Characters good and bad

[sistermagpie]

I've been reading a few discussions about that fandom favorite, who is good or bad in HP. I think the reason I always find this kind of discussion pointless is that "good" is not a state of being, like being asleep or awake, blond or brunette. It's an on-going struggle in which your past choices influence what your next choice is but don't guarantee your next choice will be right.



One thing that really made me think of it was a discussion I was reading recently that was comparing Lupin and Snape. Lupin's sticking up for Snape in the Pensieve was brought up as an example of why Lupin wasn't good and someone said it was ridiculous to judge someone based on something they did at 15. And I found myself thinking well...it's more complicated than that.

First, JKR's characters do tend to have their central struggle that comes up again and again, and that is Lupin's. He doesn't speak up for Snape, he doesn't tell Dumbledore about Sirius. So it's not completely strange to bring that up when judging the character as a whole--that moment isn't an anomaly, even if it doesn’t make him bad. But even beyond that I thought the whole exchange brought up how you can't really compare characters this way. This discussion, I should mention, also looked at places where Snape was seen as making the right decision, presumably over the one that was easy, or at least the one that came more naturally to him or appealed to his baser instincts. So naturally it came down to one side saying, "So Lupin wasn't as good as he could have been when he was 15--he's still with the Order, a nice guy, a good teacher, helped Neville, suffers a lot, doesn't torment and bully people and spies on werewolves!" And the other side said, "Sure Snape isn't nice but he realized Voldemort was wrong and committed himself to the other side and stuck with it, and he's probably done more for the good side than Lupin." Both sides think the other character's getting a pass. Both characters seem weak just where the other seems strong. So who's right? Is a good guy who does a bad thing still good? Is a bad guy who does good still bad?

I wound up feeling people just don't break down into good or bad that simply. The characters are what they are. Readers will probably be drawn to one character or the other based on his/her own challenges or beliefs about right and wrong. That’s why even when readers agree about a character’s actions they disagree. Faced with a scene where Snape is doing the "right" thing (a pro-Harry/anti-Voldemort thing) some people consider his action a better example of good if it seems to conflict with his own instincts--he's putting duty over his desires. Other people consider the actions a bad example of good for the same reason--he's not really a good person because he's not doing it because he wants to, just because it’s his job. It seems to me that a discussion about who's right there probably goes straight to the heart of ethics and philosophy and is a really worthwhile one to have. Shame it gets sidetracked with fandom character fights!

But then, that's probably always the problem in talking about ethics is people don't realize that different people base their ethics on different values--and sometimes when faced with that they dismiss it as "moral relativism," meaning that of course underneath everyone knows that they're values are the right ones, they're just not admitting to being immoral. They also, I think, sometimes ignore the obstacles another person has if they don’t share them. It’s always easy to avoid someone else’s vices and hard to understand why something that doesn’t seem like a big deal to you is a big deal to someone else.

I guess that often just gets me really frustrated because in this series every character seems to be on his/her own path of good and evil. In order to really understand what a character is doing most of the time you have to keep their actions firmly in context, understanding what's at stake from that character's pov. You can't just hold Lily up as proof Lupin could have stood up to Snape, or hold Sirius up as proof Draco could have rejected his family's values or hold Harry up as proof Snape could have been different.

So the question of whether a character is "good" or "bad" just has very limited use, imo. In a really generally way we get it--the baddies are the ones who want little Harry dead. But sometimes it seems that "good" gets defined as "characters whose bad moments don't count" and "bad" gets defined as "characters whose good moments don't count." I don't mean that in a whiny way, like "Wah! Nobody's recognizing that Snape/Draco could have been worse here!" I mean it as a straightforward question of: what's the point of seeing the character that way?

Like, even if you think Lupin's the greatest guy in the HP universe and you not only forgive him for not sticking up for Snape but sympathize with him, why should that action of his be seen as something outside his character? He did it, even though he didn't feel completely right about it, so isn't it more interesting to shine a bright light on that moment? To find the selfish reason for the action--selfish meaning the reason why that action was ultimately more appealing to Lupin than any other choice he could have made? What in Lily's character makes her stand up to James and Sirius (I don't see her making a sacrifice there--though even if she seemed to dislike confronting James and Sirius she'd still have a reason for doing it). Why does Snape ultimately choose DD's side (assuming he did) over the DEs?

