Whither Snape AND the Dursleys AND Umbridge?/JKR's view of teacher Snape

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 144880

Alla: 
> LOVE all your punishments Jen! :-)

Jen: Now I understand why JKR enjoys that part of her job. Makes me 
think fiction would be a very good outlet for getting back at 
annoying people <g>. *Makes note to self to start writing 
fanfiction*.

Alla:
> Gah, I am being confusing again. I guess it all comes to that many 
> times repeated "character is fate" idea. I know you don't buy 
> essentialism as one of the main ideas behind the series - I do. I 
> think that JKR allows her characters to change to some extent, so
> I don't think that she is strict essentialist, but I also think
> that everybody in Potterverse has some part in themselves who they
> really are, you know? And according to who they are their fate
> could be determined.

Jen: I finally decided what bothers me about essentialism as the 
main foundation for JKR creating her characters: It says to me she 
can't, or doesn't want to, create characters who are believably 
fluid. And I simply don't think she feels that way from all the 
effort she puts into her characters. For example, if Peter finally 
acts bravely instead of cowardly at some point, did he do so only 
because that is his base nature? Or because he discovered what it 
means to be truly courageous only after he learned what it felt like 
to be cowardly? Now *that* would be a characterization I could 
believe in and relate to, a person who has the ability to act both 
cowardly and courageously and chose the latter. 

With Snape, and I'm asking this very seriously for anyone interested 
in answering, why is it a more interesting characterization to find 
out he has been evil or out-for-himself all along? For me the gold 
nugget in a character like Snape is the moment of transformation. 
*Not* finding out he was noble and brave and wronged, ick. But that 
he was weak and selfish, he succumbed to the 'lure of power' of 
Voldemort and numbed himself to follow that life. And then the 
moment came, something so shattering it broke through his apathy or 
hatred or whatever was keeping him tied to Voldemort, something 
powerful enough to break him down, send him to his knees and rebuild 
him into a different person. Transforming base metal into gold.

The essentialist character feels flat to me if one is simply acting 
out his/her fate. The visual I get is rats running through a maze! I 
know that's not what others visualize though, it's just the best I 
can conjure up.

Alla:
> I think Sirius' going to Azkaban is VERY good example. It IS "bad 
> thing" happened to good person ( of course it is JMO that Sirius
> is a good person - with many many flaws, but good overall) as
> result of many disastrous events, BUT also if one believes that
> Sirius bullied, mistreated Snape in school, it is IMO karmic
> punishment for that - you know - Dementors ARE in charge, 
> completely and you are in your own private hell.So, I absolutely 
> can view this is as karmic punishment  and that is why I 
> absolutely think that if Sirius bullied Snape, he paid for his 
> sins ten times over. It IS seemingly unrelated action, but to me
> it all fits neatly, you know.

Jen: But what would Sirius' essential nature be in determining his 
punishment?  Who is he, the man who bullied Snape, who escaped 
Azkaban because of an obsession with vengeance, who was ready to 
kill Peter? Or the person who fled his parent's opressive house 
because of their unethical beliefs, who acted bravely when called on 
and was loyal to the Potters until he died? He's both, he's neither--
he can't be distilled down in my opinion in order to be punished. 
Umbridge can be distilled down, Lockhart can be, Bagman can be, but 
most of the major characters can't be divided cleanly from where I 
sit. They become unreal to me, flat characters again instead of 
living, breathing, feeling people who move in mysterious ways.

Jen