Lupin is Ever So Evil, Part One -- The Prank (LONG)

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 130305

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:

> Nora:
> 
> I think it's a hypothetic that Snape wouldn't have found some reason
> and/or way to become aggravated with Neville. He does it so very
> well.
> 
> Pippin:
> I suppose this is essentialism, which I don't understand anyway.

You might study up on it, since JKR's universe is rather essentialist.  
That's the only way I can make sense of reading the whole "Choices 
*show* what we are, far more than our abilities" statement.  As well as 
JKR's recent comments about Harry vs. Neville as Prophecy Boy: 

"Would a Neville bearing the lightning scar have been as successful at 
evading Voldemort as Harry has been? Would Neville have had the 
qualities that have enabled Harry to remain strong and sane throughout 
all of his many ordeals? Although Dumbledore does not say as much, he 
does not believe so: he believes Voldemort did indeed choose the boy 
most likely to be able to topple him, for Harry's survival has not 
depended wholly or even mainly upon his scar."

Innate qualities that Harry has and Neville doesn't; that's textbook 
essentialism.

The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that JKR thinks 
of her characters with Character in mind.  This is not to say that 
people are necessarily completely static, but that they are born with 
abilities and tendencies and their choices express what they are.  
Something like ESE!Lupin is based on a very different read of what 
Lupin actually *is*, which is something yet to be settled in the 
books.  I'll still take my cautious bet against, and if I happen to be 
right I will very much enjoy reading your rethinking of the themes of 
the series, Pippin :)

> Are you saying that if Harry hadn't had the aggravations he did 
> in OOP, he'd have found some other reason to be 
> CAPSLOCK!Harry?  Or does this fixed in the groove thing apply only to 
> certain characters?

I think some characters have shown themselves to be more fixed in 
grooves than others, yes.  Some characters are more fixated upon 
particular ways of thinking and courses of action than others; some are 
more open to re-evaluation of their ideas.

And if Harry hadn't had those aggravations, we scarcely would have had 
a book, methinks.  What weighs upon him is what drives the plot itself, 
and seems more manifold than what bothers most characters.

(Not to mention that Harry wasn't even what I was discussing at the 
moment, but _tu quoque_ is so easy to fall into.)

-Nora isn't terribly comfortable with essentialism either, but as it 
seems to be what's in play here, nothing to do but suck it up and think 
about it