Do snakes have personalities?

[sistermagpie]

I had some thoughts reading the recent shipping manifestos, particularly the H/D one and this thread here, which has some great stuff in it. Anyway, it related back to some other recent discussions and got me thinking about relating to Slytherins and the fact that

The HP books aren't heavy on character-development in general--which isn't an insult. The books work with archetypes. But we obviously "know" the main characters better than other characters. They're more fully-fleshed out archetypes with the different sides those archetypes have. More importantly, we see them in lots of situations with lots of different people in lots of different moods. That's why, obviously, we can talk about them more. It's funny because I really can probably talk far more about flaws in the Gryffindor characters than the Slytherin ones, even though the Slytherins are more flawed, because we just don't know the Slytherins. There's very little to say about most of their flaws because we really don't get them. We can see them behaving badly but we don't know why they do it as individuals, really. Not everyone is a snob for the same reasons, or racist the same way. One boy defends his father from a different place than another boy does.

I try to piece together some hints about Malfoy from things like his opening scenes and the way his father speaks to him, but even with those things we don't in any way have a complete sense of this person. So the best you can do is figure out that he is hurt by Harry's rejection and things like that. The rest we have to fill in for ourselves because we don't have scenes where Malfoy explains himself or interacts with people in a very revealing way. Occasionally Malfoy will have flashes of personal revelation in dealing with Harry, but usually he's pretty well-covered. I guess that's why I find the flashes interesting. Still, it's not a lot and probably only seems like more because the rest of the Slytherins get nothing at all. It's not that there's never any reason given for their acting the way they act (although often there isn't, or the reason doesn't quite seem to cover it), it's just that it doesn't seem part of a larger personality. By personality I just mean...well, Ron's got a personality, for instance, and it's not defined by being the youngest son or jealous of Harry. It's just his Ron-ness. [insert other characters in place of Ron there, obviously] It seems particularly odd for Malfoy not to have any hints of this since he's supposed to be this recognizable face in Harry's year at school, yet he's a sort of bizarre creature instead. Even if Harry isn't his friend, you'd think there's be some sense of him.

But what of Snape? The thing is, I don't think Snape gets it much either. I mean, Snape is, I agree, one of the most interesting characters in canon, and perhaps the most complex. But he isn't a particularly developed character, where we see him change; we don't have many personal details about him that explain his actions. We know he hated Harry originally because of his history with James. We know he used to be a DE. It seems he was once close to Lucius. His parents fought.

But still, what we've got are blurry snapshots with no explanation of how he got where he is. We don't know exactly how he came to join the Death Eaters, or what he did there, or why he left. We only see him interacting with Harry, whom he doesn't like, and who doesn't like him, and who doesn't spend much time wondering why Snape is who he is. Really, I'd say we get more insight into Remus and Sirius, despite their having smaller parts. Harry knows what Sirius would do in many situations, sometimes Sirius and Remus both tell us how they feel or explain their own actions. We see them with each other, we know something about their families, and we see them with friends. I think sometimes it's easier to feel their flaws because they're set in a full personality.

And I think that's why maybe it's easier to talk passionately about their flaws. See, I don't know how people speak about the flaws of a lot of the bad characters, since they just seem to be defined by them. Snape and Draco we can a bit, but even there we don't have a wider context for it, and it's the wider context that makes it interesting. Even JKR, as we know, jokes about Snape being a "horrible person." It's kind of interesting, now I think about it, that I haven't read more of her responding to children who say Snape is a horrible teacher or whatever by agreeing BUT saying he has also saved Harry's life or whatever. Maybe I just haven't seen them.

Anyway, I think maybe that's why it's easy to get into a rut of seeming to always talk about the bad guys in a non-flawed type way, because it's the only way to give the personalities we see a wider context. I mean, I honestly don't really get why Malfoy dogs Harry's every step and is constantly harassing him. Yeah, I can point to things like Harry refusing his friendship, but come on, would that really explain what we get in a normal person? Does he really have no more to his personality? Is he always, at best, just boasting about his father, because that's hard for me to believe because it's not real. The trouble, it seems to me, is this lack of a wider character. Everything he does and says concerns Harry in that same relentlessly flat way. Occasionally you'll get something more promising--he's protective of his family, but even that we have little clue about. Why is he protective, exactly? It's just as flat. Oops-somebody said something about the Malfoys. Cue red spots on Malfoy's cheeks and begin harsh, whispered threats. I've no idea how he really feels there, as I would feel for Ron or the twins when Molly is insulted.

