"The Dark Lord will rise again...greater & more terrible" Was he really?

[rainie_hp]

The prophecy stated:

It will happen tonight. The Dark Lord lies alone and friendless, abandoned by his followers. His servant has been chained these 12 years. Tonight, before midnight... the servant will break free and set out to rejoin his master. The Dark Lord will rise again with his servant's aid, greater and more terrible than he ever was. Tonight... before midnight... the servant... will set out... to rejoin... his master...

Now we know that the prophecy came true...but what I always question myself is that was he really that terrible? I mean he lasted for like...3 years. But was he really that greater and terrible than he ever was? I didn't particularly get the feeling, what about you guys? Or was the prophecy just stating that he had tendencies/potential to become more terrible?

[wizard2423]

I think because of the fact he was able to take control of the Ministry, Hogwarts, and basically run the country he was worse than the last time. Dumbledore never would have imagined him taking Hogwarts, although if you think about it he really didn't because Snape was headmaster and he was good...but in essensce he did have the school......i guess

[snapegirl]

We can't be totally certain of what Voldemort did during his first stint as Dark Lord. However, it's pretty certain that he didn't control Hogwarts or the Ministry. He didn't order a succesful attempt on Dumbledore's life either. (Regardless of why Snape killed Dumbledore, I got the feeling Voldemort never actively tried to get rid of him the first time.)
So I think Voldemort was more terrible and stronger this time around. Even if he only lasted three years, in those years he acomplished things he didn't or couldn't do before.

[Wisp]

I agree. His attack on the wizarding world was more swift and powerful.

[nekurasunshine]

He didn't really seem as scary as we see him in during his last attempt for power... like in Godric's Hollow, although that was from the view of a one-year-old. Having said that, last time he didn't have control of the ministry, and make everyone's life a living hell.

[sardonyx]

Voldemort is probably the element in the series that required the greatest "willing forfiture of disbelief" from me. I just never believed him as a villain. He always seemed like Don John in Much Ado About Nothing, he has absolutely no motive, he's a made-up cardboard villain, he's just there to give the rest of the characters something to do.

And as far as being some sort of irrational, super evil.....eh...weak...we're constantly told how evil he is but somehow...he's a sort of comic-book spook....and he falls short of being a metaphorical evil (like Sauron in LOTR). He should either be a real guy gone bad, with a real understandable motive or a symbol....he's written somewhere between those two with the weakest elements of both....and he just doesn't work for me.

So the answer is no....he didn't come back worse than before...because it's hard to know how bad he is in either occurance...

[LudwigVan]

Originally Posted by wizard2423

I think because of the fact he was able to take control of the Ministry, Hogwarts, and basically run the country he was worse than the last time. Dumbledore never would have imagined him taking Hogwarts, although if you think about it he really didn't because Snape was headmaster and he was good...but in essensce he did have the school......i guess

Totally agree, he accomplished more than when he rised for the first time. He corrupted the entire ministry and the school. Also the hatred for muggles and muggle borns increased

[wizard2423]

How could you say he was a "cardboard character"? No motive? His motive was that he grew up without love and it turned him against the world....al he needed was a hug.

[GoldSeven]

Originally Posted by wizard2423

How could you say he was a "cardboard character"? No motive? His motive was that he grew up without love and it turned him against the world....al he needed was a hug.

That sums up why I agree with Sardonyx I never liked Voldemort as a villain either. I think that, while all the rest of JKR's cast became more complex and more human, with a lot of motives and feelings and backstories, Voldemort always remained the storybook villain he was in book one. He worked really well as a storybook villain in book one (and I think he had his spookiest moment in book one, when he peeped out of Quirrel's head!) But as the story "grew up" and became more complex, Voldemort didn't, for me. He got a backstory, but that never really convinced me, remaining rather flat in a very vivid cast.

In another thread, a week or so ago, we discussed Voldemort's similarities and differences to Richard III in Shakespeare. I think that is the problem - in literature, you distinguish between flat and dynamic characters, and Voldemort was never dynamic. As I said - that works well with a certain type of stories, but not if he's the only flat one in a dynamic cast. He wasn't human enough to be believable - but not demonic enough to be the remote, ultimate terror he might have been for the whole thing to work.

But that's a minor thing for me, really, don't get me wrong - I read those books for the heroes, not for the villain.

