[HPforGrownups] Character descriptions (was OoP covers...)

[Kelly Grosskreutz]

No: HPFGUIDX 58429


GolPlum
> On a different level, it's occasionally annoying not to get a good mental
> picture of the characters, and the reader is left filling a lot of holes.
> Adult characters' ages are a recurring source of debate in HP fandom and
> there are very few clues in the text. Only two adult characters are given
> any kind of age-related terminology in their descriptions, namely
> Dumbledore (whose advanced age is drummed into our heads again and again)
> and Lupin, who is simply described as "young" (which becomes a plot point
> because we have no other grounds on which to equate him age-wise with
> Snape, or indeed James).
>
Using common sense and a little math, one can deduce around what age Snape
and Lupin are.  James and Lily finish school when they are 18.  Let's say
they get married then and immediately start to have a family.  She gives
birth at age 19.  One year later, they are killed.  Add 11 years onto that,
and Snape and Lupin are 31 at the beginning of PS/SS, which makes them 35 at
the beginning of OoP and coincides with JKR's interview where she says that
Snape is 35 or 36 years old.  Granted, nothing has been stated in canon to
say James and Lily immediately married or immediately started having kids,
but by speculating this way, one can figure that the youngest they can be is
35.  They could've been older than this, but it gives one a starting point.
As for Dumbledore, I understand how it is eminently satisfying to have an
idea just how long he has been around, but yet I can see why she doesn't
feel it that important to tell us.  She has already told us that he is one
of the oldest wizards around and has been kicking Dark wizard butt since at
least 1945.  I actually was content knowing Dumbledore was ancient and never
really needed to know just how old he was, but that's just me.

> Someone who intrigues me in this respect and whose description gives
> absolutely no clues, is Karkaroff: he could conceivably be in either
> Snape's age group or Dumbeldore's. He and Snape are on first-name terms
> (were they at school together?) but then he's particularly informal with
> Dumbledore as well (is it only because of his headmaster status?). His
> relationships and role in the unfolding plot can be perceived very
> differently, depending on who is his contemporary. I won't bother with
> explaining those differences, as I think it's pretty obvious. (As a movie
> fan, I have a separate, and OT, problem because I can't decide whether my
> ideal casting would be Jurgen Prochnow as a Snape contemporary, or Max Von
> Sydow as a Dumbledore one). :-)
>
Karkaroff doesn't necessarily need to be in either age bracket.  JKR has
said that Snape is 35 or so, and Dumbledore is over 150 years old (can't
remember exact age for sure).  That is quite a difference.  McGonagall has
also been said to be 70 or so.  Karkaroff could be in this age bracket
instead.  As for Karkaroff's first name basis with all of these people,
there are a few explanations.  One, as you said, he was a Headmaster and
probably felt he could take that liberty with Albus.  Second, in a twisted
sense, he used to be a coworker of Snape's, so maybe he felt he could take
that liberty with him (and they could have been friends once, for all we
know).  Third, I think he just likes to call everyone by their first name.
Maybe by calling DD Albus, he is getting around having to show him respect
while appearing friendly.  In other words, I wouldn't look to Karkaroff's
propensity at using people's first names as an indicator of age.

In my view, Karkaroff might be closer to McGonagall's age than either Snape
or DD.  I see Lucius Malfoy as being somewhat older than Snape, maybe ten
years older.  I see Karkaroff being perhaps that much older than Lucius, but
still younger than McGonagall.  If that helps out any in your
imaging/casting decision.

> It is in this respect more than perhaps any other that I think that JKR
> reveals the "children's book" nature of the HP canon: to a child, "adults"
> are one amorphous mass and anyone over the age of 20 is close to past
their
> prime, and anyone over 40 is simply "old".
>
Also keep in mind that the narrator of the book is a child.  This view may
change as the narrator grows older.

Kelly Grosskreutz
http://www.idcnet.com/~ivanova