Harry's character development: Static or Dynamic? /Wands and Wizards

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 183719

> Questions:
> 1. Is static and dynamic simply types, without value? 

Magpie:
Imo, yes.

> 2. Is there some literary rule or tradition that a character should 
> be one or the other? 

Magpie:
Not at all. Some types of stories require one and some the other or 
both. I think because the modern novel is often very character-based 
people think character development is essential, but not all stories 
are character-based or deal with lots of development or need to. 
Sometimes it seems like some assume that static characters=badly 
written, as if it's a flaw if it's not there, even when the author 
him/herself wasn't interested in it. Tolkien didn't like modern 
novels or character development so it shouldn't be an insult to say 
his books aren't about that, and yet for some people it is. Things 
happen to his characters that make them change--obviously Sam and 
Frodo have very different lives than they would have otherwise. But 
they don't change in the sense of starting off as one person and 
really fundementally changing. On the contrary, the quest more brings 
out things they always were, and we watch them rise to that challenge.

I think JKR's work is similar. Part of the appeal of the books is how 
she shows familiar characters throughout the books and uses them like 
chess pieces that make the plot happen. If Snape had been a different 
type of person or James a different type of person, this might never 
have happened. But they were the person they were--and we can see 
that as clearly at 11 as we can at 39. It's not that they don't grow 
at all, but it's not about them fundementally changing. The earliest 
thing we see Snape doing in his life is looking hungrily at Lily, and 
that same kind of longing will drive the rest of his life. And even 
if it hadn't been Lily herself that was his focus, that core of Snape 
was always important. I think that's also partly why it's so 
satisfying to re-read, because we can see these clues placed early 
on. We're not watching people change, we're seeing who they are as 
shown by their choices. 

(And for goodness sake, so much of the universe is based on the 
notion of people being born who they are. They're constantly meeting 
up with personality tests and carrying the results around with them 
in such way: their house, their animagus form, their wand core, their 
wand wood, their Patronus, etc...)
 
> 3. What are some examples of other static and dynamic characters?

Magpie:
Static character: Indiana Jones, Hercule Poirot...

Dynamic character: Prince Zuko, Harvey Cheyne Jr...

But there's lots of room in between, I think.
 
> 4. Sirius Black went from a reckless, wild youth to a marose, 
bitter 
> man. Is that dynamic?

Magpie:
Nope, imo. He's the same man dealing with different circumstances. In 
fact, we're even given a moment where he's faced with the mistakes of 
his youth and says he'd make the same choice again. He regrets 
nothing!

Alla:

Okay, I know that I cut important points of your argument, but I did
it just to show what bothers me in this argument, I think the first
half of your sentence shows that perfectly actually.

It is the " and we can't just brush it aside" part of it.

I get this feeling that every time when we are discussing house elves
and slavery, the argument that basically accepts the situation with
Harry, Kreacher and sandwich one way or another and in large because
Kreacher is indeed willing and happy to serve Harry somehow gets
dismissed as not, I don't even know what the word is here? Not
thought out enough? As if only the reader sat down and thought about
it, she would see the light.

Magpie:
Maybe I should have just said that I can't brush it aside. But I 
said "we" because I think it's inherent in the situation. It's not 
that I think other people would "see the light" if they thought about 
it, but that if we're thinking about the situation--no matter what 
conclusions we draw from it (and I don't think everyone has to draw 
the same conclusions)--that's part of the situation we have to 
consider. 

For instance, I'd use the same phrase if I was saying this, which is 
looking at a different part of it: House Elves are under enchantment, 
yes, but they want to serve Wizards. And we can't just brush [that 
desire of theirs] aside because we see the real pain that Winky went 
through when she was freed against her will.

It's not that I'm saying that if everybody thought about it they'd 
see that House Elves must be owned, I'm just saying that if you're 
thinking about the problem "they should be freed" isn't a simple 
solution because it doesn't take that into account. Just as with this 
if we say that Harry would let Kreacher serve whoever he wanted to 
serve if he wanted to serve someone other than Harry so it's not a 
problem one would obviously have to say "But Kreacher did want to 
serve someone other than Harry and Harry didn't let him. (Not meaning 
that as a scolding of Harry, whose reasons for not freeing Kreacher 
or sending him to Bellatrix of Draco are understood, but as showing 
how the power imbalance works.)

Alla:
To me, House elves slavery does not even come CLOSE to human slavery
and no,
it does not all come down to Harry's needs and wishes to me.As far as 
I am concerned, if it makes elves happy so be it. And when
Kreacher wanted a different master, he should have gotten different
master. At the end of the novel he does not want a different master,
he is happy, so I really do not see a problem here. If he still
wanted different master, I would absolutely see a problem though.


Magpie:
Actually, I was not saying that House Elf slavery in general comes 
down to Harry's wishes. I was saying that a House Elf's situation as 
an Elf is decided by the wishes of his master. Even in the case of 
Kreacher that's true throughout. If he should have gotten a different 
master, he couldn't. The conflict has disappeared by the end of the 
story because Kreacher doesn't want a different master. Kreacher 
changed, not his situation. When Harry was faced with Kreacher 
earlier he didn't give him his freedom because it would have been 
dangerous to Harry and his friends.

Pippin:
The moral objection to involuntary servitude lies in the "involuntary"
part. One could object to servitude itself because it's unequal and
potentially vulnerable to abuse. But all dependent relationships are
like that.

Magpie:
No, I don't think that's all of it. I think the system where the 
House Elf is owned is something to object to. That's why the 
involuntary comes into it. It is not only vulnerable to abuse it's 
arrange for abuse. If everything elves did in canon was voluntary, we 
would not have a lot of the storylines we have in canon for House 
Elves. 

Pippin:
If Kreacher was working for wages and had the full and equal
protection of wizarding law (for what that's worth <g>) Harry could
still give him an abusive order, and Kreacher could still feel
financially or socially or psychologically pressured to carry it out.
That would be blackmail and immoral. But we don't usually say that a
relationship is immoral simply because the potential for blackmail 
exists.

Magpie:
Yes, even people who are free and have rights and legal protection 
can be vulnerable to being blackmailed or coerced illegally. I think 
they're still in a better position. Being a House Elf cuts out all 
potential for blackmail or psychological pressure because you don't 
need that much effort and it's not illegal to force them to do things 
against their will. 

-m