Avery, Mrs Lestrange, FLINT-y justice, character depth, canon controversy

[davewitley]

No: HPFGUIDX 38368

CharisJulia:

>In FMWSP Avery is in fact a real sicko with a twisted appetite for 
Cruciatus Blasts. You know. . . pain and pleasure are all the same 
and all that

Hey!  I said that first!  See OT #10545!  So, no, Charis, you didn't 
make it up.  You just forgot where you read it.

CharisJulia again:

>Mrs Lestrange has. . . she has. . . well, in greek I'd say she has * 
tipos*, but I honestly have no idea how to translate that. Pizzazz? 
Spark? Flare? Personality? Ahhh, I give up.

The word you are looking for is charisma.  I agree she is dead sexy.

Cindy, about the Pensieve trials:

> I have never been able to make sense of that scene. I actually find 
it rather FLINT-y.

Cindy, I thought you were just joking, but it seems to have become a 
serious subject of discussion.  I can well believe that the Pensieve 
trials are directly based on material JKR saw when she worked for 
Amnesty International.  Does the apparent lack of due process really 
make these scenes unconvincing?

Barb:

>That was my point precisely. I was not trying to classify "types" 
of "bad" characters. The folks I term "bad" characters are people 
we've never known to do ANY good at all. I still contend that Crouch, 
Sr. has never done anything good without an ulterior motive. He put 
his son away even with inadequate evidence for the sake of his career 
(even though this did turn out to be the right thing to do). He 
engineered the switch between his wife and son, which was 
categorically the WRONG thing to do and cannot therefore count as a 
good act. 

I think there are some distinctions to be made here, between 
*complex*, *conflicted* and *morally conflicted* characters.  I think 
that Crouch Sr is clearly conflicted: he is torn between his public 
persona and his wife, as well as, IMO, complex and strong feelings 
for his son.  He may not be morally conflicted in the Pensieve scene, 
in the sense that moral and ethical considerations (and therefore the 
idea of 'redeeming features') do not enter his inner conflict.

However, I would suggest that Crouch Sr's final attempts to reach 
Dumbledore are a textbook case of redemption.  The word originally 
related to buying freedom from slavery, either for yourself or for 
another, and then came to be applied religiously.  He has seen the 
error of his ways and strives to make restitution.  He struggles 
against the bondage that his own actions have placed him in, and 
begins to break free.  If this were a Christian allegory (I don't 
believe it is), the angels would be rejoicing in heaven.

Again, a character such as Fudge is, IMO, complex.  I believe his 
friendliness to Harry is motivated both by political considerations 
(be nice to celebrities) and by a genuine desire to be friendly to 
people in general which is part of his make-up.  He just doesn't let 
this friendliness get in the way of what to him are greater 
priorities.  He may not be conflicted and may not have any redeeming 
characteristics but he can still be complex.

In summary, I agree (with the exception of Crouch) it is hard to find 
a character who is mostly evil with a 'bit' of good, but I disagree 
that therefore these characters have no depth.

Finally (couldn't resist) Jo Serenadust asked:

>Is canon controversial now?

No, of course not.  Could you imagine people burning copies of HP? 
Silly idea!  Would distinguished journalists waste ink bemoaning that 
HP's popularity is a sign of our current malaise?  Perish the 
thought!  Even the Internet, that home of flames and abuse, can come 
up with no more than 40,000 me-too posts saying I luv Harry.

David