[Magi]

Voldemort actually did take over the whole wizard world (in Britain, at least) the second time around.

He probably didn't have that much control in his first reign.

[bulldog7_23]

Originally Posted by GoldSeven

That sums up why I agree with Sardonyx I never liked Voldemort as a villain either. I think that, while all the rest of JKR's cast became more complex and more human, with a lot of motives and feelings and backstories, Voldemort always remained the storybook villain he was in book one. He worked really well as a storybook villain in book one (and I think he had his spookiest moment in book one, when he peeped out of Quirrel's head!) But as the story "grew up" and became more complex, Voldemort didn't, for me. He got a backstory, but that never really convinced me, remaining rather flat in a very vivid cast.

In another thread, a week or so ago, we discussed Voldemort's similarities and differences to Richard III in Shakespeare. I think that is the problem - in literature, you distinguish between flat and dynamic characters, and Voldemort was never dynamic. As I said - that works well with a certain type of stories, but not if he's the only flat one in a dynamic cast. He wasn't human enough to be believable - but not demonic enough to be the remote, ultimate terror he might have been for the whole thing to work.

But that's a minor thing for me, really, don't get me wrong - I read those books for the heroes, not for the villain.

I agree, to a point. Voldemort is definitively a static character throughout the series, yes. His growth and complexities are never visible, although, partly because he, himself, is barely visible. So, of course, his lack of presence has somewhat to do with that. His identity and the threat he symbolizes is omnipresent in the series, but him, not so much. That certainly leads to the reader never being able to judge or witness any growth, as a character. However, I believe some of this may have been intentional on JKR's part. If one looks at Voldemort through the context of the story, his lack of development makes more sense. JKR uses Voldemort as an example of what occurs if someone falls so far into evil. I think she uses Voldemort to make a statement about how, once one is decidedly evil, growth and development, on a personal standpoint, is impossible. She is saying that once one reaches the epitome of absolute evil, what Voldemort represents, than the individual becomes static, can't possibly progress as a person. I think she tried to make Voldemort so evil that he lost his human elements. Unfortunately, because of this attempt at creating an absolute evil, Voldemort loses the realistic qualities all of JKR's other characters possess. He becomes a creature not human enough to be afforded sympathy by the reader but not demonic enough to be the absolute terror he was intended to represent, either. However, just as you said, I read the books for the protagonists and the plot, not so much for the villain.

[Prince_Snape]

I wonder how much of a dunderhead he was during his first reign of terror then if his second reign is supposed to be more terrible. I agree with Voldemort being carboard and cartoonish, I actually don't really see him as much of a character, more like an emboiment of evil in human (er humaniod) form which I think is what the poster above me said, ohwell. He simple isn't believable, it was like he was born evil, which I'm pretty sure Dumbledore said it wasn't possible for some one to be born evil, there was no gradual or even sudden turning point he was evil from the beggining. Also he was made out to be extremely stupid and careless which makes it extremely hard to think he could be the greatest evil wizard of all time, and no you can't explain it with arrogance, James Potter was arrogant! Voldemort simply has a stupidness worthy of a scooby doo villain, I was really hoping for a bit of substance in his character for this last book, I was sadly dissapointed.

[criostoir]

Originally Posted by rainie_hp

Now we know that the prophecy came true...but what I always question myself is that was he really that terrible? I mean he lasted for like...3 years. But was he really that greater and terrible than he ever was? I didn't particularly get the feeling, what about you guys? Or was the prophecy just stating that he had tendencies/potential to become more terrible?

He was greater and more terrible, perhaps, because he could now touch Harry without turning into "The Mummy"?

[GoldSeven]

Originally Posted by bulldog7_23

I agree, to a point. Voldemort is definitively a static character ...

Aaaah, thanks - "static" was the term I was looking for as the opposite of a dynamic character. My elementary literary theory course was sooo long ago.

