Harry's character development: Static or Dynamic? Was: Saving Private Draco

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 183763

Carol earlier:
> > No. It's only a way of looking at a character. Does he (or she) 
> change fundamentally, learn a lesson or undergo an experience that
alters his (or her) behavior or outlook on life permanently? 
> 
> Potioncat:
> So, it's sort of 'did the events change the character?'; or 'did the
character remain constant throughout the events?' An author could 
plan either sort of plot. 

Carol again:

Right.
> 
Potioncat:
> Could it then be a flaw if the static/dynamic development doesn't 
fit? Are there certain plot types that would, if not dictate, at 
least suggest one development type over the other?

Carol responds:
I don't want to overgeneralize, but to take a couple of examples, in a
Bildungsroman it's a given that the protagonist will mature in some
way or learn some sort of lesson. Some of Jane Austen's novels also
have the heroine learning an important lesson ("Emma," "Pride and
Prejudice," "Mansfield Park," "Sense and Sensibility" if you count
Marianne). On the other hand, a mystery or detective novel is
plot-oriented and even though the mystery is solved, the main
character isn't fundamentally changed. Inspector Grant in "Daughter of
Time" is still Inspector Grant, however much he may have learned about
Richard III. Old-fashioned romance novels often have the hero change
so that he's worthy of the heroine. Mainstream or literary novels
don't have any set conventions of that sort, but if they're
character-oriented, it's likely that the main character(s) will be
dynamic.

Potioncat:
> Did I read that usually only one character is dynamic in a book? So
that it was important to see that Neville's character was dynamic, but
we don't need to see that Mundungus is now clean and sober? (just for
the record, I made that part up.)

Carol:
You may have read that, but it's not a rule that I'm aware of. Lots of
novels, especially love stories/romances, have subplots in which a
secondary character learns a lesson or grows and changes in a way that
parallels, mirrors, or contrasts with that of the main character. But,
of course, the focus is usually on the main character.
>  
Carol earlier:
> > 
> > We need to look at Sirius Black as we see him in the books, not
his off-page, youthful self. He goes from a half-mad escaped prisoner
intent on murdering his former friend to a man Harry is happy to
accept as his godfather in a few short chapters, changed, I suppose,
by Harry's act of mercy, so in PoA he seems to be a dynamic  character.
> 
> 
> Potioncat:
> So, can it be considered dynamic if what the reader sees appears to
change? I understand Black behaves very differently at the end of 
PoA, than he did in the middle--but I'm not sure 'he' changed as much
as our perspective of him changed.

Carol:
Exactly. I'm mean, that's the question we need to ask. Certainly
Harry's perspective changed, just as his perspective of "Moody" did in
GoF. "Moody" himself didn't change in GoF itself--he just wasn't who
we thought he was. But is that the case with Sirius? Was he always as
he seems at the end of PoA or did he change from a frenzied, half-mad
would-be murderer bent on revenge (with an element of protecting Harry
in there somewhere) to a loving but still reckless godfather?

Is he a static character whose behavior alters only because of his
circumstances but whose essence remains unchanged, or does he really
recover from what seems to be near madness after Harry steps in to
save Wormtail for Sirius's and Lupin's sake?

Certainly, elements of his character remain consistent, among them
them recklessness, arrogance, and antipathy for Severus Snape. Also,
he seems stuck in the past (as do Snape and to some extent Lupin). But
I think it can be argued that, in PoA, at least, we're not seeing him
temporarily altered by circumstances; we're seeing a change from a
desire for vengeance to a desire to be a worthy godfather.

Potioncat: 
> At the end of the 7 books, when the reader can reflect on
everything> that has appeared in canon, does the difference between
canon! youthful-Sirius (as seen in OoP and DH) and Canon!adult-Sirius
make for a valid subject. (or did that make any sense at all?)

Carol:
Sure it does, whether or not he's a dynamic character. What do you
think? Did he lose more than his looks in Azkaban? Maybe, in some
ways, Azkaban *kept* him from becoming a dynamic character.

BTW, did I mention Kreacher? There's a fundamentally changed character
for you. And poor Regulus, small as his role is, changed in a
fundamental way before his death. Rather like the protagonist of a
tragedy, who learns a lesson but doesn't live to profit from it!

Potioncat:
> Pettigrew! We were told he was a hero, but we find out later he was
not. Did the character develop or did our perspectives change? (and
does it matter that he went from 4 legs to 2?)

Carol:
That's just perspective. Wormtail is a static character who doesn't't
change (unless there was some off-page alteration in him between
Hogwarts and Godric's Hollow beyond the fear of torture that led him
to betray his friends). That was just perspective--and a very clever
bit of hiding clues in plain sight on JKR's part. Even the twinge of
mercy at the end wasn't a fundamental change. It was as weak as
everything else about him. (But, hey. He's better at magic than he's
generally given credit for.) :-)

Carol, who thinks that Wormtail is a rat through and through
regardless of the number of legs, with no offense to real-life pet
rats, which she likes