Do the characters in Potterverse have essentialistic nature?

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 145000

Alla:
> 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.
<snip>
> 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.
<snip> 
> 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: I snipped down to what seems to be the heart of the debate. I 
agree the characters have predictable patterns of personality and 
beliefs throughout the series, with the occasional curveball thrown 
in. That is completely different to me from saying a person was born 
a certain way and environment has no influence on development. JKR 
may not show many characters making drastic changes because it 
serves her story, but she is not saying the characters *can't* 
change. I'm wondering now if we have different definitions of 
essentialism? 

Aunt Marge is one of the essentialists in the series from my POV, 
she believes a dog or person can be born bad and nothing can change 
that fact: "If there's something rotten on the inside, there's 
nothing anyone can do about it"; "bad blood will out"; "your sister 
was a bad egg, they show up in the best of families." (chap. 2, p. 
25 & 28, Scholastic)

JKR is very careful to say 'no one is born evil, of course' as well 
as that Voldemort was *never* loved, to give us information on why 
he became who he did. She's careful to show us both his nature and 
his nuture and to say both are important. She mentioned in 
TIME: "That's where evil seems to flourish, in places where people 
didn't get good fathering." (July 2005) In her books it's very clear 
that genetic distinctions of blood are not an indicator for who a 
person will become.  I see quite a bit of opposition for an 
essentialist view as the underlying theme in her world.

Jen