1
Jason Moore
For: Summer Pervez
ENG 133E
July 20, 2007.
A Necessary Evil?
The Role of Villain in Children’s Literature
Children’s literature has historically dealt with the age old struggle between good
and evil. The classic fairytales have been rife with examples of big bad wolves, evil
stepmothers and other monsters attempting to exterminate sweet young children. If the
child audience can identify with the youthful protagonist presented in children’s
literature, then the child must also relate to the nemesis of the main character. In other
words, the child audience must be able to recognize evil in the form of the villain. Often
the villain is a representation of some collective social fear. J.M Barrie’s Peter Pan and
J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone are two fantasy novels with
young male protagonists who face archetypical villains. While these two children’s
literature stories focus on the male protagonist as hero, Lucy Maud Montgomery’s Anne
of Green Gables differs in that the protagonist is female and the novel also contains no
villain, and arguably no viable antagonist. Anne is therefore not a hero in the classical
sense, but rather the protagonist of a Bildungsroman who must come to terms with her
own identity and the society she lives in. While Barrie and Rowling’s stories are
fantasies, Montgomery’s tale is realistic. The villains of the fantasy novel can be seen as
representations of certain types of evil or social ills whereas the realistic novel needs only
to illustrate a common strife without embellishment: Hook represents the adult whom
Peter Pan fears he will become; the various possible villains of Harry Potter represent
unseen evil, paranoia and a general mistrust of those who are not like us; Anne Shirley
2
struggles to find a balance between individuality and conformity / childhood and
adulthood. The reality of Anne’s situation does not require a villain to enhance her good
qualities, but the tensions of every day life serve to entertain the reader into identifying
with her struggle.
Throughout Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone evil exists in many forms
and at times is quite obscure. Some of the villains, such as Voldemort and the Dursley’s,
are obvious while others, such as Professor Snape, are not as apparent. Scholar Jack
Zipes, in his critique of children’s literature, Sticks and Stones, states that, “Just as it is
difficult to place our finger on evil in the real world, evil is elusive in the Harry Potter
novels, and yet it lurks around every corner and on almost every page” (181). Zipes
suggests that this elusive form of evil in the novel is a reflection of contemporary
society’s fears of terrorists, pedophiles and kidnappers whom the media regularly tout as
ever-present predators. Indeed the Dursley’s can be viewed as heavy handed child
abusers as they force Harry to sleep in a closet, neglect him emotionally and constantly
deride him. There is also a sense in the novel, however, that the Dursley’s represent the
typical conservative Christian family (the type who would wish to ban the Harry Potter
books from schools and libraries for their alleged promotion of paganism). While they
try to maintain an appearance of decency and respectability, the Dursley’s are full of fear
and view Harry and his kind as a threat to their homeostasis. The Dursley family
represents the underlying bigotry and racism which permeates throughout conservative
white America today. Harry is not loved by the Dursley’s (even though he is family)
because he is different, and different is bad. When Harry asks his aunt Petunia about the
scar on his forehead she snarls at him and tells him not to ask questions. Rowling
3
explains, “Don’t ask questions- that was the first rule for a quiet life with the Dursley’s”
(20). This rule is often enforced in conservative American households. Do not ask
questions. Follow the rules. Do not be different. Perhaps Rowling is suggesting that
villains are indeed lurking everywhere, and that one need not look further than the family
next door to find them. Harry, unlike the Dursley’s, is the true model of respectability;
polite, non-judgmental and humble.
The character of Voldemort is a more definable villain, yet at the same time he is
also intangible. As Zipes points out, the name Voldemort evokes a sense of evil from its
etymology: vole, meaning a common rodent and mort being the French word for death.
