Will Draco come back? & Character development

[draco382]

No: HPFGUIDX 81950

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at y...> wrote:

> On the other hand it's weird of Rowling to keep the main nemesis
> totally static, as Draco has been.  It's hard to see his function in
> the story.  I mean, Draco's not even dangerous, which at least could
> generate suspense;  not one of his Evil Plans has ever worked out.
> He's not a particularily interesting psychological study (yet,
> anyways).  He's not a warning of slippery slopes of any kind;  he 
was
> a vicious little racist at 11 just as he is at 15.  He's just kind 
of
> a moral punching bag.

Now me:

I've come out of lurkdom to throw in my two cents on this topic, 
which I hold very dear to my heart (erm...look at my name).  You, and 
some of the others who have posted on this topic bring out a very 
good point.  When almost all the other characters in the book have 
gone through SOME transformation (albeit minor in some cases) why has 
Draco not changed in the least?  If memory serves me, Draco is one of 
the FIRST wizards Harry ever met after being inducted into the WW by 
Hagrid that dark and stormy night.  You might even say, he's been 
there with Harry from the beginning.  IMHO, JKR has kept Draco frozen 
in time for all these long years to make a big bangy point later on --
 namely that central theme of the whole story so far -- its one's 
choices that make them who they are.  If you ask me, Draco's 
redemption is going to be one of the biggest moments in the whole 
story (besides that whole killing V'mort thingy).  Yes, Draco is very 
one-dimensional, but darn it if JKR doesn't give him a lot of screen 
time.  There must be some reason that she bothers to write him in; at 
this point, I think all of her readers have come to expect some 
shoddy "evil" plot from Draco, Crabbe and Goyle -- which ultimately 
fails at the hands of Harry, or well, one of the "good guys."  Draco 
inevitably MUST gain another dimension to his character or else 
become the coyote to Harry's roadrunner.

Sydney:
> On the other hand, two things encourage a certain kind of reader 
(like
> me, for example), to look for some sort of change to come over him. 
> First is Hagrid's line, I think in CoS, that "blood will tell", and
> you should just write the kid off because he's a Malfoy.  For this 
to
> turn out to be a sound view isn't very Rowling-esque to me, in fact
> it's explicitly against the whole message of the book. 
> 

Now Me:

Somehow I don't accept Dumbledore's argument that Kreacher was "made" 
by Wizards.  That seems kind of contradictory to his original addage 
(its one's choices that make a person who they are...").  Does that 
mean that just like Kreacher, Draco's actions are pardonable since 
wizards he knew "made" him into who he is?  Dobby certainly 
wasn't "made" into anything by the Malfoys.  And Harry himself wasn't 
made into anything by the Dursleys.  No, I think Draco (and Kreacher) 
should be held responsible for their own actions, and, in doing so, 
Draco should be given the benefit of the doubt -- he can still redeem 
himself.  
 
~draco382