HP Characters: Three-Dimensional or Archetypes? (Harry in Particular)

[caliburncy at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 27828

Excellent post, Penny.

Mine is not as good.  I started it a little while ago, and it was so 
huge I had to trim it down, which I have.  I've skipped quite a bit of 
the original, but in the process the whole thing has become much less 
coherent and much more poorly articulated and argued.  Sorry about 
that.  I would wait and edit more, but well, I know tomorrow there 
will surely be something *else* to respond to.  Anyway, enough of my 
whining . . . <<he says, to cheers from the peanut gallery, who he 
silences with a stern glare, at which point they only snicker quickly 
when he turns his back>>

-----------------------------------

Well, as you are all quickly realizing, I'm sure, I often tend to 
incline toward a very semantic and technical perspective on these 
things.  So the first thing that struck me is the following comment by 
the author of that article (heretofore just called "the author", so 
I don't mean JKR when I say this): "Although Rowling's characters are 
convincing and engaging, none of them is fully three-dimensional."  It 
seems her definition of what "three-dimensional" means in regards to 
characters is different from mine, because she then seems to go on to 
include growth as a necessary component of a "three-dimensional" 
character.  I do not.

In fact, I think there's a lot of confusing and non-judicious use of 
the terminology involved in characterization.  Therefore I will give a 
list of some of the relevant terms here and their generally accepted 
meanings, as far as I know.  This list is, as always, totally 
non-authoritative.

(BTW, the indentation is not an accident; it is an indicator of 
subsets)

Characterization -- Usually used to describe the general category and 
techniques of all things involved with creating characters for a 
story.  Occasionally used as a synonym for any of its subset terms 
(listed below), which inevitably leads to confusion.

   Character growth -- Changes in a character that either expand upon 
   existing philosophies or alter/replace those philosophies.  Usually 
   positive changes, but I don't see why this has to be the case,    
   because "positive changes" is so subjective.

      Character shift --  A subset of character growth, usually       
      referring to a more dramatic change in philosophy.  However, it 
      can also be used for more subtle changes--the only firm       
      distinction between it and character growth is that, unlike     
      character growth, it cannot be used to describe an expansion    
      upon existing philosophies, because that it is not a shift, it  
      is a continuation of something to its logical end.

   "Fully fleshed-out" -- Describes a character who is well-developed 
   enough for his/her actions to be relatively predictable by the    
   reader.  What do I mean by predictable?  I certainly they don't    
   mean they can't do anything that isn't surprising.  I mean that the 
   reader must know the character well enough to guess at how that    
   character might respond if placed in a hypothetical situation.     
   This is the whole idea of a character dictating how they will act  
   to the author, rather than the other way around.

   "Three-dimensional" -- Descibes a character whose motivations are  
   complex enough to be realistic, or as Cindy said, describing a    
   character who is "multifaceted".  Very similar, but not identical, 
   IMO, to a "fully fleshed-out" character.  And certainly having    
   nothing to do with characters who grow, as the author of this    
   article seems to indicate.

   Character development -- Commonly used to mean one of two things:  
   either it is used as a synonym for character growth or it is used  
   to describe the general category and techniques involved with    
   "fully fleshed-out" characters.  Again this leads to confusion.

CASE IN POINT: Fairly recently on this list the term "character 
development" became a point of confusion between two posters when 
doing a comparison of the merits of Harry Potter to The Chronicles of 
Narnia.  Poster A (I believe it was Tabouli) had assumed that the 
'good character development' referred to having characters that were 
"fully fleshed-out" and therefore deemed Harry Potter was superior in 
this right.  Poster B (I believe it was Steve Vander Ark) had assumed 
'good character development' referred to having characters who grew 
and changed, and therefore deemed Narnia was superior in this right.  
In light of the perceived disagreement, there followed some 
point-counterpoint.  Although this made for an extremely interesting 
and entertaining discussion, neither side was apparently aware that 
they were debating completely seperate issues because of an alternate 
interpretation of a particular term.  Eventually I think this 
disparity was cleared up; however, I do not remember for certain.