I do think, too, that the whole good/bad character/moment argument is set up in the text as well. Like I said, I think Rowling's characters are often built around a central conflict, a conflict that their lives might very likely turn on, like a fatal flaw. Those conflicts sometimes stand out more because they contrast with the rest of the personality. So yes, one should look at Lupin's every day behavior and small acts of kindness in judging his character, just as one should look at Draco's every day behavior and petty acts of malice and bigotry in judging his character. But never to the point of overlooking the times Lupin doesn't do the right thing or Draco doesn't do the wrong thing. Like it or not, it was the times when Lupin saw the right thing to do and didn't that defined his life far more than his kindness to anyone. We don't know how Draco will turn out but his lowered wand in the Tower seems very important to what he is and is not—it certainly changed the direction of his fate from the way it had been going up until then. Snape may have wound up being trapped ultimately by his own honor more than his bitterness. It’s not unfair, it’s just more dramatic.

Comments

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

it was the times when Lupin saw the right thing to do and didn't that defined his life far more than his kindness to anyone

Did they, though? Seems to me they both have about equal impact on his life. I mean, bad consequences and good consequences for the bad and good actions.

It all counts, for me, and I like that it all counts: that someone can be a kind man who is decent to children, loyal to his friends and so anxious to keep other people's good opinions that he risks the death of children who are his responsibility. Likewise that someone can be a pitiless murderer with a stern code of honour which could not let him rest until he atoned. And I like Lupin and Snape both a lot.

Then like you, I do not understand why anyone would want to simplify a character by discounting any of the information about him or her.

The only times I get annoyed about someone's faults instead of intrigued by them in the HP books is when I feel someone isn't held accountable for them by the narrative. You know? Lupin gets shunned by the wizarding world, Snape stews his own bitter bitter juices. I don't believe in karma, but one's past actions boomeranging on you pings me just right. So if Draco gets in trouble for dressing up in a Dementor costume to put off the Gryffindor Seeker, Ginny damn well needs to get in trouble for ramming the commentator's stand to put off the commentator.

[sophie-spence.livejournal.com]

sometimes it seems that "good" gets defined as "characters whose bad moments don't count" and "bad" gets defined as "characters whose good moments don't count."

Yes! and this seems to happen even more commonly in the fandom with the various Weasleys - especially those damned twins - than with Snape, Draco, Sirius, et al.

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

I'm about to go to sleep at any minute, so I'll read and maybe answer this essay more properly tomorrow, but I wanted to say some general things apropos this:

I've been reading a few discussions about that fandom favorite, who is good or bad in HP. I think the reason I always find this kind of discussion pointless is that "good" is not a state of being, like being asleep or awake, blond or brunette. It's an on-going struggle in which your past choices influence what your next choice is but don't guarantee your next choice will be right.

Yes. This is why I often have a hard time accepting discussions of "good and evil". I mean, I can accept it to a certain extent when it comes to fairytales, fantasy, and other genres that tend to rely on a rather black-and-white character-gallery. Like, we often have the archetypical hero and archetypical main villain, who often are so consistently "good" and "evil" in their actions, that it almost becomes a state of being, and I can accept calling them such, in those cases. But as soon as the hero isn't flawless, or there are characters who seem more like human beings than "Evil Supervillains", I think the terms are too simplistic, and would rather avoid them.

What I prefer to use, when we're discussing their actions and morals, and such, is "right" and "wrong". It's never as easy to define "right and wrong", as it is to define "good and evil", but it's much easier to apply those terms to real life. Which, of course, makes the discussions more complicated, but also more interesting. Sometimes it's hard to know what is right and what is wrong, and you can do something wrong for "the right reasons" and vice versa, and as you say, it's an eternal struggle, you have to decide what you think is right or wrong, and if you want to act on it, again and again and again.

On a little side-note, however, I think I have an easier time engaging in "good and evil"-discussions in Swedish, because the Swedish word for "evil" is a bit interesting. The word "ond", means "hurting" and "angry" as well as "malicious". I find that interesting and surprisingly suitable, since villains -at least the ones with any debth to speak of- often seem to have a lot of anger, and hurt, that they handle by hurting others.

