Building a Better Voldemort

[sunnyskywalker]

Last December, charlottehywd asked if there was a list of things that would make Voldemort a more effective villain. I figured there's no better place to compile one!

Some initial ideas to kick things off:

He could have Apparated into the Potters' house right past the anti-Apparition wards which would stop any normal wizard.

He could have actually killed Arthur with Nagini.

He could have arrested one or more Weasleys in DH and released stories about how they were being subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" on suspicion of blood treason in the Daily Prophet to lure Harry out. (Hey, dangling a loved one as bait worked on the kid before, why not give it another shot? It's not like it'll cost Voldemort much even if it doesn't work.)

He could have Imperiused someone close to Harry - Ron, Hermione, Lupin, Molly - making it hard for Harry to know whom to trust.

He could have turned someone close to Harry to his side by other means, either coercion or brilliant manipulation.

He could have unleashed the Inferi instead of leaving them boxed up in the garage.

We could have seen more of the damage the Dementors caused after they went AWOL after the DE breakout from Azkaban.

I'd love to hear more ideas!

Comments

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

He could have simply ignored Harry Potter. And gotten on with the job of taking over the wizarding world. Harry wouldn't have been able to stop him.

He could have persevered with the *proven* attack of book #5 - mental intrusion - and continued sending Harry visions. The boy wouldn't have known what to do. Indeed, the exact 'dangling a loved one as (vision) bait' trick might work again! (Instead the author had Voldemort cease using this attack, *proven successful* in book #5, in the subsequent novel ... and then two books later had Voldemort become a mental midget, actually pushing his *secrets* to his arch enemy. Because otherwise ... Voldemort would have won! And we couldn't have that. Or Harry shaping up as someone with actual prowess or skills in defeating a dark lord. So instead the dark lord voluntarily decides not to press on with a *successful* attack strategy. And then - 'master of mental magics' that he is (that's a quote from the books, isn't it?) - he suddenly, unknowingly, transmits his every plan to Harry. Just when it's convenient to the author for him to do so. Pfah. Pathetic villain. Pathetic author of pathetic villain.)

He could have instructed his followers that it was open season on Harry Potter - "just bring me his body". Or that the Chosen One was to be captured on sight, if not killed. But no. Instead, we have Snape, at the end of book 6, easily defeat Harry in a duel - the boy couldn't even *engage*, he wasn't in the same league as Snape - but Snape tells all of the other Death Eaters that the fallen Potter is to be left alone, 'we are to leave him!'. When they could have either (a) AK'ed the boy right then and there, or (b) stunned him and carried him away. Absolutely *nothing* stopping them from doing this as they *run past the 'wandless and defenceless' 'hero'*. Except for Rowling's desperate need to keep her protagonist alive ... and being unable to come up with any decent reason. Other than making Voldemort a pathetic villain, issuing pathetic orders to his henchmen.

He could have ignored Harry's long melodramatic cliched boring monologue in the final battle and just AK'ed the boy then and there.

Or, when Harry tells him that he is *not* the Master of the Elder Wand - in that very same monologue - Riddle could have simply Summoned another wand, and used that wand to kill the Boy Who Told His Enemy How To Win. But no. Rowling's writing, at this stage, was so embarrassingly artificial, she was so desperate just to get Harry over the finish line and the series ended, she just went ahead and wrote the most embarrassing series closer known to man:

Harry: Voldemort, If you use your wand against me you'll DIE!

