Characterization (was Re: Is Draco Redeemable?)

[naama_gat at hotmail.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 11619

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Teek <purdymango1 at y...> wrote:

> Alright, I fully admit that from everything we've seen so far in 
the
> books, Draco's a slimy little git. 
> But I have several reasons why I think there's a chance he could 
(or
> at least SHOULD) be redeemed:
> 1 - We haven't seen Draco as anything other than Harry's
> wizard-supremistist schoolyard rival, but that doesn't mean he 
isn't
> any deeper. JKR loves throwing us for curves like that - on first
> read, did any of you see Quirrel, or Moody, as evil? There's no
> definite proof that she's not planning something of the sort over 
the
> course of the next 3 books.
> 

I'm not exactly arguing against what you wrote, Teek, more using it 
as a starting point for something I've been thinking about recently.
It seems that there's a general agreement that JKR "loves throwing us 
for curves". That she's a master of surprises and plot twists. With 
all my love for the books, I disagree with this estimation. 
Personally, I find the mysteries plots rather weak and unpersuasive. 
I've posted here not long ago my reservations about the GoF solution, 
so I won't repeat that. My point here is that all the twists (that I 
can think of) are related to the mystery plots only. They are, to my 
mind, rather obviously devices that serve the mystery plot. They are 
not organically connected to the overall fabric. Except for 
characters directly needed for the mystery plots, all other 
characters are perfectly stable. The first impression we have of them 
is pretty much who they continue to be. In Harry and Draco's first 
meeting, Draco seems to be a spoiled, snobbish, unpleasant brat and 
he continues to be exactly that, only more so. The same goes for 
every character I can think of - Dumbledore, McGonagall, Hagrid, 
Hermione, Ron, the Weasleys... Crabb, Goyle (again, except for the 
mystery characters - Quirrel, Moody, Scabbers..). 
Hmmm.. whats my point, you ask? I think I'm trying to say the JKR is 
writing books, that from the characterization aspect, are 
straightforward really. In fact, in this sense I do agree that they 
are definitely children literature <hastily entering anti-nuclear 
shelter>.

One further remark - what I have said is very general and mostly a 
matter of impression. *Please* do not reply by simply adducing 
examples to the contrary. Its very unpersuasive. I can do that by 
myself - Snape is not a simple character and there has been some 
shift of perception regarding him. So what? The question is, does my 
argument *generally* hold or not.

Naama