[Dragonious]

I think that he was much more terrible than he was before. Obvious there is no way of knowing unless JK writes prologue with what happen before Harry's time. But this time Voldemort was more clued up than last time and like someone said before me, he was in effect in control of the whole country. Minus a few rebels :-D

I think that he learnt some really scare powers in the time that it took him to come to full power. Like for example,
- Flight: He was able to fly without the aid of a broomstick
- MoM : He had the Ministry of Magic in his pocket
- Hogwarts: He had Hogwarts in his pocket
- His Name: "Voldemort" as a name was tabooed
- Albus : Albus Dumbledore was dead so in effect the one person that Voldemort fear most was out of his way

[7Moony7]

I think one is only great and terrible if one believes himself to be. Voldemort, the first time, was rising to power, and when he found out about the prophecy it was almost like... he was threatened and so, he didnt believe himself to be the ultimate greatest and most terrible. This time round though, in Voldemort's head, he imagined himself to be the greatest and most terrible, since he had conquered all the things that had stopped him (getting Harry's blood and changing wands). I think thats why he was more terrible - in the sense that he believed himself to be unthreatened. Also, I think its because this time round he was just 'coming back' not 'rising to power' as he was before... It had already been proved he could be that powerful and his reputation was already made, which invoked more fear in his hearts. 'Terrible' means to inspire terror and voldemort's reputation this time round had long time to brew.

[hgrwfan]

Originally Posted by sardonyx

Voldemort is probably the element in the series that required the greatest "willing forfiture of disbelief" from me. I just never believed him as a villain. He always seemed like Don John in Much Ado About Nothing, he has absolutely no motive, he's a made-up cardboard villain, he's just there to give the rest of the characters something to do.

And as far as being some sort of irrational, super evil.....eh...weak...we're constantly told how evil he is but somehow...he's a sort of comic-book spook....and he falls short of being a metaphorical evil (like Sauron in LOTR). He should either be a real guy gone bad, with a real understandable motive or a symbol....he's written somewhere between those two with the weakest elements of both....and he just doesn't work for me.

So the answer is no....he didn't come back worse than before...because it's hard to know how bad he is in either occurance...

I can see how it seems that way but I just keep thinking that this book is told from Harry's perspective. We all know that Harry sometimes has a slighted view of things. He gets an idea and runs with it. He has gotten better with giving things thought before acting on them, mostly due to Hermione. My point is that I agree that what drives Voldemort to be what he is weak but we are told the story from Harry's perspective. Most times Harry operated without having all the facts. The reason it seems like he is a comic book villian is because it is told through Harry's eyes. That is the information that Harry has. It is not terribly complexed because Harry's understanding of Voldemort is not complexed. He thinks Voldemort is evil for no good reason and so he is.

But also, when we think of serial killers that we hear about on t.v. a lot of times the killings always seem senseless to us, because we can't fathom ever doing anything like that. I mean its like okay mommy was mean to me and I was abused growing up so yeah now I am gonna abuse someone else. Isn't that a weak reason for hurting someone. It is to me because you could have chosen to help someone not go through what you did. Or you could have gotten yourself some councelling to work that out. Not saying that always works but hey maybe it could help. Voldemort's reasons for killing all those people is senseless but still a valid reason for him. Not to me or you, but it is to him. He wants power and there is his motive. He wanted to be respected and feared above all is what drives him. And definitely killing Harry has been one of his greatest desires. Yeah it is a weak motive, but my point is aren't there killings that are senseless?

[YellowRose]

The prophecy stated:


Quote:
It will happen tonight. The Dark Lord lies alone and friendless, abandoned by his followers. His servant has been chained these 12 years. Tonight, before midnight... the servant will break free and set out to rejoin his master. The Dark Lord will rise again with his servant's aid, greater and more terrible than he ever was. Tonight... before midnight... the servant... will set out... to rejoin... his master...

Now we know that the prophecy came true...but what I always question myself is that was he really that terrible? I mean he lasted for like...3 years. But was he really that greater and terrible than he ever was? I didn't particularly get the feeling, what about you guys? Or was the prophecy just stating that he had tendencies/potential to become more terrible?

Well, they had to give him some build up, otherwise what would have been the point of the series? 'Yes, he'll come back and the whole elder wand/love thing will go competely over his head, so you're OK to go Harry'.

I think they pointed it out very well in Potter Watch, people's fear of him made him seem much more terrible than he actually was.

[Voldemorts8thHorcrux]

Last time, he didn't have complete control over the Ministry and Hogwarts, I would say greater and more powerful than before, but this time, the person to stop him stopped him earlier this time

[d4rk_magician]

He definately did. He managed to achieve in little time what had taken him years to accomplish in his last rise to power. But this time he survived less time because Harry was bigger and stronger. And Dumbledore found out a way to kill him, found out he had made horcruxes...