Choice and Essentialism (was:Re: Understanding Snape)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 153951

> >>Alla:
> Um, forgive me for babbling again, because strictly philosophical
> debates are not my strong forte.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Mine neither. Which is why I only tackle these sort of subjects when 
tired, and why I'm perfectly comfortable with contradicting myself. 
<g>

> >>Debbie:
> I always thought the debates over predestination vs. free will    
> were rather pointless because, from our own perspective, we always 
> have free will.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
When it comes to Real Life I agree, so what I'm trying to do is 
figure out what JKR is doing within the books.  Of course, I don't 
think JKR is writing a philisophical allegory.  So I don't think 
perfect clarity is in the books either.  

> >>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.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
And there does need to be a certain amount of essentialism for 
characters to maintain their structure.  We can't have Snape 
suddenly snuggling puppies while crying about his misspent youth, or 
Neville suddenly beating up first years for their pocket money.

> >>Magpie:
> 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.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But at the same time, isn't there a bit of tragedy implied in 
neither of those men changing?  A sort of opportunity missed?  
Whatever you think about how JKR handled the great Remus/Tonks love 
affair, I thought it was implied that Remus was making a mistake in 
not taking a risk with Tonks.  That this was a time for him to step 
up and choose a slightly different approach to life.

Sirius is a bit different because in many ways his ability to choose 
was taken away from him when he got stuck in Azkaban.  But even so, 
his falling into old patterns when he went back home played a part 
in his death.

> >>Magpie:
> <snip>
> 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?    
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
That's where the shades come in, I think.  Because I'd say the 
Sorting Hat is doing a bit of both.  With Hermione, well she 
obviously thinks quite highly of book learning, so there's 
Ravenclaw.  But she's also got a desire to really *use* her book 
learning on the world stage, so there's Gryffindor.  So that's two 
Houses right there to choose between.  But note that Hufflepuff 
isn't really an option.  Hermione's abilities aren't really suited 
to that particular house.  So there's a choice that Hermione 
*doesn't* have.

James could choose between being a nasty schoolyard bully or a 
strong member of the Order.  But it'd have been near impossible for 
him to become a sedate paper pusher at the Ministry, or a 
sycophantic yes-man at, well, the Ministry. (I guess the Ministry is 
right out. <g>)

In the part I snipped Magpie talked about Potterverse being like a 
chess game.  To run with that analogy, it's like a knight is a 
knight and cannot move like a rook.  But even while staying true to 
being a knight, the knight has a choice of what specific move to 
make.  The options aren't limitless, but they are there.

> >>Magpie:
> JKR loves Jane Austen and the mysteries in her books are often 
> recognition stories, the "answer" is often about the essential 
> nature of a character.  That's why I think what she often does    
> with her antagonists is hide that nature.  Snape's the most       
> obvious example--what is his essential nature?  Did he really     
> change?  I'm not sure he did.  I think we may just not yet have    
> learned about his testing moment yet, we have not yet learned what 
> thing is most important to him.  
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
The genius of Jane Austen is that when the big reveal occurs the 
readers says "oh, of *course*!" and while the character may be seen 
in a new light, there isn't a sense that she's lied to us about the 
character.  And I think JKR is trying to do the same thing.  The 
Snape in the pensieve, the Snape in the Shack, the Snape in Potions 
class, the Snape singing over Draco, those are all the real Snape.  
Even the Snape in Spinner's End must have some essential truth to 
his character.

I think what it boils down to is the fight between good and evil.  
The characters are who they are, so there's the essentialist part.  
But they each have a free choice in serving either good or evil.  
And that's where the choice comes in.  Could Hermione, under a 
certain set of circumstances, be a Death Eater?  Of course.  Leaving 
aside the issue of blood, Hermione can be quite ruthless when she 
wants to be.  IIRC someone actually says that they're glad she's on 
their side at one point.  So without changing who Hermione is, she 
could end up on the wrong side.

We see that with the Blacks.  Bellatrix went firmly for Voldemort.  
Andromeda and Narcissa seem to be walking a middle ground, though 
each leaning in an opposite direction.  Sirius went firmly for 
Dumbledore. Regulus went firmly against Voldemort.  And that's all 
one family, one blood, and, from what we've seen, some rather 
familiar traits.  But even under all that each of them had a choice.

And I wonder if that's not something Harry needs to learn?  It's 
interesting because in many ways Voldemort took away Harry's 
choice.  By killing Harry's parents Voldemort pretty much guaranteed 
that Harry would never choose Voldemort's side (I think Dumbledore 
stated this at some point).  But I wonder if Harry needs to learn 
how to see beyond a person's essential nature to see their ability 
to choose to serve the side of good?  Not just my friends against my 
enemies, but those who'd fight evil against those who'd fight good.

Betsy Hp