***

Now then, while I understand the author's basic point, I'm not surely 
I really agree with this apparent distinction of linear vs. non-linear 
character growth.  I mean, really, when you think about it, what's the 
difference?  Growth is growth.  If Harry is different after a 
particular set of events, then he grew.  Whether this made him "more 
and ever more clearly who he is" seems absolutely irrelevant to me.  
Did he learn a lesson?  Yes.  Did he change?  Yes.  So what difference 
does it make if he alters his existing philosophies in a small way vs. 
a large one in determining if this change is "linear"?  Wouldn't any 
change that required a shift of direction (a change of slope, if we 
take the "linear" term literally), however small, be technically 
non-linear?  If he hadn't altered his philosophies at all, but only 
taken his existing ones to their inevitable conclusion, then I would 
understand the author's point.  Then I might call it a linear growth 
(or perhaps stagnation would be more truly accurate).  But that's not 
what seems to happen.  Harry at the end of COS clearly has a DIFFERENT 
understanding of what makes him who he is than he did at the beginning 
of COS.  If his understanding is different, why would that change be 
linear?  Just because he didn't do a complete turn-around from having 
been fundamentally evil to suddenly being fundamentally good does not 
mean he didn't grow, or that he didn't grow in a non-linear fashion.  
When professors or authors talk about the changes that occur in 
stories being complete "revolutions", this does not necessarily mean 
all the changes are opposite on a macro level.  Sometimes they are 
only opposite on a micro level.

It seems to me that if we are going to have two black-and-white terms 
("linear" and "non-linear") than there better be a clean-cut 
distinction between the two.  I'm afraid I don't know what that would 
be.  How different does the resulting person have to be from the 
original person to make it now qualify as a non-linear change, whereas 
at any lesser degree of change, it would have been linear?  No, it 
seems to me that any distinction between linear and non-linear growth 
would be subject to all kinds of gradients.  And wouldn't the 
extensive gradients then invalidate the terminology?

So I'm not sure there is such a thing as "linear growth" or 
"non-linear growth".  I think there are degrees of growth.  And yes, 
the changes in the Harry Potter books are mostly to a smaller degree, 
not to a bigger degree.  I also think this is because the Harry Potter 
books are sometimes more about reader growth than character growth.

Take Snape, for instance.  As Penny points out, he hasn't changed one 
bit in the course of the books so far (and since he is a secondary 
character, he is technically at less obligation to do so in future 
books, though he may).  But the reader's (and to some extent Harry's) 
perception of him has gradually evolved (becoming increasingly 
"three-dimensional").  Reader growth, ladies and gentlemen.  In this 
case, learning to see the wounded animal beneath the ferocious 
monster.  And isn't that the end goal of character growth anyway, for 
the reader to grow too?

Oh, and perhaps the problem that the author of that article has with 
the growth that does occur in HP is that it is not immediately 
apparent at what point the growth occurs.  For example, there is no 
"From that time on, Eustace was a changed boy..." a la The Voyage of 
the Dawn Treader (The Chronicles of Narnia).  For example, take the 
jealousy that affects Harry's opinion of Cedric quite a bit when he 
discovers that Cho is going with Cedric to the Yule Ball.  A part of 
him knows that his opinion is not justifiable, but for the most part 
he does not acknowledge this.  But long before the end of GOF his 
opinion of Cedric is even higher than it was before the jealousy 
corrupted it in the first place.  But when, precisely, did the 
concrete evidence of this change occur?  It might be when Harry 
finally decides to take Cedric's advice and go to the Prefects' 
bathroom.  Or it might not be until a bit later.  But in any case, 
there is no flashing neon light signifying "All ye who read this 
paragraph: This is the single moment of epiphany after which all 
things will change".  Although such Before & After changes can be 
extremely effective when pulled off properly, they are not well-suited 
to Harry Potter, to my mind.  JKR has clearly tried to keep her 
characters on a human level; in contrast to the supernatural world 
they live in.  And it is far more realistic for most change to occur 
gradually, almost imperceptibly, not Before & After, but a little bit 
at a time.  Occasionally, real people do wrestle with a single dark 
night of the soul, after which their "demons" are ousted.  But this is 
less common, and if I were JKR, I would save this Before & After type 
of change for a circumstance in which it was a bit more appropriate.

Yet another musing on when growth is shown to occur: One of the 
interesting elements of children's fantasy <<he says, while warding 
off the blows of several HP4GU members screaming "Harry Potter is NOT 
a children's book!!!">> in particular, is that often the moral 
elements are embodied in the dialogue of a secondary, wise character. 
 It is my personal contention that these platitudes sometimes DO 
reflect changes in the main character even when none is shown.  As in, 
when Dumbledore says at the end of COS that it was Harry's choices 
that made him different from Tom Riddle, that Harry really did come to 
this realization as Dumbledore said it--even though nothing in the 
text specifically says, "Harry realized Dumbledore was correct".  Of 
course, sometimes the platitude's function is to foreshadow a future 
change (this is "author prophecy", BTW, for anyone who remembers), not 
represent one that is currently taking place.  This idea is, however, 
a peculiar point of view, and I could see where many would disagree 
with its validity.

-Luke