I'm not even talking about personal details, exactly, like knowing that Snape had a dog named Fluffy or Draco is close to his kindly grandmother. I mean more just seeing them interact in different situations, the way you get a sense of somebody IRL. I just don't feel like we have been given any clue about that for any Slytherins except maybe Tom Riddle--him I can sort of get a sense of, oddly enough. But I have a hard time believing, for instance, that Lucius spends all his dinner parties making comments about how blood counts for nothing. Surely wizarding society should have some great tales about Lucius the man and former Slytherin. Well, that's a lot of what was so great about N_A, really, was the way we got the characterizations from canon and glimpses into other sides, so we could imagine people in different areas of their lives.

Comments

[biichan.livejournal.com]

Hah. Everyone knows Draco stalks Harry because he has an unbelievably torrid boycrush on him.

Otherwise yeah. That is one of the problems with canon. A big one.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Heh--well, that part is clearly obvious!:-)

[jillojillo.livejournal.com]

But...for Snape, the stuffs you mentioned like we don't have many personal details about him that explain his actions or blurry snapshots with no explanation of how he got where he is. We don't know exactly how he came to join the Death Eaters, or what he did there, or why he left ....aren't they crucial revelations for the last two books since they are important key plot elements for the final story outcome?! (I see book 6 and 7 as the final chapters of the entire HP story, book 1-3 are introduction, 4 is turning point, 5 is the set up for finale). The snapshots we've seen so far ARE parts of the character development that will eventually build up to what'll reveal in the last 2 books. Of course we can't know the real reasons why Snape join and left DE in first 5 books because the plot requires Harry to not trust Snape yet. The snapshots like the pensieves scenes or Snape's memories (ex: crying child, fighting parents, alone in bedroom) are only foreshadow clues to the whole picture. There're many stuffs we can't know about Snape yet because they're crucial to the main plot, that's why they've only been hinted and revealed (slowly) book by book.

And I for one do see changes in Snape (in dealing with Harry) by the end of book 5. Even it's very subtle. First his reactions to Harry's memories in the occlumency classes/ You can argue that he asked those questions out of curiosity or out of malice. It's ambiguous but at least by asking we clearly know that Snape did take in those new revelations which were contradictory with what he thought Harry was. Also, he did not make fun or humiliate Harry once with those memories. Then I see another subtle change in the reaction Snape gave Harry at the staircase scene. Snape didn't act his usual "how dare you arrogant brat, just like your father, 50 points from Gryfindor" to Harry at all. He stared at Harry first (legilimency?), then said "Put that wand away" and only took 10 points. Well it's only my interpretation of course.

As for Draco, it's a complete different case. As much as I find him interesting, I think there's not much details or foreshadows about him because they don't really matter to the story as a whole. The story don't need those informations for the next two books (or should I say, the author seems to feel that they're not needed. Just to be clear that it's not *my* opinion that Draco doesn't matter, just in case the Slytherin fans get ready to bash me, it's merely my interpretation of what the Author seems to think). Therefore there's never much revelations or or build up in the existed five books about Draco other than what's present at face value.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

The snapshots like the pensieves scenes or Snape's memories (ex: crying child, fighting parents, alone in bedroom) are only foreshadow clues to the whole picture. There're many stuffs we can't know about Snape yet because they're crucial to the main plot, that's why they've only been hinted and revealed (slowly) book by book.

Quite possibly, yeah, they are! I hope so. It does seem hard to imagine we won't get it--like the elephant in the room there.

Snape didn't act his usual "how dare you arrogant brat, just like your father, 50 points from Gryfindor" to Harry at all. He stared at Harry first (legilimency?), then said "Put that wand away" and only took 10 points. Well it's only my interpretation of course.

