The dynamic Snape (was: Twist JKR? )/ Which characters are dynamic?

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 141776

> >>Nora:
> Where I hesitate is in equating 'different reactions'               
> with 'directed change', which is what I would have to include in my 
> definition of 'dynamic'.
> <snip>

> >>Hickengruendler (post #141768): 
> I snipped a part of Alla's post, in which she stated, that most    
> adult characters, including Snape are non-dynamic. I agree with this
> completely. I don't even think I would call Dumbledore or Sirius
> dynamic. Maybe some aspects of their personalities, but not all.
> <snip>

> >>Hickengruendler (post #141769):
> <snip>
> But is this the same as dynamic? Sure, McGonagall behaves          
> differently according who is around her, but don't we all? She      
> doesn't develop over the course of the books.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hmmm.  I seem to be operating under a completely different definition 
of dynamic than Nora and Hickengruendler (and Alla and Lupinlore, I'm 
guessing).  You all seem to expect some sort of huge change within 
the character in order to define that character as dynamic.  In which 
case, Hickengruendler is right.  Few of the Potterverse characters 
are dynamic.  Including Harry, Ron and Hermione.  Even Neville is 
still quiet and unassuming with no close friends.  

What worries me a bit is that some rather well known literary 
characters could be seen as something less than dynamic under that 
definition.  Tom Sawyer is pretty much the same boy at the end of his 
story.  Elizabeth Bennett (other than finally seeing Mr. Darcy in his 
true light) is pretty much the same woman at the end of Pride and 
Prejudice (her sister changes even less). 

So I might be crazy (and I'm serious, I might be, it's been a while 
since my last literature course <g>) but I think a dynamic character 
isn't necessarily one who makes gigantic changes.  Small ones work.  
Actually, small ones are generally better, because character 
consistency is important too.

For a literary character to be dynamic raises them to a certain level 
of realism.  So when you say, Hickengruendler, "Sure, McGonagall 
behaves differently according who is around her, but don't we all?" 
the very fact you're comparing her to actual living people means that 
she is acting dynamically.  Contrast her to Madam Rosmerta who reacts 
exactly the same way to everyone.  She's the brassy, barkeep.  It's 
all she needs to be, so JKR doesn't need to develop her any further.

McGonagall didn't suddenly change when she comforted and protected 
Trelawny in OotP.  If Umbridge had come to Hogwarts in PS/SS, 
McGonagall would have reacted the same way.  She *was* behaving 
dynamically, but she wasn't having a complete or even partial change 
of character.

> >>Nora:  
> But have we seen any cases of his [Snape's] reactions or            
> engagements with the same people undergoing evolution, development, 
> re-evaluation? 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I'd say there's a change between the way Snape reacted to Sirius in 
PoA and then in OotP.  He was all snarling rage in PoA.  In OotP he 
was very much in control, pushing Sirius further and further over the 
edge.  So I think he did re-evaluate his reaction to Sirius from one 
book to another. 

> >>Nora:
> Have we actually *seen* Snape change on anything, in the same sort 
> of way that a development section leads from one thematic area into 
> another before our eyes and ears?  We have it attested in the past, 
> but we've also had the suspicion raised that it never really 
> happened, either.

Betsy Hp:
Ah, but have we seen *any* character make a thematic change?  The 
only one I can possibly think of is Draco Malfoy, and even that 
change has yet to be verified.  So are we expecting Snape to be 
*more* developed than any other character within the Potterverse?  
That seems unrealistic to me.

Betsy Hp