Voldemort: *uses Elder Wand against Harry*

Voldemort: *dies*

[aasaylva.livejournal.com]

Amen. What I really really still don't get is why. I understand Rowling getting used to the nice life of the well-to-do - for someone as desperate for public attention as she seems to be it's of course much nicer to give yet another interview, let yourself be congratulated on revolutionizing children's litereature etc. than sitting alone in front of an empty sheet of paper, trying to come up with a decent plot or believable characterization. I get that and I would have expected the easy badfic-way out: suddenly conferring superpowers to Harry, him channelling dead Dumbledore or whatever and show him to actually (and VERY miraculously) be better than Voldemort. Let the better wizard win and lo and behold that turned out to be Harry - just like in a thousand US movies about some underdogs sports team suddenly winning the championship because - um - the script says so.
So why, if she was bored with her own story and just wanted it to be over, didn't she do exactly that? Instead of inventing idiotic plot contrivances that STILL did nothing to help Harry win the war which STILL required Voldemort and his ilk to be semi-retarded to say the least. It's bad enough if your hero can't win the war without luck helping out at every corner, but still dumbing down your villain as well?

[sunnyskywalker]

Oh, I like the "keep sending visions" idea a lot. Possessing Harry hurt, but sending visions was no problem, so why quit? Especially if Voldemort managed to fine-tune it and send Harry waking visions just slightly off from what was actually happening, so Harry started getting reality and Voldievisions mixed up. That could be horrifying.

Also, forget wands - isn't one of Voldemort's scariest powers the amount of wandless magic he can control? Once he found out the Elder Wand was no go, he could have possessed a nearby animal or human to kill Harry for him. Death by thestral!

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

All of these are brilliant! I especially like the "just ignore Harry" ploy; it's a lot more sensible than anything Voldemort did in the books. I'd add, Voldemort is supposed to be seductive, in the "glamour of evil and false promises" sense. We never saw that - never saw him being genuinely persuasive. He's just an over-the-top, melodramatic, cackling villain. It's impossible to see why any reasonably intelligent, ambitious youngster like Sev or Regulus would join up. I would have loved to see Voldemort - perhaps through a trusted proxy like Remus- making a serious, partly-successful bid for Harry's allegiance. That would have made things so much more interesting! It would also have made some sense of the constant Severus/Harry comparisons, which were just wasted in the end.

[aasaylva.livejournal.com]

Oh yes. But you see, we can't have that. If nobody wore the label "loves Harry = will hate the Death Eaters = good = can do anything they like without needing to pay for it" and "bad = will hate Harry = will follow Voldemort = can do anything they like without being redeemed" - how would we know who to root for? And according to what exactly would anyone decide which side they are on? In the books, it's certainly not behaviour or philosophical standpoints, is it. It's more a sympathy-thing.
Meaning the author would have had to come up with something like a coherent political/ ethical standpoint instead of easy "labelism". In fact, I've been entertaining a suspicion for some time now. To me it seems as if she tried to get around having to know much by just inventing an alternate universe where everything is just as she needs it to be. She hadn't grasped the fact that it's not easier but more difficult to invent a whole new world and make it work for anyone with a functioning brain.

[sunnyskywalker]

Voldemort had some good material to work with by DH, too, what with Harry having so much more information on how many mistakes and manipulations Dumbledore had on his hands, and that Harry's dad wasn't such a great moral arbiter either. Is Harry really sure they're the good guys? He wouldn't even have to get Harry on his side necessarily, so long as he could separate Harry from his allies (well, turns out Harry did that for him, but who could have guessed...) and lure him into doing something that would end up helping Voldemort.

Though he could have tried the angle that he was just using the purebloods, didn't Harry see? Soon he would start the next phase of his plan, kidnapping Muggleborn children in infancy as identified by the Hogwarts Quill (kindly making sure the parents and other Muggles wouldn't remember the child) and placing them in wizarding homes... and, when necessary, modifying pureblood families' memories to make them think it was their own child. Wouldn't that be sweet poetic justice on the purebloods, doting on the very children they purported to hate? And wouldn't it be so much easier for the children, no longer condemned to suffer as Harry did with the Dursleys or little Tom in the orphanage? Or for Harry's bright friend Hermione - wouldn't it have been so much easier for her to start off in the wizarding world where she would be appreciated properly, and easier for her parents, who wouldn't have such very large holes in their memories now?

