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

[sbursztynski]

No: HPFGUIDX 144906

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at e...> wrote:
>
> 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

Sue here,

Only just discovered this discussion, so forgive anything I've missed. A fascinating 
discussion it is, too. I wonder - just how much DO characters develop in this series? 
Neville stays a klutz - he learns all that DADA stuff in OOP and acts bravely (no one said 
he was gutless, just klutzy) but in HBP, his new-found development is gone and he and 
Luna are just sad characters at the funeral. Snape remains Harry's least-favourite teacher 
and continues to sneer. Ron and Hermione remain Ron and Hermione. You know what to 
expect from all the major characters. I would like to think that whatever their essential 
side, if this is what where calling it, it will come out in Book 7. I will be very disappointed if 
Snape, for example, turns out to be the two-dimensional sneering baddie Harry always 
believed instead of a complex character, neither good nor bad but human. Draco, who 
showed as a frightened, not-especially-evil, teenage boy in HBP, could go either way, and 
has become more interesting as a result.
>