However, as Zipes states, “the meaning is irrelevant. It is the association of
uncontrollable evil that is important” (181). Because Voldemort has no body of his own
and is more supernatural than human, he never really establishes himself as a physical
presence. Most characters in the book will not even call Voldemort by name but refer to
him merely as “You-Know-Who”. The information given about Voldemort is told to
Harry in past tense, portraying the villain as a mythical or legendary persona, as when
Hagrid states, “No one ever lived after he decided ter kill ’em, no one except you, an’
he’d killed some o‘ the best witches an’ wizards of the age” (Rowling, 45). While
Rowling makes it clear that Voldemort is a ruthless killer, he can also be viewed as a
representation of society’s invisible villains; the people whom stories are told about but
are rarely seen. Just as society is more comfortable labeling terrorists or pedophiles as
inhuman monsters rather than trying to understand them on a human level, Voldemort is
a faceless entity who cannot be described for fear that he may somehow be humanized.
The human psyche craves to differentiate between good and evil; black and white; us and
4
them. Rowling knows exactly what society fears and crafts her villain to parallel the
elusive evils of the world.
More evidence of the elusive villain can be found in the characters of Professor Snape
and Quirrel. As a clever plot device, Rowling has Harry believe that the dark-haired,
evil-looking Snape is working with Voldemort against him, only to find out that the
bumbling Quirrel is the actual culprit. Rowling leads the reader to suspect with Harry
that Snape is a true villain. Besides the name Snape (one letter away from snake),
Rowling’s description of the character suggests that he is to be feared. Snape’s
appearance is a combination of ethnic stereotypes; all of which are non-white. Professor
Snape has “greasy black hair, a hooked nose and sallow skin” (Rowling, 94). From a
racist perspective the character is a combination of Latino, Jewish and Asian descent.
When contrasted with the all white ‘good guys’, Snape seems the perfect villain. Only
after Harry finds out the truth about Snape and Quirrel’s characters is the reader forced to
reevaluate what villains truly look like. In contemporary society, the bad guy could be
anyone: priest, teacher or scout leader. No one is to be trusted. Jack Zipes summarizes
the sentiment behind Rowling’s perception of good and evil as he states:
In a world in which we are uncertain of our roles and uncertain about our capacity
to defeat evil, the Harry Potter novels arrive and inform us that if we all pull
together… and follow the lead of the chosen one, evil will be overcome. It
doesn’t matter that [the chosen people] happen to be all white, all British, all from
good homes, and that the men and boys call the shots. What matters is a feeling
of security that we gain after reading one or more of Rowling’s novels. (182- 83)
The villains in Rowling’s novel reflect the unseen evils that society fears, whether they
are an actual threat or not. Harry Potter is the Caucasian saviour, who must be cautious
and virtuous in order to defeat the many potential villains.
5
If Rowling’s villains are representations of social evils, J.M. Barrie’s character of
Captain Hook represents the antithesis of childhood. From a child’s perspective, Hook is
a villain merely because of the fact that he is the antagonist of Peter Pan who is the
embodiment of youthful energy and charisma. Hook has all the bearings of a classic
villain in that he is not entirely human. Barrie describes him as “cadaverous and
blackavized” (62). The fact that Hook has an iron claw for a hand and that his eyes glow
red when he kills someone, puts him on a supernatural level similar to Voldemort. From
and adult perspective, however, Hook can be seen as a close parallel to Peter’s character.
There is something quite romantic about the pirate as he has a “handsome countenance…
elegance of diction” and, “indomitable courage” (62). Although he is a ruthless killer,
Hook has a softer, childlike side which makes him almost admirable. Barrie explains that
Hook, like many children, fears the sight of his own blood and even stresses that he “was
not wholly evil; he loved flowers… and sweet music” (134-35). When compared with
Peter, many similarities between the two become apparent. Both Peter and Hook are
dictators. Just as Hook treats his pirates as dogs, so does Peter to his lost boys. Barrie’s
account of Peter’s rule over the boys is frighteningly similar to Hook’s method and he is
even referred to as their “captain”. Barrie explains:
In [Peter’s] absence things are usually quiet on the island… when pirates and lost
boys meet they merely bite their thumbs at each other. But with the coming of
Peter, who hates lethargy, they are under way again: if you put your ear to the
ground now, you would hear the whole island seething with life…All wanted
blood except the boys, who liked it as a rule, but to-night were out to greet their
captain…when they seem to be growing up, which is against the rules, Peter thins
them out…They are forbidden by Peter to look in the least like him, and they
wear the skins of the bears slain by themselves. (59)
6
In this passage Barrie suggests that, like Hook, Peter is not averse to getting rid of his
own family when the mood strikes him. Peter is not an innocent child, but rather a
controlling force over the lost boys and the instigator of violence. By drawing a parallel
between Peter and Hook, Barrie suggests that Peter’s fear of growing up may already be
realized. Perhaps Peter hates Hook because he sees himself in the evil pirate, and
conversely Hook may be more of a child than he wishes to admit.
