Choice and Essentialism (was:Re: Understanding Snape)

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 153946

> Magpie:
> I'm just jumping in here anywhere, because I think this is 
something 
> at the heart of the series, though not always in terms of 
> philosophy.  I think often it's more just about characterization 
and 
> plot.
> 
> The funny thing is I remember thinking it was very important what 
DD 
> said, that our choices "show" who we are, not "make" us who we are-
-
> it is an essentialist statement.  Yet JKR in an interview, I 
> believe, actually references that statement as saying that DD is 
> saying our choices "make" us who we are, like she doesn't 
understand 
> the difference or didn't see why she shouldn't say one thing when 
> she meant the other.
> 
> So I think we wind up with a rather confusing mix of JKR's basic 
> idea that whoever your parents are you can make the right choice, 
> her not seeing the important difference between "show" and "make" 
in 
> that sentence, and the way she writes her characters.
> 
> I think one of the things that is so appealing about her 
characters 
> is their essential nature.  The kids' natures are perhaps a little 
> less formed with room for change, but really most of her 
characters 
> have their thing that they do and they keep doing it.  It's 
actually 
> kind of comforting to read, I think.  We see Remus making the same 
> mistake as a teen as he makes as an adult.  We see Sirius always 
> needing to rebel because he is a rebel.  Sirius implies that James 
> *pretended* to change to Lily, but that the change wasn't really 
> that complete.  As I've said before, I don't think James did 
really 
> change.  He wasn't a bully who became a nice guy, he was just 
always 
> a personality that sometimes came out as bully and sometimes as 
> protector.  

a_svirn:
Yes, well, I for one didn't imply that James was a bully who became 
a nice guy. I said that his choice of allegiance made him a good 
guy – because he chose the Good side, so to speak. His propensity to 
bulling notwithstanding.  Correspondingly Snape's ultimate choice of 
allegiance, for instance, would make him a "good" or "bad" guy – 
depending on that choice. 

Basically I agree with what you are saying – out of the context 
Dumbledore's phrase does have an essentialist ring to it. But within 
the context of his interview with Harry I think it obvious that he 
meant "make", not "show". What with his many Slytherin qualities 
Harry could have done well in Slytherin – yet his choice (and that 
same choice had nothing to do with his character traits and 
everything to do with the circumstances) made him a Gryffindor. 

But as Alla said, sometimes it seems that the reality of the WW 
contradicts Dumbledore's dictums. Certain tendency towards 
being "bad, mad, and dangerous" among the scions of inbred (sorry 
Ginger! I don't like it myself, but Rowling does make an emphasis on 
it) families for instance. It's not like Bellatrix , or Mrs Black, 
or Morphin, or Voldemort chose to be mad and bad. They clearly 
couldn't help it. 

As for the Rowling's characters' "essential nature", I don't see 
what other nature they could possibly have. Nature and essence are 
kind of synonyms. Both refer to the core of your being. You can say 
that Sirius is a rebel by nature or Lupin is essentially weak. In 
both cases you would imply their basic character that never changes. 
Yet according to Dumbledore at least, your choices are not 
predetermined by your 'essence' or 'nature'. That's why he is a 
great believer in second chances. Harry could have opted for 
Slytherin under different circumstances. Draco wouldn't have been 
pitchforked into the situation when he almost became a murderer if 
it wasn't for his family allegiance to Voldemort. The comfort-loving 
Slughorn chose to be staunchly neutral, yet there was always a 
possibility that he would help Harry (with the right handling). Our 
choices depend on our circumstances probably as much as they depend 
on our natures. Maybe because our natures are too complex to allow 
only one possibility of choice. 

> Magpie:
> 
> The fun part is identifying what the essential part of the person 
> is.  We can often be tricked by focusing on the wrong things in a 
> character--and maybe that's partly where the Sorting Hat comes 
in.  
> People always wonder why Hermione is not in Ravenclaw when to me 
it 
> seems obvious her character is far more Gryffindor.  So as I think 
> Alla said, is is really about choice or just the hat figuring the 
> person out?    

a_svirn:
Personally, I'd say she is more of a Slytherin (if it weren't for 
her "low birth" that is) than Gryffindor. And yes, I'd say sorting 
is all about choices. She *wanted* Gryffindor and she got it.