Stagnant Characters (WAS Fudge is Way Evil and I have )

[cindysphynx]

No: HPFGUIDX 35891

Naama wrote:

> Okay. This is one of my pet peeves. I've commented on this a few 
> times (way back) but didn't get much response. So I'll just say it 
> again (in the most provocative way I can :-)) :
> 
> 
> MOST Pottervers characters turn out to be exactly what Harry 
> originally thinks they are. Moreover, once a character has been 
> established s/he NEVER surprises us as far as his/her basic 
qualities 
> go. 

Hmmm.  I must have missed this subject the first time around.  
Perhaps I was actually getting some *work* done or something.  :-)

My opinion, though, is that HP characters change a lot, except when 
they don't.  :-)

What I mean is that we do have characters who change over the course 
of the four books without it being a huge plot twist.  Examples are:

Hermione.  Obviously, she is far from the bossy braggart she was 
(and Harry thought she was) in the first book.

Ginny.  Again, there's been plenty of growth here, thank goodness.  
How much giggling and blushing could we possibly endure?

Ron.  Seems much more confident than in the first book, and seems to 
question authority a lot more.  

Sirius.  As someone else pointed out, Sirius is *completely* 
different in PoA compared to GoF.  His transformation is so dramatic 
that it pushes the bounds of credibility for me.  But that's OK, 
because GoF Sirius is *much* easier to defend than PoA Sirius.

But then again, I have to wonder how much change we can really 
expect here.  The books take place over four consecutive years.  I'd 
guess that for many of us, our "basic qualities" haven't changed 
dramatically over the last four years.  In my case, I'd have to 
admit that my "basic qualities" may not have changed in decades. 
:-)  Is it realistic to expect HP characters to change dramatically 
in just four years, particularly when we are limited to the filter 
of Harry's POV?  

Indeed, I think I'd be the first to complain if Severus Snape 
started having warm and fuzzy compassionate moments.  It would seem 
out of character, because it *would* be out of character.  

Naama again:

>Even characters such as 
> Lupin, who seem suspicious for a while, once their innocence has 
been 
> established, do not change. 

There might be an exception to this observation.  Bagman is 
initially introduced as the harmless, affable retired jock.  Then we 
are signaled that he might be evil.  Then he turns out to be semi-
evil -- he swindles Fred and George and heads for the hills.  
Bagman, then, gets to wear three hats.

Crouch Sr. would be another exception.  We see him as upstanding and 
reputable.  Then he becomes suspicious (acting funny, mysterious 
disappearances).  Then he becomes a firm supporter of the Good Guys 
(Sirius' account of him in the cave).  Then he becomes dead.  :-)  I 
think we were certainly expected to be very suspicious of Crouch 
initially, though, and so we get some change and development until 
Crouch Sr., er, becomes a bone. 

Naama again:

>So, if I apply this to Fudge, I'd say that (as a member of the 
> regular cast) he is precisely what he seems to be. 

That's where I might have to take issue with you.  Yes, the *facts* 
surrounding Fudge are what they are.  But the *meaning* of those 
facts are, IMHO, open to debate.  I see Supreme Evil DE Fudge 
because some of his actions (his behavior at the entrance to the 
maze) can't be squared with that of bumbling bureaucrat.  

> Naama, hoping for some reaction

Cindy (always happy to oblige with a reaction or two)