Just as Robert Louis Stevenson portrayed his villain, Long John Silver, as a
somewhat sympathetic character, Barrie hints that Hook may well be justified for his
hatred of Peter. The child reader may cheer for the youthful protagonist at all cost, but
the adult audience recognizes Hook’s frustration and desire for revenge on the boy who
cut off his hand and threw it to a crocodile. After Hook’s pirates begin to second guess
him, Barrie reveals that Hook has become a “tragic figure” and he feels his “ego slipping
from him” (99). Furthermore, the reason for Hook’s hatred of Peter is also
understandable as Barrie states, “we know quite well what is was, and have got to tell. It
was Peter’s cockiness. This had got on Hook’s nerves… While Peter lived, the tortured
man felt that he was a lion in a cage into which a sparrow had come” (129). Barrie has
almost reversed the roles of villain and victim through this description. Peter is the
tormentor; the bully who has driven Hook to madness with his cocky behaviour.
Depending on the age of the reader, the argument can be made that Peter is the true
villain. Perhaps Barrie’s intention all along is to challenge the reader to see both
perspectives. To the child, the adult will always be the villain and vice versa. Surely
Barrie has respect for Hook, as author Janet Pate recounts how on “7 July 1927, James
Barrie delivered a speech to… Eton [College] to prove that James Hook was a good
7
Etonian” (29). Pate tells how Barrie gave a long detailed account about all of Hook’s
achievements while at the college. If the author thinks so highly of his villain that he
chooses to champion Hook in public, certainly the reader must question Barrie’s
definition of evil.
Clearly Rowling and Barrie’s villains serve as a foil to the young male
protagonists, but they also play on the reader’s notions of what evil is. Often the male
protagonist needs an enemy to overcome in order to prove his virility and decency. Lucy
Maud Montogomery illustrates how characters need not have a nemesis or villain to
contend with in order to prove themselves valiant. Author Margaret Steffler states that:
For the reader of Montgomery’s journals and novels, the tension in the textspecifically, the tension between the girl / woman on the one hand and a stifling
society on the other- is the substance and the producer of meaning that is applied
to the social and cultural experience and identity of the reader. Once the tension
and conflict disappears from the text, the popular appeal vanishes. (76-77)
As long as Anne’s character faces some sort of tension, be it social, psychological or
physical, the presence of a villain or antagonist is not necessary in the realistic novel.
While Anne does face human obstacles in the form of Rachel Lynde and Gilbert Blythe,
these characters are hardly villains to be defeated, but rather they represent Anne’s
internal struggle to define herself.
Mrs. Rachel Lynde is the town busybody and conducts herself with an air of superiority.
Montgomery begins her novel with a description of Rachel Lynde who “was one of those
capable creatures who can manage their own concerns and those of other folks into the
bargain” (53). Even the brook that passes by Mrs. Rachel’s house knows better than to
be loud for fear of the old woman’s disapproval. Before the first page of the novel is
finished, Mrs. Rachel Lynde is portrayed as an antagonistic character and the reader
cannot help but recognize her potential opposition to the protagonist. Rachel’s first
8
encounter with Anne is indeed confrontational as she calls Anne “skinny and homely”
(112). Anne’s retaliation and subsequent apology reflect her battle with self control and
understanding of social decorum rather than a personal struggle with Rachel Lynde.
