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

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 144927

> 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.


Magpie:

I tend to think the thing about the kids is that you don't see someone's 
essential nature until s/he is tested.  Remus showed his when he didn't 
speak up for Snape in the Pensieve, and he did a similar thing years later
when he didn't tell Dumbledore about Sirius.  Peter seemed like a Gryffindor 
until the risk was too great and he caved (at least that's how it seems).
He may eventually do something good (I assume he will) but I wouldn't be 
surprised if his essential nature appears to stay the same.

Neville's essential nature, imo, is that no matter how timid he seems when 
really tested he's brave.  He showed that in PS/SS and I wouldn't ever 
expect it to change. Hermione's nature is far more defined by when she 
decides to break the rules (which she does a lot) than by her urging people 
to follow them.  Draco changes in HBP in that he's growing up, but I think 
he's discovering his true nature rather than changing it.  We've seen him 
before in canon, but we just didn't see situations that really got down to 
that essential nature.  (Which is not to say that what's on the surface 
means nothing, obviously, but it sometimes can mask something else, as we've 
seen with other characters too.)  This was more about what he wasn't, and 
we'll see if we find out more about what he is. (His very name, "bad faith," 
refers to playing a role rather than being your essential self, and 
Dumbledore seemed to be urging him away from exactly that in the Tower.)

I don't think "bigot" could be anyone's nature--it's a belief.  Rowling 
underlines how arbitrary it
is in HBP with Blaise--the Slytherins aren't bigots by real life standards 
because they see Blaise as an equal, but they are bigots in their world 
because they care about blood.  I suspect there are personality traits 
behind the bigotry of the characters who have it, but that's not the trait 
itself.

With Snape there are certain things about his essential nature we don't 
know.  There are things we can guess on based on the parts of him that we 
see, but I feel like we don't yet know that important choice that Snape 
chooses in that defining situation.  That I assume we will find out for sure 
in the next book.  Then we'll understand why he turned (or appeared to turn) 
and why Dumbledore trusted him.

-m