Ooh, that's interesting! And I think you're right these are all hints that something's going on with Snape--ITA Snape and Draco are two totally different characters in that way. Snape started out disliking Harry because of James, but I agree their relationship has become far more personal over the years. Certainly Harry learned more about Snape, if only bit by bit, and that in turn hints that Snape is doing the same thing. My point, really, about Snape is just that so far we don't have the same kind of insight into him that we have into characters who talk to Harry about themselves because, of course, he doesn't talk to Harry about himself!

But still he's leagues ahead of Draco on that score after revelations like the Prank and the Pensieve. We're still encouraged, I think, to think about Snape in that way when we're not with Malfoy, which does kind of interest me given the backstory with the Marauders and where that kind of hatred led. But I agree that despite us not having this information yet it does seem to exist somewhere, where it really doesn't seem to exist with Malfoy.

Which I think is why it's at least easier to speculate about Snape as a whole character in ways I don't think you can with Malfoy. We have, after all, seen Snape interact with different types of people a few times, in ways we really don't with any other Slytherin.

[jillojillo.livejournal.com]

Forgot to respond to the main point of you post.
I'm not sure if the whole "it's easier to discuss the flaws of good guys since they're better develop" applies to Snape too. There are plenty (and I mean really plenty) long in-depth passionate heated rundown of Snape's flaws discussions/debates beyond the LJ part of the fandom (it is a huge fandom afterall), definitely more than ones for thetrio or the weaselys, may be only rivaled by the amount of Sirius's, Hagrid's and Dumbledore's. Just a personal observation.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Ah, that's interesting. The more you say this, too, I think I probably should have made more of an exception for Snape. I was more thinking of the flatter-characters and then it struck me that we don't have as much information about Snape as we might think we have, but I do think we can draw a far more complete picture of him. Enough to argue in ways I just don't think you can about a Malfoy, for instance. Because with the Malfoys the wider context is completely imaginary or projected, while with Snape it's not.

[jillojillo.livejournal.com]

HPFGU and Sugar Quill are two places on top my head I can think right now that's ALWAYS flooded with long in-depth heated Snape's discussion centric on moral & flaws (and usually turn into the never ending battles between Snape-bashers and Snape-apologists). And usually the flaws of Harry, Sirius and Dumbledore get dragged into these discussions. I think the fact that Snape's character motivations were only hinted at in the book which can argued both ways (for better or worst) was probably what fuel the discussions most.

[isiscolo.livejournal.com]

I agree, although everyone has got there ahead of me :-)

Snape has a great deal of depth, and although we have not explicitly seen his development we know it happened. I mean, he's still a nasty guy who holds a grudge, but he's also clearly on the side of good (at least, he behaves in such a way) and he also clearly was at some time on the other side.

I suppose you can use Tom Riddle as another multidimensional example, in that he was a good enough student to be Head Boy, he was crafty enough to frame Hagrid for his own actions, and he has obviously come a long way to his current position as a nutcase megalomaniac :-)

But I also agree that the Slytherin students are fairly cipherous.

[ishtar79.livejournal.com]

Snape did have a dog named Fluffy. But he cut him into little pieces, and used him in a potion. :P

Joking aside, I agree on what you've said about lack of development, especially concerning the Slytherins. Draco is entirely one-dimentionnal in the books, and while that makes him a fun character to play with in fanfiction, given all the unexplored potential, it doesn't make for good writing in the books themselves. I, of course, choose to interpret Draco's obsessive fixation on Harry in a very, very slashy way, but given that I doubt that's Rowling's original intent, it makes me wonder what the woman is thinking. Not that I want to turn this into yet another rant about Rowling and intent.

Snape is another type of animal entirely. Admittedly, he's the most develloped Slytherin in the series, but like you said, we lack any enriching background character details. What I find fascinating about Snape's 'development' in the books, is that there is no development to speak of, merely our perception of the character changing as pre-existing information is revealed to Harry. I do think we'll get more revelations in the following books, simply because Rowling, whether she admits it or not, likes to play with the mysterious/dark past aspect of the character.

