Can Character Change: A Separate Post

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 38864

Heidi asked:
>>>>> So... have at it! Can character change? And if so, what 
seeds have to have been sown by now to "allow" it?<<<<

One massive IMO, covering this entire post....

Characters can change, as long as they don't do it in ways that 
undermine the exposition of the  theme or the unwritten rules of 
character development. These rules operate differently in works 
of fantasy. Novelistic characters change as a result of their 
experiences. Their choices make them what they are.  Archetypal 
characters are different: their choices *reveal* what they are. 
When they grow or change, it is  either by magic or with no 
explanation at all.

For example,  it is the way of elderly wizards who mentor young 
heros to  become suddenly and unaccountably much wiser and 
more powerful as the tale goes on. 

The deceitful Merlin who served Uther somehow becomes the 
trustworthy counselor of Arthur.   The Wizard of Oz changes from 
the dubious and possibly murderous charlatan of the first Oz 
book into one of Dorothy's kindest and most powerful friends. 
Gandalf of The Hobbit, whose advice was sometimes quite 
useless (Don't leave the path!) returns in LOTR as the mighty 
Mithrandir, whose counsel must never be rejected.  The 
flamboyant  and eccentric Dumbledore of Book One  morphs into 
the wise and weary warrior of Book Four. 

This violation of naturalistic character development works 
because it reflects  a subjective truth. It points up the magical 
way in which our elders  seem to be a whole lot wiser all of a 
sudden once we've had some adventures of our own. <g> 

Rowling's work contains a mix of novelistic characters like Harry 
and Hermione, and archetypal  characters like Voldemort. She 
takes an artistic risk by having them interact. Unfortunately 
Voldemort comes off as a bit cardboardy in these encounters: 
he's far more effective when Harry is immobilized and Voldemort 
can be his terrifying self, than he is when they duel.

We can easily see that Harry and Hermione change because of 
their experiences. Voldemort does not change, nor can he learn. 
Indeed, it seems he even forgets things he ought to know. He is 
no more susceptible to redemption than Norbert. Other 
characters who seem more archetypal than novelistic are 
McGonagall, Molly and Lucius. They don't change. Instead they 
are a yardstick against which we can measure the growth of the 
characters who are changing.

Since most of the changes which have overtaken Sirius, Snape, 
Lupin and Pettigrew happen outside the frame of the story, it is 
hard to know what caused them and what further changes or 
revelations are in store. Hagrid is clearly molded by his 
experiences and his choices, and though he is half mythical 
creature, he develops in a naturalistic way.

I am not sure where Draco and Ron fit. Draco's experiences 
don't seem to have taught him wisdom or even cunning. Ron's 
storms of jealousy seem to pass and leave him unchanged. 
Perhaps the Sorting Hat took so little time with them because it 
did not need to help them make a choice. It only needed to reveal 
what they already were. I don't think this bodes well for evil!Ron  
scenarios.

As the theme is "our choices make us what we are" I think it 
would be difficult for Rowling to show Draco being reformed. 
One of Harry's most significant choices was to enter Gryffindor. If 
Draco can turn into a good guy and even get the girl, it will look 
like Harry's choices really didn't make him anything. It will seem 
that he might have rejected Ron, gone into Slytherin and still 
turned out  the same. Snape at least is still clearly suffering from 
the results of decisions he made long ago.


Pippin