Do the characters in Potterverse have essentialistic nature? WAS; Re: Whither Sn

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 144916

> 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. 
<SNIP>

Alla:

Actually, I think I would be able to relate more to the characters 
who ARE fluid as you argue they are, but I just think that JKR does 
have in mind for many characters to have their basic nature, you 
know.

Mind you, I don't think that when JKR sit down to write the series, 
she had in mind to fulfill the main philosophical features of 
essentialism, I think she DOES leave room for her characters to 
change, sort of the mixing ideas, just as she mixes genres, but I 
definitely think that the characters in her world DO have a basic 
nature.

Just look at the House system again, I mean really, for all my 
intense dislike of Slytherin House philosophy, I completely agree 
with those who argue that it is beyond ridiculous that quarter of 
the WW gets counted as the evil ones at the age of eleven. Of course 
you can argue that they are not evil, just misunderstood, but I 
don't think that anybody could deny that they signed in the House 
with questionable philosophy, right?

And even though I don't think that the criteria that other Houses 
base their selection on are nearly as bad as Slytherin is, it is 
still a very superficial selection, IMO. Based on somebody's basic 
nature,IMO.

Again, we know that Harry could be suited for several Houses and few 
other people we know of were suited for two ( Hermione and maybe 
Neville,) right? But I think it is reasonable to assume that JKR 
intends for many students to be suited for one House and one House 
only. Gah, what if person is both smart and courageous AND ambitious 
AND not Harry? What then?

Can you tell that I don't really like House system? :-)


As to your example with Peter - it IS possible that JKR intends what 
you argued, but it is also possible that acting courageously always 
WAS in Peter's basic nature, IMO, after all  he was friends with 
three famous Pranksters for a reason, IMO and I think that it is a 
possibility that he was their friend not just because he wanted to 
be protected, because he was sharing their adventures together - 
making a Map, becoming animagus, etc. I won't be surprised that if 
JKR shows Peter finally acting courageously, she will show it as him 
indeed making a choice, but a choice which SHOW WHO HE IS, finally, 
instead of  choice which was forced by external circumstances ( like 
threat of torture or something) OR by worse part of his basic 
nature - cowardice.


It is what Sue said downthread - characters IMO have the essential 
PART of their personalities, I won't be surprised if JKR allows them 
a partial change too, but IMO the essential part is pretty big.


Now, I think kids are the ones who are allowed to change and grow 
the most, but think about Harry's ability to love for example. It 
may have developed over the years, of course, but it was always 
there, according to Dumbledore, right? Since Harry was born, he had 
this ability  because of Lily's protection, correct? Doesn't it mean 
that ability to love is in his basic nature?

Oh, and of course Tom Riddle also seems to have pretty basic evil 
nature. JMO of course.


> 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 oppressive 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. 

Alla:

I think he is both, IMO. I am not sure where you get neither of 
those. :)

Don't get me wrong, I will be the first to argue that maybe Azkaban 
was not a karmic punishment for what Sirius did to Snape, if they 
both turn out to be equally guilty, but as it looks now, it is a 
reasonable assumption to make IMO.

Karmic justice as I see it is just another lawyer of interpretation 
of what happens to good guys, you know and I don't mean just Sirius 
here.

Where it plays out in full IMO is in bad guys getting their dues for 
their crimes.


> 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-favorite 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.


Alla:

IMO only of course in light of what I said above, I believe that 
kids are allowed to change much more than adults do, but they also 
have essential part of their nature, which will always be there IMO.

I don't think JKR just threw Neville's development away, I think she 
simply put him in the shadows in order to give him more space in 
book 7 again, I think he just simply was not important for the plot 
of book 6, or maybe she thinks that by not talking about Neville 
much in book 6, she may play the bigger "BANG" with him in book 7, 
whatever it will be.

Right, about Ron and Hermione - of course they have the recognizable 
part of their personalities, but IMO they also changed - Ron really 
learns to deals with his issues, although it WAS disappointing that 
his insecurities came back again in HBP, OR maybe it just supports 
my argument, not sure. I have to think about it.

Oh, and of course they finally realized that they want each other in 
the romantic way, but I am not sure if this is the change in their 
personalities or it was always there and they just ignored it, you 
know.

Draco, well, he surely showed more change than I EVER expected him 
to show but I don't think that we had seen the change to his 
character, if we ever would. If he decides that joining Voldemort is 
not worth it, but still remains pureblooded bigot,which IMO he is, I 
would still argue that the essential part of his personality did not 
change.

JMO,

Alla