dumbledores Army was the only favorable thing to come out of Dolores. I think if they had a better DA teacher they couldn't have learned as much as they did from Harry.

^^Yeah Harry was a very good d.a Teacher..Many people also learned the patronous charm from him which even some full grown wizards cannot achieve