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

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 183851

Alla:
> > > So, yes to me him coming back is a major major change in his
> character.
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > I agree. But that makes him dynamic, not inconsistent, according
to most literary critics that I'm familiar with. An inconsistent
character is one whose personality and traits are always fluctuating,
as distinct from a dynamic character who develops according to a
logical pattern. (Of course, a character can *appear* to be
inconsistent if he's viewed from an unreliable perspective, but I'm
not talking about that here.)
> > <HUGE SNIP, read the rest UPTHREAD>
> >> Carol, who agrees completely that (young) Snape changes but sees
nothing inconsistent about that change.  <snip>

>  Winterfell:
>      Change is a component of being inconsistent. Whether or not you
like the word "inconsistent", when applied generally, as properly
defined in the dictionary, not by some literary critics who love to
change and reinterpret words to suit their own pet theories, it
applies to a lot of things in JKR's writing.  Her characters change as
they grow older and face different circumstances.  Her writing changes
as it progresses from one book to the next.  Some changes, some
inconsistencies are good and make for better reading and character
development, some perhaps aren't so good when a character you like
changes in ways you don't want them to.

Carol responds:
We're talking about two different kinds of change here, character
development, which is steady and (mostly) consistent, in part the
result of a (young) character's growing maturity (its inevitable that
HRH will behave differently as first- or second-years than they do in
HBP and DH) and in part the result of a character's experiences (for
example, in Harry's case, the deaths of Cedric, Sirius Black, and
Dumbledore and in Teen!Snape's, the discovery of the peril into which
his own action has placed Lily).

That's different from an inconsistent character ("one who violates his
own psychological rules, as one writer defines the term). A character
who is inconsistent acts in a way that violates the pattern that the
author has established for him or her. Hermione cheating on an exam
would be inconsistent (though she does allow Harry and Ron to copy her
essays, which could be considered inconsistent with her reaction to
Harry's cheating in Potions by using the Prince's book and implicitly
claiming credit for his discoveries). I'm not discussing Hermione
here; I'm just using her as an example. If Wormtail suddenly started
behaving like an honorable man (the twinge of mercy doesn't
count--we've seen hints that he has a guilty conscience as far back as
GoF) that would be inconsistent. 

Inconsistencies in JKR's writing, such as her presentation of the
Unforgiveables or the differing descriptions of certain spells (e.g.,
Impedimenta and Protego) from book to book are another matter. I'm not
concerned with them here though I've discussed them in other threads.

Carol:
 
> But just because you don't like to think of Snape as inconsistent,
or his change being inconsistent, it still applies. 


Carol responds:
Steve, my dear friend, I wish you would refrain from assuming that any
position I take with regard to Snape is the result of what I want him
to be. It's not a matter of "wanting" Snape to be consistent. It's a
matter of determining whether his characterization (setting aside
Harry's pov and Snape's own "acting") is depicted consistently. Does
he behave as his motivations and personality and circumstances would
lead him to behave, or does he deviate from that pattern? It has
nothing to do with my wishes and everything to do with literary
analysis. I am using the term as literary critics (and writers and
editors) use it and discussing its applicablilty to Snape and others.

An author can choose to have a character behave inconsistently. So
long as the character is "consistently inconsistent"--that is,
inconsistency is a character trait of that character--the
inconsistency is not a flaw in the writing. (I'm trying to think of a
good example of a character, not necessarily from the HP books, who
consistently wavers or changes his mind or behaves in a manner so
unpredictable that the only character trait that can be established
for him is inconsistency, one whose inconsistency is deliberately
attributed to him by the author and remarked on by other characters.
Maybe you or others can help me.) However, if a character behaves in a
way that is inconsistent with his previous characterization, the
inconsistency is a flaw in the writing--unless, as is the case with
Snape's "murder" of Dumbledore, there's a good reason that turns out
to be very much in character. (Snape's *personality* has been
consistently depicted from the first book; his motivations, however,
have been left ambiguous until DH. The "murder" of Dumbledore turns
out to be consistent with both.) That is not to say that Snape doesn't
have *conflicting* character traits. His devotion to Lily, his loyalty
to Dumbledore, and his determination to keep his word regardless of
the cost to himself obviously conflict with his old friendships and
natural inclination toward Slytherin, not to mention his antipathy
toward Harry as James's son. These conflicting traits lead Snape to
treat Harry with contemptuous sarcasm while simultaneously protecting
him. Conflict, including internal conflict, is an essential component
of literature. In Snape's case, JKR's brilliant grasp of these
internal conflicts results in the depiction of a highly memorable
character, whose motivation is finally revealed in "The Prince's Tale."