Harry still might not have gone for it, if he still had a few braincells and scraps of ethics, but heroes are supposed to face temptation, aren't they?

[oryx_leucoryx]

When he came to Godric's Hollow he could have Imperiurized Lily to stand aside and watch him kill baby Harry. Or he could have Imperiurized Lily to do the act.

In the Quidditch game in PS, once he realized it was Severus countering his curse, he could have just stopped cursing Harry's broom (maybe spelling a bludger to hit him n the head instead). Depending on how Severus' counter-curse worked, without the force of the original curse Severus may have ended up causing Harry to fall, and if not, there's still that bludger.

At the end of PS he could have summoned the troll's club and spelled it to bludgeon Harry to death.

In GOF he could have killed Harry before he even summoned the DEs. He certainly shouldn't have given Harry his wand back. Of course by new DH rules he might have ended up merely destroying the Horcrux but he didn't know any of that so no reason not to do it.

[sunnyskywalker]

When he came to Godric's Hollow he could have Imperiurized Lily to stand aside and watch him kill baby Harry. Or he could have Imperiurized Lily to do the act.

Yes, that would have been much scarier and more sensible. No blood protection rebound, either!

Giving Harry his wand was so dumb. Why would killing him outright not demonstrate Voldemort's mastery over Harry, exactly? It still shows the kid has no special powers that will protect him.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

When he came to Godric's Hollow he could have Imperiurized Lily to stand aside and watch him kill baby Harry. Or he could have Imperiurized Lily to do the act.

Well, yes, but he could have done a lot of things. He could have hung her upside-down, turned her green with purple polka dots, turned her into a turtle and so forth.

But an efficient villain should cut to the chase and just kill his enemy. Which Voldemort did. No reason to look for more elaborate ways of doing it.

Take away the "stand aside, silly girl, stand aside" bits and Voldemort did the correct thing (for a dark lord).

He certainly shouldn't have given Harry his wand back.

Goodness, that's a classic one! More acceptable, melodramatically speaking - it's such a well-known cliche most people would accept it, the bad guy offering to meet his opponent on an equal footing - than his just being an *idiot* at the final confrontation though.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

Of course by new DH rules he might have ended up merely destroying the Horcrux but he didn't know any of that so no reason not to do it.

The whole scene in the forest, in DH, could have been played out right then, instead of holding it off. Not in a detail mood, so I wouldn't know who he should have talked to at the station instead of the still-living Dumbledore, but he could have woken and found himself dazed, in the maze, with all sorts of mayhem going on around him as everyone tried to figure out what happened, why Harry was stunned, why Cedric was dead...

It would also have been more of an in-the-readers'-face when Dumbledore dropped the load of Horcruxes into the plot. Might have prompted the Horcrux revelation, if it really was pre-planned, a lot sooner. Or, Harry might have really believed he was charmed, leading to some stupid moves throughout Book 5 that would have made sense, given that he thought he was indestructable...

[ladyzenobia.livejournal.com]

He could have left Hogwarts to intelligent capable Death Eaters (assuming such exist) in DH, instead of the Carrows who got off on torturing children, apparently. All the more so because students needed blood status to attend at all so the Carrows were actually torturing children of wizarding families, whom Voldemort claimed he wanted on his side.

And instead of having the muggle studies class be all about what ignorant savages muggles are he could have introduced something like a wizarding culture class. Children would learn all about old wizarding traditions (and let's face it - the bloodier those were the more impressed most of the Gryffindor kids would be) and about how muggleborns don't respect their culture (Christmas being celebrated instead of Yule and etc). And in muggle studies the kids would be told about the threat muggles pose to the wizarding world with their global warming and pollution of the environment and weapons of mass destructions. But that would require giving the muggles some credit I guess :)

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

I'd be kind-of interested in a Voldemort who actually treated non-magic people as utterly beneath his notice. If one got in his way, he would kill him as if he were a fly, or something; and the rest of the time he would act as though they don't exist or matter and tell others to do the same. Not to wipe their memories, and not to abuse them with magic, but to simply ignore them and kill any who try to interfere, because they're nothing anyway. The notion of a villain who thinks normals are beneath his notice is interesting and one that isn't executed nearly enough.