[seaislewitch.livejournal.com]

This is why I'm intrigued with certain characters, and why I explore their motives through dramatic, written portrayals. *sniggers* I quit a 'writing group' a while back because they thought certain characters were one-dimensional, while other characters were deep and interesting. Riddikulus! Who do you know who is ruled by one factor? I got sick and tired of educating them. I wish could have sent them the link to your essay. :)

I prefer to think of the good vs bad comparison this way: There are good choices and bad choices, and which is which really depends upon the situation and the individual involved.

[lunadeath02.livejournal.com]

This is so on the button.

It’s always easy to avoid someone else’s vices and hard to understand why something that doesn’t seem like a big deal to you is a big deal to someone else.

This is so right on! I'm experiencing this in my life as we speak. What things I have to go through now doesn't seem as a big deal to others that I know, and it pisses me off.

[pinkfinity.livejournal.com]

Huzzah! Another lovely essay!

We don't know how Draco will turn out but his lowered wand in the Tower seems very important to what he is and is not—it certainly changed the direction of his fate from the way it had been going up until then.

: prints in shiny silver, frames, hangs on wall

[violaswamp.livejournal.com]

Great essay.

You can't just hold Lily up as proof Lupin could have stood up to Snape, or hold Sirius up as proof Draco could have rejected his family's values or hold Harry up as proof Snape could have been different.

Yes, exactly. Each of these characters have different histories and different betes noirs, if that's the term I want, that they need to face and defeat. For instance, what's easier for Sirius might be more difficult for Draco, and vice versa. I don't want to underrate what Sirius did in opposing his family's values, but it seems to me that it would have been less difficult for him to do that than Draco for the simple reason that Sirius didn't seem to like his family even before he left home. And Draco does like his family. Sirius had a personality conflict with his family and Draco doesn't, and it's easier to oppose those you don't like.

[imkalena.livejournal.com]

Like it or not, it was the times when Lupin saw the right thing to do and didn't that defined his life far more than his kindness to anyone.

If only by causing him, when he grew up, to be kind to people. He doesn't have to, after all -- he's doing that for a reason, too.

[cutecoati.livejournal.com]

And another great essay by you!

Your insight into Lupin is truly amazing; to tell the truth, I - although I really like him - have never considered what makes him tick and why... but you (once again) made me think. The idea of this prank still dominating his life, even if he maybe doesn't realise it... hmmmm... *nods*

I can only second every word you said about Good/Evil not being useful categories (and are they even sensible, valid categories?). As far as canon is concerned, I'm always wavering a bit between "oh, come on, JKR, we GOT it now who is teh ebil and who is knight in shining armour" and the fact that the books, after all, are told from Harry's POV, meaning that he (and therefore we) can't know certain facts (like, why young Snape did this and that) or can't even like/dislike certain people. Which, IMO, makes this series so ideal for fanfic - the more a playground for us ;D [/platitudes]

Although I am pretty sure sometimes have the impression that it's JKR's subconscious who writes the ambivalent traits of her characters, the fact that many of them have several layers, that they made choices which weren't absolutely "right" or "wrong" but the result of their past or experiences they made. That doesn't mean that every choice can be excused by analysing the context it was made in, but it can be explained and probably understood. (Maybe it's the historian in me, but I generally abhor the idea of "excusing" the actions of people.)

*sighs and turns back to work*

[maidenform.livejournal.com]

This is why I never look at things in terms of black/white, good/bad, or any of the other convenient opposites that we humans tend to create to make things less difficult to understand. If someone is doing what he or she feels to be right, then he or she is doing all that can be expected of him or her. If Snape killed Dumbledore because he felt it was what he needed to do, then so be it. I do not think it would have been ethical for him to give up his life for Dumbledore. After all, he did consent to an Unbreakable Vow.

[verseblack.livejournal.com]

Dropping in from the Quibbler Report...

Just had to give a big cheer for this section...
They also, I think, sometimes ignore the obstacles another person has if they don’t share them. It’s always easy to avoid someone else’s vices and hard to understand why something that doesn’t seem like a big deal to you is a big deal to someone else.

