Inconsistency and Incoherence (was Dumbledore/Incompetent Adults)

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 143543

> Bart 
<SNIP>
> (note that this is a discussion of possibilities, and I will be 
> coming to no conclusion here):
> One problem with discussing the Harry Potter novels is switching 
back 
> and forth between treating the characters as real people, and 
treating 
> them as products of JKR's writing. I'm going to step into the 
latter for 
> a moment.
> 
> Often, especially when a writer is on a deadline, he or she will do 
> something for which I do not know the technical term (and there may 
not 
> be one); I generally call it writing AT a character rather than 
writing 
> the character. This occurs when a writer has a character do actions 
> which, when looked from outside the character, make superficial 
sense, 
> but, looking from inside the character's body, so to speak, 
actually do 
> not make sense at all (a MAJOR culprit of this was Dan Brown in THE 
DA 
> VINCI CODE). JKR steps into this every now and then, and this may 
be the 
> root cause of a lot of the behavior of the characters that has 
caused 
> much contention in this group (note that I am not simply 
attributing it 
> to general bad writing, as I am to a very specific form of bad 
writing). 
> Dumbledore's speech to the Dursleys probably fits into this mold; 
it 
> gives the reader satisfaction, but, when the reader attempts to 
look at 
> the scene from Dumbledore's point of view, it raises questions.
> 

Lupinlore:
This is a very interesting point, and one I've been thinking about 
over the last couple of weeks.  Let me offer a new, if somewhat 
arbitrary, construct to get at this from maybe a different angle.

I think the problem is one of CONSISTENCY and COHERENCE.  Now, these 
are related things, but not identical things.  Consistency is the 
tendency of a character (or a real person, for that matter) to react 
in similar ways to similar situations, or in the same way to the same 
situation whenever it is presented.  It is also a measure of how much 
a character's behavior matches what we have been assured to be that 
character's personality.  Coherence is a basic question of whether or 
not a character is believable, i.e. if that character "makes sense" 
as a real person on some quasi-intuitive level.   Both of these 
issues come into play with Harry Potter characters, particularly the 
adults, and particularly, probably, Dumbledore.

Now, like I say, consistency and coherence are not the same thing, 
or, more exactly, an INCONSISTENT character is not the same as an 
INCOHERENT character.  The reason for this is that humans are, in 
fact, somewhat inconsistent creatures.  We react differently to 
similar situations, because of any number of factors. We often behave 
in ways that are at least slightly at variance with what appears to 
be our general personality patterns. I guess a good test is the "real 
person test."  Would this behavior be believable, more or less, for a 
real person?

But, being INCONSISTENT, even though it is not the same as being 
INCOHERENT, is related to that state.  That is, even though humans 
aren't totally consistent in any way, they do tend to be largely 
consistent, especially if they are reacting honestly.  If a person is 
wildly inconsistent in dealing with situations or in their 
presentation, or in the way their behavior fits with their supposed 
personality, the immediate assumption they get from most observers is 
that they are being dishonest and/or manipulative.  If we are asked 
to accept very inconsistent behavior as being honest, then the 
character moves into incoherence.

Here is where JKR gets into trouble with a lot of her adults, and 
most particularly with Dumbledore.  In general, we are asked to 
believe that these are, by and large, very intelligent and caring 
people who nevertheless manage to be spectacularly incompetent and 
even abusive at crucial moments -- such as with regard to Ginny and 
the CoS or the failure to put confront Snape and put him firmly in 
his place.

Now, DD is extremely important for this, and Bart's mention about the 
Dursleys is one (but not the only) key issue.  We have two speeches 
from Dumbledore, one in OOTP and one in GoF, that simply aren't 
compatible in the view of a LOT of people.  Now, that, I think is 
what has led to a lot of Manipulative!Dumbledore speculation on this 
issue, since I think a very natural reaction to that kind of 
inconsistency is to preserve coherence of the character by assuming 
dishonesty and manipulative behavior -- i.e. that you have different 
speeches for different audiences because Dumbledore is deliberately 
trying to evoke specific reactions/results by telling partial 
untruths, or at the very least by being incredibly disingenuous.

Even leaving aside the speech in OOTP, the problem is very 
difficult.  I mean, you have a man who placed Harry with the 
Dursleys, having been well and fully warned what was likely to 
happen, and then proceeds to get mad because they behave in a manner 
fully consistent with all the evidence he had as to their character 
and and likely reactions.  He also, even leaving aside OOTP, seems to 
have been well-aware of Harry's predicament, to have made no attempt 
to intervene for some fifteen years, and then to act shocked and 
indignant when he finally gets around to a belated confrontation.  If 
he cared so much about Harry where was he the last fifteen years?  If 
he is indeed so formidably intelligent and even wise, as we have been 
assured he is, exactly what was he THINKING would happen?  Similar 
questions arise with regard to Snape issues.  He has more than twenty-
five years experience with Snape and Snape's relationship with James 
Potter, Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, and Harry Potter.  He even takes 
advantage of Snape's feelings to goad Snape into near apoplexy at the 
end of PoA, giving every sign of being highly amused at seeing the 
man shaking with helpless rage.  And yet he thought, when push came 
to shove, Snape could overcome all of that and establish a workable 
relationship with Harry?  Where has he been the last five years?  
Where has he been the last TWENTY-FIVE years?  Here is a man we have 
been assured is very wise and extremely caring and extraordinarily 
intelligent who turns out, however you cut it and irregardless of 
whether Snape is DDM! or whatever, to have been an enormous and 
pathetic fool with regard to Snape's feelings for James and Harry.  
In other words, DD is shown to be incredibly inconsistent both in how 
he behaves in given situations and how his behavior fits with what we 
have been told is his personality.

Given that inconsistency, the natural reaction is to preserve the 
coherence of his character by postulating that he is sometimes being 
dishonest and manipulative.  This is, I think, an instinctive 
application of the "real person" standard.  That is, if faced with 
this behavior in a real person, almost all of us would immediately 
assume we are dealing with manipulative and dishonest policies.

However, and here, at last, is the rub, I don't think JKR intends for 
us to react that way.  I think she pretty clearly wants us to take DD 
as being honest in all his various speeches and protests.  And there, 
faced with such wild inconsistency that we are asked to take as being 
based in honesty, then the character bids strongly to become 
incoherent.


Lupinlore