[sunnyskywalker]

If he'd had capable teachers who weren't torturing students, that would have put a serious crimp in the Hogwarts resistance, for sure. And it would make his side a lot more attractive to anyone on the fence, and even a few former Dumbledore fans.

[oryx_leucoryx]

In Terri's WIP Headmaster Snape the hiring of the Carrows was actually Severus' idea (conveyed very indirectly) precisely because he had better chance limiting damage caused by those two.

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

These are all good ideas, but for me, what it all boils down to is giving Voldemort an actual personality and clear goals, rather than have him be simply a stock evil overlord. Actually give him a logical reason for going evil and hating those without magic, or else show how the rest of the Wizarding World shares his same prejudices and could become like him. Make him do genuinely horrible things to magic people on a regular basis, which are actually relevant to the story, rather than making Nazi allusions for no clear reason. Don't make him born evil; make him born okay and go evil at some future point. And so on.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Actually give him a logical reason for going evil and hating those without magic, or else show how the rest of the Wizarding World shares his same prejudices and could become like him.

Yes! And the thing is, Rowling was so close to managing that. It's clear that Tom is miserable in the orphanage and fearful of being locked up as insane; it's equally clear that prejudice against Muggleborns comes directly from the widespread prejudice against normal people (aka Muggles). Yet Rowling does absolutely nothing with these ideas. She just lets them sit there, and many readers actually do not notice them.

Getting back to my first point - Voldemort as a seducer - this is why the teenage Tom Riddle of COS is so much more effective as a villain than the grown-up Lord Voldemort. It would have been nice had we seen some damage to Ginny (and to Harry, eventually) from being possessed by him. Something only they could fully understand, and which they had to help each other fight. This would, at one stroke, have given depth to their characters, made Voldemort more scary, and made their relationship less paint-by-numbers and more probable.

My two cents.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Yes. There was a fic where he was bullied at the orphanage and was prevented from using magic to retaliate (or even protect himself) because of the Statute of Secrecy, so he had a reason to hate both Muggles and the Ministry that let him be victimized by them. Then in HBP it turned out he was the one terrorizing the non-magical kids all along.

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

* He could have a realistic motivation for acting as he does. We’re told that Voldemort wants to conquer death, but trying to take over the wizarding world has… absolutely nothing to do with achieving this goal. If anything, it would tend to get in the way, since by threating the wizarding government he’d naturally make himself a target for their aurors, and hence increase his chances of getting killed.

* He could have used his great dark arts powers once in a while to show the readers why he’s so feared (and no, the Superman impression in DH doesn’t really satisfy).

* He could act in such a way as to make his minions’ loyalty more believable. As it is, they don’t seem to have any reason to follow him: he treats them appallingly, and it’s not as if he’s ever suggested sharing his secret of immortality with them.

* Related to the above, he could have shown signs of actually being a charismatic, intelligent leader, rather than a cackling cartoon character with no apparent skills to justify his status as the century’s most notorious dark lord.

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/We’re told that Voldemort wants to conquer death, but trying to take over the wizarding world has… absolutely nothing to do with achieving this goal. If anything, it would tend to get in the way, since by threating the wizarding government he’d naturally make himself a target for their aurors, and hence increase his chances of getting killed./

Yes, exactly! Voldemort says in GoF that his goal is to "conquer death," but then we learn in HBP that the only kind of death he wanted to conquer was his own. If all he wanted was to be immortal, then why even bother with the pureblood-supremacist agenda? And why does he want to be immortal? JKR never explained that either.

