Characters' inconsistencies WAS: Re:What did you like about Harry Potter?

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 183834

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mesmer44" <winterfell7 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Carol responds:
> > <snip>
> > His being a valued member of OoP and killing its leader is not an
> > inconsistency but an irony which, unfortunately, cannot be revealed
> to
> > the other members, who must continue to believe that he's
> Voldemort's
> > loyal servant. That he treated Harry badly (I wouldn't say
> > terribly--Harry suffered no lasting damage from either his sarcasm
> or
> > his detentions, in contrast to the scar that Umbridge's cruel quill
> > left on his hand) and protected him at the same time is also an
> irony <snip>
> 
> Winterfell replies:
> 
> Actually it is by definition both an irony and an inconsistency.  An
> inconsistency is : displaying or marked by a lack of consistency,
> especially not regular or predictable, erratic: inconsistent
> behavior.  Snape's actions (untill the noble reasons we find out
> about were later discovered) in AK'ing DD were not viewed as regular
> or predictable as a member of the OotP and as a trusted friend and
> colleague of DD. So they were inconsistent with his connection to
> DD.  

Montavilla47:
I have to agree with Carol.  In terms of a fictional character, 
consistency means that they act in ways that are consistent
with their main objectives, goals, and character traits.  It doesn't
mean that they can't surprise us.

If, for example, a character is conceived as being erratic, then
that would be "consistent," even if they acted in odd, unpredictable
ways.  Here's the first example that popped into my mind--which
may not be a great one.  If you've ever seen Robin Williams do
his act, you'd notice that he jumps erratically from thought to 
thought, from wordplay to physical comedy, even from comedy to
pathos--in milliseconds. Yet, his act was fairly consistent in its
unpredictability (until he bucked that by going into dramatic 
roles, but hey... he's mercurial.)

But Snape isn't even like that.  He's very constant.  As a child,
he values power, privacy and magic, and he values those same
things as an adult.  He desires respect and craves admiration--
none of that changes. 

What changes is his political affiliation.  Lots of people change
"sides" without changing their character.  (Most of them
would probably insist that it's the party that's changed--not
them.)  

And, consistently, Snape makes the hard choices.  That's why
Dumbledore asked him to kill him.  By doing that, Snape was
showing the highest loyalty to Dumbledore--and Dumbledore
was showing the greatest trust.  

That the Order was denied the information to understand
what was truly going on does not make Dumbledore or
Snape inconsistent.  

> Winterfell replies:
>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?)

Montavilla47:
It's interesting that you use the word "crucify" to describe
people criticizing Harry.  There's this trap we all tend to
fall into in discussing the series--which is to line up into
different camps.  As if, you must be either pro-Snape or 
pro-Harry, when it turns out they were on the same side
all along.  (I'm as guilty of this as anyone.)

I think Magpie's got this right.  It's not Harry that bothers
people about the use of the Crucio.  It's that the Unforgiveable
curses and "hatred of the Dark Arts" was set up as the moral
framework through which to view the characters.  By having
Harry perform Unforgiveable spells, JKR explodes that 
framework--which may be the point.  It's possible that she
has written a very dark, exisential series and the message
is that there is no moral consequence to Dark Magic.

But that's not the way it reads to me (YMMV).  The way it
reads to me is that Harry gets a pass on using Dark Spells
because he's the hero.

As to why people aren't jumping on Snape for using the
AK--I do think that's interesting, because I know a number 
of people were vehement before DH in saying that they'd
find the series immoral if JKR justified Snape's actions.

But I haven't heard that from them since the novel came out.
Perhaps they simply lost interest in the series, or arguing the
point.  Or, perhaps they finally accepted the idea (generally
known as the "Stopper Theory") once JKR made it official.

But here's, to me, what the key differences are between 
Snape's use of the AK and Harry's use of the Crucio.  

1.  At the time when Snape used the AK, it was really the best,
quickest, and most merciful of the options available to him.  
The outcome (saving Draco, Harry, and--at least from torture
and humiliation--Dumbledore) was good.  

Harry had several spells at his disposal which would have 
been more effective against Amycus.  He used the Crucio
because it was emotionally satisfying to him--not because
it was the best option.

2. Snape was very aware (and troubled) by the thought that
killing Dumbledore (let alone how) would tear his soul.  As
for whether or not it did, that question is still open.  So, 
by granting Dumbledore's request, Snape was putting his 
very soul in jeopardy.

Harry risked nothing by using the Crucio--except the 
possibility that it wouldn't work.  We expect difficult choices 
to exact a toll on those who make them--otherwise it's not a 
difficult choice.  By using the Crucio for purely self-satisfying
reasons, and by paying no psychic price for that action, 
Harry's moral value is decreased.


> Winterfell replies:
> As for Snape's behavior not being terrible or having lasting effects
> on Harry, what about Snape's behavior during occlumency lessons? His
> treatment of Harry during those lessons, bad or whatever, was a key
> reason for Harry not learning occlumency and the main reason LV was
> able to put the images of Sirius's capture in his head.  I'd say the
> consequences for Harry were quite lasting.  True, it was a very
> necessary plot device by JKR, but nonetheless it was Snape's bad
> behavior that was the catalist for Harry's future actions.

Montavilla47:
Here's where I'm going to jump merrily into the pro-Snape camp.
Snape's behavior during the Occlumeny lessons was not terrible.  
He was, for Snape, rather civil.  He, unlike all the other adults during
OotP, took time to answer Harry's questions.  He praised Harry
when Harry made progress.  He explained what Harry needed to 
do in order to learn the skill.

But, it was a difficult branch of magic to learn, and Harry
clearly wasn't ready to learn it--or motivated to do so.  So I think
it was inevitable that the lessons would end badly.  At least,
that's what Dumbledore says, and it's probably best to take that
at face value.