Rachel readily accepts Anne’s apology and soon the reader, as well as Anne, comes to
accept her snobbish ways. In chapter thirty Anne and Rachel have come to terms with
each other and Anne even quotes Rachel four times on one page adding, “Mrs. Lynde
isn’t exactly a comforting person sometimes, but there’s no doubt she says a great many
very true things” (276). At the end of the chapter Rachel admits that she was wrong
about Anne and tells Marilla, “I must say Anne has turned out a real smart girl… it’s
nothing short of wonderful how she’s improved these three years, but especially in her
looks” (280). The reader recognizes what a grand statement this is coming from Rachel
as she rarely gives compliments. Rachel is not a villain, and apart from one incident does
not act as an antagonist to Anne. In the realistic novel, Rachel does not need to be
conquered; Anne must find within herself the ability to cope with all kinds of people.
Another character whom Anne must come to terms with is Gilbert Blythe; Anne’s
intellectual rival. Again, like Rachel Lynde, Gilbert has no villainous qualities but is
merely another hurdle in Anne’s maturation process. Like Rachel, Gilbert initially
offends Anne by making fun of her red hair, causing Anne to retaliate by smashing him
over the head with a slate. Gilbert attempts to take the blame for the incident and
apologizes profusely to which Anne replies, “I shall never forgive Gilbert Blythe” (157).
The two characters continue to battle for the position of top student throughout the novel;
however, the personal tension between them is Anne’s responsibility. Gilbert is not an
antagonist, but Anne makes him out to be one due to her inability to admit her own faults.
9
The competition between Anne and Gilbert also acts as an inspiration for Anne to excel
in her studies. Margaret Steffler points out that the reader craves such tension and
remembers the incident of Anne hitting Gilbert more vividly than the conversation they
have at the end of the novel. Steffler explains that the reader “respond[s] to the tension
that precedes the conventional love relationship and [is] bothered by the unrealistic
dissipation of that tension when love and marriage are applied” (77). In the realistic
novel, social tension replaces the villain’s role as obstacle to the protagonist.
Montgomery suggests that most people’s troubles are created and solved by the
individual, which is largely true in the real world.
In Montgomery’s own words, the author suggests that creating evil characters and
situations is a cheap literary trick that she wishes to avoid. In her article, “The Way to
Make a Book”, Montgomery instructs the aspiring writer to:
Write, I beseech you, of things cheerful, of things lovely, of things of good report.
Don’t write about pig-sties because they are “real”. Flower-gardens are just as
real and just as plentiful. Write tragedy if you will, for there must be shadow as
well as sunlight in any broad presentment of human life; but don’t write of
vileness, of filth, of unsavory deeds and thoughts. There is no justification of
such writing. The big majority of the reading public doesn’t want it; it serves not
one good end; it debases a God-given talent. (369)
Whether or not writing about vile deeds wastes talent, is debatable. Perhaps a better
argument would be to state that illustrating evil is not a necessary component of
children’s literature. Surely the success of such books as Peter Pan and Harry Potter and
the Philosopher’s Stone, as well as countless other children’s stories, owe some of their
popularity to memorable villains. While Montgomery has proven through her novels that
realism does not need villains, fantasy stories serve to capture the imagination of the
10
child and use recognizable archetypes to differentiate between good and evil.
Montgomery’s statement that most people do not want to read about vile deeds is
somewhat naïve. People will always love a good villain, for the villain provides comfort
to the reader. The evilness of the villain assures the reader that they are not all that bad
after all.
11
Works Cited
Barrie, J.M. Peter Pan. New Jersey: Unicorn Publishing, 1987.
Montgomery, Lucy Maud. Anne of Green Gables. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2004.
Montgomery, Lucy Maud. “The Way to Make a Book.” Anne of Green Gables. Toronto:
Broadview Press, 2004.
Pate, Janet. The Great Villains. New York: Bobbs-Merril Company, Inc., 1975.
Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. Vancouver: Rainforest Books,
2000.
Steffler, Margaret. “This has been a day in hell: Montgomery, Popular Literature, Life
Writing.” Making Avonlea. Ed. Irene Gammel. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 2002.
Zipes, Jack. Sticks and Stones. New York: Routledge, 2002.
12