[sunnyskywalker]

Definitely. Either he should have good reasons for both wanting to become immortal and taking over the world, which conflict with each other, or he should have his priorities clearly ranked (eg, being immortal makes it easier to take over the world, so it's a step toward that goal, or something). A Voldemort who wants to become immortal and thinks this requires quietly murdering a lot of people and sucking their essence Dementor-style or something like that, and has a small cult of similar murder-for-eternal-life acolytes but doesn't bother with the political angle, could be pretty scary too.

The weird thing is that Tom Riddle did show signs of being a charismatic manipulator with leadership qualities. How is it that JKR can write that, but not after the character gets magical plastic surgery and red contacts?

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

"•He could have arrested one or more Weasleys in DH and released stories about how they were being subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" on suspicion of blood treason in the Daily Prophet to lure Harry out."

He could have arrested all Harry's friends and have them slowly and publicly tortured to death, one by one, until Harry agreed to give himself up.

[sunnyskywalker]

True! If he's going to be brutal, might as well go all-out.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Lots of the ideas here are great (I hear plotbunnies gathering....). I'd add that Voldie ought to pay more attention to getting and gaining support once in power. Although JKR's pasteded-on-yay Nazi imagery galls me, taking it and running with it for a minute, I could see an effective Voldie doing what Hitler did and giving the population at large reasons to love him: for example, some wizarding version of the Nazi "Strength through Joy" program making trips, sporting activities, prizes etc. available; also praising sectors of the population who often get ignored, like the Nazi celebration of the laborer. Or big shows and spectacles (think Triumph of the Will), making the most of new technology/magic in an impressive way. Things like that.

I'd also like to see Voldemort do *unexpected* things to get the WW off-balance. For instance, I'm reminded of a wonderful/chilling fic by pogrebin that I read a while ago, "unsticking the shadow." In it Voldemort makes excellent strategic use of the Daily Prophet: he issues a statement that immediately and radically changes how most people look at non-purebloods by drawing attention to a certain simple fact. I HIGHLY recommend the fic, but also just having Voldemort think that way, casting the terms of the war/debate in a new light, can be effective and so deeply creepy.

[aasaylva.livejournal.com]

My dear condwiramurs, these few sentences alone show you've got way more knowledge about Nazis and what made them attractive to the Germans and Austrians than Rowling ever had. In fact, my grave suspicions are she got her Nazi-idea from American movies where Nazis are evil and stupid (so why then would they have been dangerous?) - which is - alas - not how reality works. At all. But then love and romance and ethics and sports don't work as depicted as well, so....

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

I hope that I am not coming in too late here, but I feel like one of the main things that could have improved Voldemort as a villain would have been to have thrown out all of the "dark lord" villain trappings. I can understand in some ways why she would keep them- after all, I am an amateur writer myself and have always had a hard time with creating believable villains, but I feel like she just took the easy way out and it made Voldemort less of a unique, frightening and interesting foe than a standard villain would would be equally at home in a Saturday morning cartoon. What's weird is that she was able to create a quite good villain (Umbridge) in the same series. I'm not sure why she would cop out on the ultimate villain when she put such time and effort into a secondary one.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

I'd say that it's because Umbridge is not an *epic* villain. And JKR is clearly going for the Tolkienesque epic Good Vs Evil fight-to-the-death with Voldie, especially in the later books (where Voldie becomes even thinner and less believable). But JKR just isn't very good with creating that genuinely epic feel - she relies too much on tropes and doesn't think about what they mean or what's behind them, and lets them stand in for actual characterization. Whereas Umbridge isn't really a trope like the Dark Lord is; she's an individual character working within and reacting to a limited environment/situation. Which lets JKR focus more on giving her depth.

I might also wager that, with the ridiculous pacing of books 5-7 coming out, JKR spent her best energies on creating Umbridge and the other bits of decent material, and made the mistake of relying too much on the hints about larger things dropped into earlier books, without realizing that she needed to *fill in* the rest of what those were supposedly pointing *to*.