Choice and Essentialism (was:Re: Understanding Snape)

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 153949


> 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. 

Magpie:
Oh yes, I didn't think you were saying that James changed from one 
to the other.  And I think James' choice to be on the good side is 
shown to be an important part of who he was--he hated Dark Magic 
even as he bullied.

I think that links back to Hermione as well.  DD says to Harry that 
it's not our abilities but our choices, and my main reason for 
seeing Hermione as essentially Gryffindor is just as you said--she 
wanted it.  I've always been fond of a saying I heard somewhere that 
you become what you admire. It seems very true to me--if you think 
it's admirable to act a certain way, you will make choices based on 
what you think is the best way to act.  Hermione is smart and she 
can be incredibly devious, but her priorities are that she values 
courage and friendship over books and cleverness.  When she's 
devious it's usually because she feels justified based on those 
values.  She's drawn to Gryffindor before she even gets to the 
school.  Perhaps the reason the hat takes so long with Seamus is 
that he himself isn't yet sure where his own priorities lie.  
Neville also makes sense for taking a long time since he's been 
shown to have a conflict between what others want him to be and what 
he really is, and he's happy to think of himself as not living up to 
other peoples' standards.  
 

a_svirn:
> 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:
That's true.  Actually, it's interesting to think of just how 
characters might seem if they hadn't been tested.  Peter, 
especially, might never ever have been revealed for the great 
villain he is had he not gone to school the years he did and been 
put in a situation of trust due to being James' friend.  Would he 
always been had that other character lurking within him? The 
possibility would have been there.

And there are I think plenty of examples of kids being influenced by 
their upbringing and families, certainly. Had Draco been born a 
Weasley he might have been as staunchly pro-DD as he is pro-
Voldemort, and the Twins might possibly have been pro-Voldemort if 
they were Malfoys.  What would Harry have been like if raised by 
James and Lily?  More Slytherin because his parents weren't killed 
by Tom Riddle?  More Gryffindor because he grew up wanting to be 
like his dad and his friends?  You can't ever discount 
circumstances.  We're all a product of our nature *and* our 
experiences.  What we see of the characters' personalities are 
really how their basic natures are effected by their experiences and 
their own choices.

-m