Characterization (was Re: Is Draco Redeemable?)

[Kelley]

No: HPFGUIDX 11929

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., naama_gat at h... wrote:
>Teek wrote:
>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.
> > 
> Naama wrote: 
> 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 persuasive. 
> 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

Hi Naama.  I think your argument is very accurate.  This gets to 
another point I had as an amorphous impression but couldn't 
articulate.  Cassie and I were discussing JKR's use or not of cliches 
in regard to character archetypes.  Perhaps your point is more what I 
had in mind.  Rather than saying the characters are cliched, static 
seems to get more to the heart of the matter.  Seems to be why Snape 
is such a fascinating character, at any rate.  As an aside to this, I 
look forward to seeing Dumble's cold, hard, strength which was only 
hinted at in GoF...

Kelley