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

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 36000

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> 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.  :-)
> 

Nah. It was way back, probably before you joined the group. 

> 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.  

<snip examples of Hermione, Ginny and 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?  

<snip Snape example> 
> 

I think the main problem with our debate here is that we're not 
talking about the same thing when we say "change." What *I* meant by 
it, is a deep shift in our perception of the character's character; 
that we find that s/he is not as s/he seems. *You* seem to 
use "change" in the sense of "develop." 
In order to reach semantic agreement, I'd like to distinguish between 
two two kinds of developement (or change). One is the development 
that the characters go through as real people. That is, they develop 
as they grow up or because of experiences they go through or because 
other people influence them, etc. The examples you give of Hermione 
and Ginny fall under this category. 
A different kind of developement is the development of the character 
as a fictional character - that is, the gradual (or otherwise) 
revelation of his/her personality by the author. IMO, Crouch and 
Bagman fall under this category. During the period of time we "know" 
them (that is, GoF) they dont' change in themselves. What changes is 
our knowledge and understanding of them.
Of course, during four years the young characters do change and 
develop as young people do and should. In this sense, we can talk of 
whether their development is in character or not. Is 14 year old 
Harry a reasonable "extension" of 11 year old Harry? Is Ron? Is 
Hermione? Etc.
But I think that this discussion is much more about the second 
category of development/change - that of the change in *our 
perception* of the character. It is in regard of this that I claim 
that characters do not change (besides those shifts and twists in the 
guilty/red-herring characters involved in the mystery plots of each 
book). 

> 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. 

Well, I don't really agree with these two examples. First, I think we 
should distinguish between personality and circumstances (such as 
becoming dead ;-)). 
We are surprised maybe by what we learn about Crouch's history, but I 
don't think it surprises us as far as our assessment of his 
personality goes. He is portrayed from the beginning as a rigid, 
humorless and harsh person and he is revealed to be exactly that, 
only more so. His character is rounded, yes, but it is a padding, so 
to speak, on our previous conception of him. And I think that the 
same goes for Bagman. He seems jolly, friendly and *un*-trustworthy 
(he encourages 16 year old kids to gamble - against their father's 
expressed wishes!) and he turns out to be exactly that - only more 
so. 
> 
> 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.  

That's interesting. The only thing he did that seems suspicious to me 
is his bringing in the Dementor which kills Crouch, Jr. You've 
probably explained this in previous posts, but what do you see as 
suspicious in Fudge's behaviour at the entrance to the maze? 


Naama