Characters inconsistencies (mostly Snape's) WAS :Re:What did you like

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 183821

Alla:
> I mean, for example you say that Snape's basic character remains very 
> strong throughout the books. Well, but what IS Snape's basic 
> character, you know?
> 
> If you mean that his attitudes towards Harry and other kids remain 
> the same throughout the book and that **is** his basic character, 
> then sure I would agree with you. If you mean that Snape loving Lily 
> is his  basic character, sure I agree with it too.
> 
> But I just do not see how one can say that Snape's change of heart as 
> to his being DE not makes him inconsistent character. I truly think 
> it does. OR one can say that it makes him dynamic character, changing 
> etc, but to me it is not mutually exclusive.

Magpie:
For me, "inconsistent" was in this case being used as a criticism--the 
idea was that people didn't like Harry because he was nice in one scene 
and did something they considered bad in the next. It can have other 
meanings besides that: a character can be inconsistent as an 
intentional character trait, for instance. But this was about 
complaints about Harry being inconsistent, I thought, and I think all 
the characters are coherently the same people throughout canon.

But really, I guess there's a spectrum. A character who never changed 
or always did the same thing regardless of differences in a situation 
all the time would not only be boring but read as not human. All the 
characters change their behavior in some ways due to their experiences. 
I just don't think of that as such a change that the character is being 
written inconsistently. Snape started out a kid who was imo already 
aware of blood superiority (based on his hesitation about Lily being in 
Slytherin) but who also loved Lily. His change of belief didn't to me 
seem to change his character so fundamentally. 

But I realize that's really hard to pin down. It *was* a big change for 
him to give up the DEs, of course. It was a big change for Draco to go 
from thinking being a DE was cool to thinking it was awful. The 
character learned through experience in both cases. In Snape's case 
he'd made all these changes before the book started, though, so it 
wasn't really a change within the story. We just didn't know the whole 
story. Snape had always been acting on the same values we learned he 
had in DH. That he mistreated Harry but also protected him was 
contradictory but not inconsistent, imo.

Winterfell:
So they were inconsistent with his connection to
DD. Also, incidently, for those who crucify Harry for using Crucio
and Imperius spells, I haven't heard too many people after reading DH
who criticized Snape for using the AK curse. It seems to be
inconsistent to criticize Harry and not Snape. They both used
Unforgiveable Curses didn't they? Or would that be ironic? Oh yes,
Snape's was for a good reason, that's right. (And Harry's wasn't?)

Magpie:
I wouldn't say I crucify Harry for using Crucio, but having read all 
the discussions no, Harry's didn't have a good reason according to many 
people and they've explained that pretty clearly.

At first it seemed like use of an Unforgivable was bad, period. But 
that was not the case. So it came down to judging individual uses of 
the curse. Snape is not generally criticized for performing his AK 
because he did seem to have a good reason, and his victim even was the 
one who wanted him to do it. I have not seen Harry criticized for using 
an Unforgivable in the bank either to Imperio his way in. People seem 
to see that as Harry having a good reason, as choosing to do something 
that was maybe bad because it was the most efficient way to acheive the 
greater good--any consequences were outweighed. The Crucio doesn't fit 
those circumstances for many people, as they've explained. It's not 
that hard to see why someone might think killing someone as a strategic 
move with their encouragement in order to prevent far more deaths would 
get judged differently than torturing someone out of anger. 

-m