It took me a long time to figure out why I was so much more willing to accept Snape's bad points than Sirius'. It finally boiled down to the fact that I had the background to understand someone feeling isolated from peers at school while I don't have the experiences necessary to fully comprehend what it means to have an unhappy homelife. I'm not able to "fill in the blanks" on my own in the same way with Sirius as with Snape. I can only *imagine* in a vague sort of way what it must be like to dread going home. I can *remember* what it is like to try and avoid certain people in class and all the emotions that went with it.

from quibbler_report...

[gunderpants.livejournal.com]

I'm someone who loves Lupin as a character but finds a lot of really huge flaws in his person; I do see him as being weak (not to mention passive-aggressive, indecisive and sometimes a bit maudlin). For all his good traits, his compassion and his overarching decency, he can be pretty irritatingly emo at times.

Where I sympathise and elevate him above Snape is probably in his perspective and the fact that he has seen a connection between his behaviour in the past and its consequences, whereas to me (and I emphasise this is purely subjective) Snape really hasn't, and he hasn't learnt that he shouldn't bully others even though from his own experience he knew it felt dreadful. I think Lupin genuinely feels dreadful over the instance because he has applied this compassionate insight, and when he said that he doesn't hate Snape for what he did at the end of PoA, I genuinely believe it, if only because I've found myself in that situation before too.

I can understand the mindset of a victim of bullying never forgiving the perpetrators and being suspicious of others for the rest of their lives, because their feelings are absolutely justifiable and are so complex I couldn't pick into it. As a victim of childhood bullying, though, I don't feel hatred and anger or a desire for vengeance because it involves a lot of mental effort, really. I became friends with a lot of the people who bullied me when I was younger, and the rest of them barely cross my mind these days. Probably because of my own experience, this is why I feel more sympathy for Lupin and Snape, and therefore think his path is probably smarter and nicer anyway. (As you can see, bullshit subjective judgement. Mea culpa.)

[anamirza.livejournal.com]

On the one hand, with all these imperfectly good and imperfectly bad characters on display, I'm amazed that anyone would hold up her favorite character and say, no, no, mine is the good one! Even those characters portrayed in a generally very positive light - Hermione, for example - have their weaknesses (lack of focus in a crisis) and vanitites (grades).

On the other hand, though - if one imagines that one is to take the author literally in her interviews (and why shouldn't we?), well, she's come out and said that some people "are just evil". (Which, if I remember correctly, was a reference to Voldemort, and from an interview before HBP came out...where we see his most human side.) Which I think is one thing that sets people on a "these are innately good" sort of path, though maybe all she meant was that some people, out of awful situations, turn out well, while others do not. Heck, some people turn out awful from perfectly good situations, for that matter. And, unless I missed the memo, this disparity isn't something understood and Scientifically Explained. Maybe it's luck or maybe it's genetics or maybe it's complexity or maybe it's grace - but the point is, we don't know.

I like that in HP, we also don't know - and a part of me hopes that at the end of Book 7, we still won't know why Snape Can't Just Get Over It, for example. (Of course the other part of me hopes for a "director's voiceover" of all 7 books...)

[cressida0201.livejournal.com]

But sometimes it seems that "good" gets defined as "characters whose bad moments don't count" and "bad" gets defined as "characters whose good moments don't count.

That's interesting, because sometimes it seems to me to be just the opposite: the "good" characters (i.e., those the author seems to present for us to sympathize with) are expected to be good all the time, and readers throw fits if they exhibit a flaw. "Lupin didn't stick up for Snape--therefore he's not really a good guy, now is he, and how dare JKR expect us to approve of him?" While they'll fall all over themselves to excuse all sorts of bad behavior as long as a character has one single redeeming moment.

But then, it seems like everyone I know who read Harry Potter proclaims that they're only interested in the antagonists: Snape, Draco, Snape, Bellatrix, Snape.... *grin*

Me ... I basically find 'em all interesting, but I don't feel a burning desire to see things flipped. I don't require Harry to apologize to Snape or Draco on bended knee for underestimating them all these years--but neither do I require them to do so to Harry. Discussions like you mention are one reason why I'm not really "in" HP fandom. I don't enjoy it when people get all polarized one way or the other.