Character (was: Re: Lupin is Ever So Evil, Part One )

[nkafkafi]

No: HPFGUIDX 130400

> lealess:
> 
> I think I see what you are saying, but I am still confused.

Neri:
Just for the record, I can only guess what JKR means or what DD 
thinks. I'm just saying that whenever we make an 
essentialist/existentialist statement it is useful to be very clear 
from who's POV we are talking. Mixing different POVs in the same 
statement is like mixing arguments from within the story and from 
outside it. It's likely to come out nonsensical, like Dr. Murray's 
suggestion that DD didn't try to kill Voldy in the MoM because he 
knew there are two more books to go.

> lealess: 
  Taking
> Dumbledore as an example of point of view, if he sees Kreacher as 
the
> creature the wizards made, do you think Dmbledore still excuses him
> completely for the choice Kreacher made?  

Neri:
>From DD's POV he certainly has the right to make his own choice to 
excuse Kreacher completely. Did he? I'm not sure it's so complete. In 
any case, from Kreacher's POV I don't think it's relevant to his 
choice. If you make a choice to wrong somebody, can you justify it by 
saying "but that's ok because he's a very forgiving person and I 
believe he'll excuse me completely"? (not to mention that DD wasn't 
the main person that Kreacher's choice had wronged).

> lealess:
Dumbledore also hoped Snape
> would overcome his hatred, and I would speculate hoped that Lupin
> would control his lycanthropy.  Why would he have set either on 
their
> paths if he had an inkling of what the outcome was sure to be?
>

Neri:
I don't know if DD simply made honest mistakes in assessing Lupin's 
and Snape ability to make the right choices. This is perhaps the 
greatest mystery regarding DD's character: what kind of philosophy is 
he following? Some would argue (and I can see their point) that DD 
breaks the distinction between the different POVs because he's a 
character but he's also JKR's prophet within the plot, so maybe he 
gets hints from Her how he should act. This would be breaking the 
rules, but as we all know DD is not very fussy about rule breaking 
<g>.

Myself, I prefer to think that DD believes a person can make the 
right choice only if you give him real freedom to make this choice, 
and that's why he's so trusting. 

> lealess: 
> Dumbledore seems the sort to see good in anyone, even Tom Riddle, 
who
> he addresses as a person and not a monster of destiny.

Neri:
I agree. I don't think DD sees any good in Tom today, but he sees the 
good that Tom could have been if he'd chosen differently, and he's 
still treating him as a person with free will, rather than as a 
mindless monster.

> lealess:
  I am not sure
> he sees others in terms of absolute character, but rather as complex
> individuals with some inate character traits or patterns of 
behavior,
> capable of making choices independent of those traits or patterns.

Neri:
Yes. I think DD believes that if people can choose between good and 
evil, it means they can change themselves, and thus make themselves 
good or bad. Since I have practically zero background in philosophy I 
don't know where would this place DD relative to the formal 
definitions of essentialism, existentialism or any other ism. But I 
think it is possible to believe that a certain person is "in essence" 
a good person or a bad person, and still believe that this person has 
the ability to change his own essence by changing his choice. I don't 
think this is a contradiction of terms, but an educated philosopher 
might be horrified. 

> lealess: 
> Dumbledore also makes mistakes in his estimation of the choices 
people will make, as noted above and up to keeping Harry in the dark 
in OotP.  (If he is seeing everyone in absolute terms, then he is not 
doing a very good job of it.  In terms of consequences for choices, 
he does seem fatalistic, I'll grant.)

Neri:
DD is certainly full of apparent contradictions, maybe even more so 
than Snape. Personally I prefer to think that he's not a fatalist, 
but he believes that he must give other people the full freedom to 
make their choices, which frequently makes him appear fatalistic. And 
since he really gives people a completely free choice, they sometimes 
surprise him and sometimes disappoint him. Otherwise it wouldn't be 
*free* choice. I like to think that DD is similar to Captain Cordelia 
Naismith from the books of Lois McMaster Bujold (recommended, BTW). 
When Koudelka accuses her "you trust beyond reason!" she 
answers "yes, that's how I get results beyond hope". 

> lealess:
> Further, you are saying that characters cannot fall back on an
> essentialistic excuse for their own behavior.  Fair enough, but will
> it even matter, in an essentialist world, if they question their
> motives from their POV?  They are bound to follow their natures, and
> will end up following a certain path regardless, it seems, so 
wrapping their brain cells around choice is an exercise in futility.  

Neri:
I don't think I want to get into this very deep philosophical 
question, but I'm pretty sure JKR believes that people do have free 
will, regardless of their brain cells. Her story doesn't have much to 
do with brain cells, and a lot to do with choices. JKR repeatedly 
shows us persons making choices that go against what should have 
been "their nature". Hagrid almost never misuses his physical power 
despite his wild giant blood. Dobby helps Harry despite the magic 
that enslaves all his species. Lupin acts kindly despite turning into 
a monster every month. Firenze saves Harry and joins DD despite the 
reclusive and fatalistic ways of centaurs. Harry saves people despite 
being an abused child. Snape changed sides despite being a DE. Sirius 
renounced the pureblood ideology despite growing up in a very 
pureblood family. James saved Snape and gave his life for his wife 
and child despite being a bully at 15. This list goes on and on. 

I guess you can say that they were all just following their *true*, 
hidden nature by making these choices, but this still sounds 
nonsensical to me. From JKR's POV they were indeed following the true 
nature she had set for them, but from the POV of each of these 
characters he had no way to find out what his true nature was, other 
than making the choice. Even the Sorting Hat couldn't tell Harry what 
his true nature was. 

> lealess:
Following up my own questions about Snape and Lupin, two mysterious 
characters, does it follow that Lupin will always let someone down in 
a stressful situation, and Snape will always make extreme choices, 
and both are ever doomed to do so, based on character, regardless of 
whether they indulge in a moment of reflection beforehand?

Neri:
An estimation of Snape's essence is very difficult because we know so 
little about him, but I took the risk and published my full analysis 
of him only several days ago. This was my POV as a reader, but from 
Snape's POV he has the free will to change his choice, for the good 
or the bad, despite his nature. As for Lupin, I estimate him as a 
good person in essence, with some faults (like most people). But 
still, from Lupin's POV he has the free will to "fail" and choose 
wrong against his "essence" (otherwise it's not really free will). 
BTW, in the "meta-thinking" level Snape and Lupin always failing in 
the same way would have made them very predictable and boring 
characters.

> lealess: 
> I can see that an author is allowed to write characters in a
> deterministic/fatalistic way, of course, especially when the whole
> story is plotted out in advance.  I also appreciate that readers
> can/have made their own essentialist determinations, as any 
discussion of Snape or Lupin will show.  I am not convinced that we 
as readers, interacting with the text, should necessarily do that.  
But that is our choice ... or is it?
> 

Neri:
I think I fully agree with all the above 8-)


Neri