Winterfell:
> It [inconsistency] doesn't have to be a negative thing, as many of
Snape's changes were for the good. Ultimately, he changes into a
redeemed hero, (albeit unappreciated and misunderstood hero by many
who don't understand the sacrifices he made).

Carol:
I agree that *change* isn't always a bad thing. That's the whole point
of the discussion on character development and dynamic characters. And
I agree that Snape changes and is redeemed. But that's not the same as
inconsistency. I don't understand why you want to reject useful,
established terms that allow us to make these distinctions.

Winterfell:
>  And Harry's attitude toward Snape changes drastically after DH as
well, <snip>

Carol:
Of course it does. That's part of *Harry's* character development, the
opening of his eyes and clearing of his perceptions (as symbolized by
his clear vision without glasses in "King's Cross"). But Harry's
antipathy to Snape is consistent (with only temporary lapses into
understanding and sympathy during the Occlumency lessons and the
ironic bond with "the Prince," whom he sees as a friend until he
discovers that the HBP is Snape). It takes a revelation, an epiphany,
to enable Harry to see the real Snape. 

Winterfell:
which is certainly inconsistent with how he viewed him through 6 and
3/4 books.  I think that change was quite good and was very happy to
see him name one of his children after Severus.

Carol:
But that change is not an *inconsistency* in Harry. And I absolutely
agree that the change was "quite good." The revelation in the epilogue
that he named his second son Albus Severus is one of my favorite
moments in the book. It shows that his new view of Snape, publicly
revealed before the duel with Voldemort, is no temporary insight to be
ignored or rejected later but a permanent change in his perception. 

Winterfell: 
> But calling Snape a dynamic character is also confusing, because
according to the free dictionary, some things which are dynamic are
characterized by continuous change, activity or progress...like a
dynamic market.  I don't think of Snape as continuously changing
either, or as a person who doesn't stick to his convictions.  If
anyone stuck to his convictions in the Harry Potter series, it was
Snape.  It took us 7 books to find out why, but he did stick to what
he believed in. He was certainly consistent in that.

Carol:
"Dynamic character" is simply a literary term for a character who
evolves or changes in a significant way, as opposed to one who (like
Mr. Weasley or Umbridge) remains "static" or unchanged. If you don't
find it useful, there's no need for you to use it. I only suggested it
as a way of helping us to discuss character development. I, at any
rate, find them useful. (BTW, if you want definitions of "dynamic
character" and similar terms, I'd suggest looking in a standard
glossary of literary terms rather than a generalized online
dictionary, just as I'd look in a dictionary of psychological terms
for terms related to psychology.

Regarding Snape, I agree that he ceases to be a dynamic character
after he comes to Dumbledore begging him to save Lily and commits
himself to saving her (and then her son after her death) at whatever
cost to himself. After that, he's essentially a static character (just
as Dumbledore is static after he rejects the temptations of
power)--unless you count "lately, only those whom I could not save"
evidence of further character develoment. "Static" is not a term of
condemnation. It merely indicates that a character's character traits
have already been established and he doesn't grow or develop further.
I've already cited Mr. Weasley as an example of a "static" good guy.
Flitwick and McGonagall also fit that pattern (however OoC McG's
remark about "gallant" Crucios may seem to some people--again,
inconsistency is not development). 

Winterfell: 
> All I'm saying here is that inconsistencies exist in the Harry
Potter novels and I believe many of them are positive.  <snip>

Carol:
I agree that character development is (usually) good (though a
character can change for the worse, as with Crabbe). I don't think we
disagree on anything except our definition of "inconsistent," which
I'm using as a writer, editor, or literary critic would use it and
you're using in a more ordinary sense. (It's not an actual technical
term like "dynamic character," but nevertheless it's used consistently
<g> by people associated with writing and publishing.)

Winterfell responds:
> 
> Thanks for the clarification and excellent explanation on this
[Snape and Occlumency].  I was wrong in thinking that Snape was
totally to blame in this.  His attitude was a contributory reason
Harry didn't continue occlumency, but not the main ones.  Harry is to
blame for a lot of what happened with the dreams of the Department of
Mysteries to be sure.

Carol responds:
You're very welcome. I'm glad that you liked my explanation.

Carol, providing a link to a pretty good online glossary of literary
terms, including "dynamic character":

http://www.wallkillcsd.k12.ny.us/glt.htm#_D