Good and Evil in "Harry Potter" and "The Poisonwood Bible"

J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and Barbara Kingsolver's The Poisonwood Bible both experienced huge commercial success and popularity. However, they differ dramatically in the ways that each author portrays the good and bad characters in each story. In Harry Potter, Rowling is excruciatingly obvious about every character and whether each is good or bad. Kingsolver, however, presents her characters as having both good and bad qualities and does not really distinguish a concrete division between the good side and the bad side.

Harry Potter opens with a description of Harry's life with the Dursleys. At once the audience knows that they must dislike the Dursleys because of the way they treat Harry. He must live in a closet and wear Dudley's old clothes. They detest Harry because he is a wizard, a fact that they hide from him, along with the truth about his parent's deaths. The best thing that ever happens to Harry is when he is able to leave their house to go to Hogwarts. Arguably, the Dursleys have no redeeming qualities whatsoever. They took Harry in and raised him, but only with the utmost reluctance. Obviously, the Dursleys are bad characters.

At once upon meeting other students that will attend Hogwarts with Harry, the audience knows which characters will be the bullies: Draco Malfoy and his friends. Draco quickly distinguishes himself as an antagonist when he makes fun of Harry's new friend Ron and tries to take their candy. To further emphasize this point, Harry later discovers that the Malfoy family has ties to Lord Voldemort, the epitome of evil in the novel.

The house that Draco enters when arriving at Hogwarts, the Slytherin House, is known for its Machiavellian cunning and ruthlessness, and the fact that many people associated with that house also supported Lord Voldemort at one time. Harry has no friends from the Slytherin house, and even their Quidditch team consists of bullies and cheaters. Harry's house, the Gryffindor House, on the other hand, is distinguished by bravery and chivalry. They play fair and work hard. Rowling makes it very easy to like the Gryffindors and very easy to dislike the Slytherins.

The only character with any ambiguity about what side he is on is Snape, but the ambiguity only comes out at the end of the novel, and only as a surprise twist to the expected. Snape, Harry's potions teacher, obviously dislikes him from the start. He constantly singles out and acts unfairly toward Harry and the rest of the Gryffindors in class, while clearly favoring the Slytherins. He seems to be intent upon foiling Harry, until Harry discovers that Snape has been protecting him the whole time. This comes as a surprise because Snape has been clearly distinguished as a bad character. But even this revelation has conditions, because Snape still dislikes Harry and only protects him out of guilt because Harry's father once saved Snape's life. As Dumbledore explains it: "I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because he felt that it would make him and your father even. Then he could go back to hating your father's memory in peace." So bad characters can do good deeds, but only for selfish intentions.

Rowling creates no confusion at all about whether principle characters in the book are good or bad. The distinctions are obvious and abundant and nothing lies in the gray area in between the good side and the bad side.

Kingsolver's novel, on the other hand, contains characters who all remain in the gray area, with no certainty or distinction at all. Kingsolver goes to great lengths to show that every situation has two sides to it, and decisions that might seem black and white really depend on the point of view.

Communism is evil, according to traditional American ways of thinking, but Leah Price discovers that the alternative to Communism is a corrupt government that leaves its people to starve. Americans champion justice, but American leaders had Lumbaba assassinated. Maybe the African way of doing things, even though it is different, is not such a bad way. Nathan learns this when he tries to grow his garden, and although he is warned that his flat rows will not work, he stubbornly refuses to try it any other way because he knows what has worked in Georgia. When his garden washes away, Kingsolver uses it to show that other ways of thinking have validity.

Orleanna, one of the main characters in the book, struggles with the choices she has to make. Perhaps she should have left Nathan sooner, then her daughter would not have died. Perhaps she should not have left Leah behind when she was sick, or Adah behind during the ant episode. But Orleanna is not perfect. Ambiguity exists surrounding other characters as well, and whether they are supposed to be good or bad. Rachel is a perfect example. She is self-centered and bigoted throughout the entire book, but she survives and runs a successful business and manages to take care of herself and live a contented life. Rachel has negative characteristics, but she succeeds.

The characters in this novel grow and change and make mistakes and have shortcomings. No one character is obviously the evil character or the good character. Even Nathan Price, although he represents American ways of thinking, is not so much bad as he is ignorant and shortsighted. The ant episode, a horrible experience, has another side to it. Although the ants destroy and eat everything in their path, they also clean every crevice of debris and crumbs, leaving behind a clean path of destruction. Things that seem very bad at first glance can have a good perspective to them, depending on the point of view.

Kingsolver uses every situation in the book to demonstrate that much of what seems either good or evil is merely a product of shortsightedness. The Prices come to Africa and with an American way of thinking, but learn over time that all the preconceptions and prejudices that they have are wrong. They learn that they have to see things from the African point of view, then they do not seem so wrong. Just as Adah reads things backwards, sometimes things make more sense from a different perspective.

Unlike Rowling's portrayal of good and evil, Kingsolver shows that everything that seems either good or evil is relative. Rowling presents a concrete world with clear definitions of which characters the audience is supposed to like or dislike. Kingsolver shows that every situation and character has different sides; perceptions of right or wrong depend on the point of view.