Having said that, character development is pretty much lacking in adult characters in the books. While there is an effort to develop the kids (whether succesful, or with 'my character development iz pasted on, yay!' like in Ginny's case), the adults remain consistent, with the exception of Sirius' change in OotP, and possibly the Petunia moment, which could still fall under the realm of 'pre-existing info revealed'.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

That's a very good point that Snape is more revealed more than changing, but that's probably not surprising given the type of book. The adults really shouldn't be changing so much because it's a coming-of-age story and the adults have pretty much become who they are. You've got a child protagonist trying to learn about the world, and his real relationships are with his friends, not the adults. They're still adult-figures who respond to him as such. Harry is, by definition, completely behind in what's going on with anybody. To him it probably seems like a big change when something else is revealed, but it wouldn't be so shocking to the adults--like the way Snape, Sirius and Remus react to the revelation about James. I reacted much the same way about James-that the Pensive didn't change the perception of him I already had.

Malfoy is like a freak of nature in development, of course.:-) There are tiny, subtle shifts in him, possibly, but sometimes it seems like he is becoming less rounded rather than more.

[mahoni.livejournal.com]

sometimes it seems like he is becoming less rounded rather than more.

But this is in fact a valid course of character development. People frequently do become exactly who they start out as. Characters like these are often the subject of very depressing movies such as Monster's Ball** - powerful, excellent characters whose development is dependent on being consumed by an inability to break out of the mold in which they were cast. Just because they can't or don't change doesn't mean they are uninteresting or unfulfilled as characters, it just means that the interest comes from examining why they go that direction.

**the characters I'm thinking of specifically are the Halle Berry, Peter Boyle, and Heath Ledger characters. I think Billy Bob Thornton's character fits, too, but less obviously than the others. But if you haven't seen the movie, er, sorry for using a spectacularly unhelpful example.... o_o

[anehan]

There's something about Draco in OotP that doesn't seem to fit, a bit like with Ginny but not quite. I can't put my finger on it, but when I read OotP I felt all the time that there was something off with him. Maybe there's some big revelation coming. Or maybe not. :-)

[trobadora]

Really, I'd say we get more insight into Remus and Sirius, despite their having smaller parts.

I'm not entirely sure about Remus, but with Sirius I feel rather the same as with Snape - I'm missing some crucial part of the backstory here, and so I don't know him nearly as well as I might.

We know something about both Snape's and Sirius's childhood, and their time at school, but that's all a long way from either sending someone to a transformed werewolf, or from joining the Death Eaters. Still, from the Pensieve scene I can get a sense of why Snape might join, and what's missing is more why he left them again. With Sirius, canon gives us absolutely no understanding of why he did what he did, or why he apparently never regretted it, and so I don't fully know what he is really capable of, or who he actually is.

Of course, I have my own version of Sirius, and we can speculate on any motive we like for fanfic purposes, but that's not the same as knowing the canon character.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Of course, I have my own version of Sirius, and we can speculate on any motive we like for fanfic purposes, but that's not the same as knowing the canon character.

Yes, exactly. I was thinking more of just how Sirius and Remus, since they don't think of Harry as the enemy, are sometimes able to be questioned about their actions and give an account of themselves that attempts to be honest and objective. Like the way Remus says he didn't tell Dumbledore about Sirius being an animagus because he was afraid of Dumbledore knowing he'd betrayed his trust as a kid. Or getting a chance to see MWPP interact with each other in that moment after the O.W.L.s and before the lake. It seemed almost fitting Snape was by himself because we don't (yet?) have any idea what his interactions with friends might have been like. Malfoy seems the same to me--the one time we see him with his friends or family he doesn't seem relaxed at all, and he's fixated on the main story and Harry, making him seem even more like a plot device.

Of course that's only one thing we learn about Remus, and Sirius talking about James and his family is only one thing--it's not the same as the way we'd have gotten to know either of them if the books took place during their times at school. It's more the students where they just sometimes don't really seem like kids in the class.

[ackonrad.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree - and the reason for not being able to know the Slytherins or Snape in a way we know Ron, Sirius or even Molly is because Harry just sees them aloof and doesn't communicate with them.

I wouldn't say that Molly is a main character in the books, but it is a lot easier to talk about her good side and her faults than about Draco's. Draco is described so negatively in canon due to Harry's prejudice toward him that, as you said, we have to look for hints to see his real nature, because the fact that Draco is horrible to Harry and Co. certainly doesn't mean he's horrible to everyone else, too, like JKR herself said (the scene with Draco and Theodore Nott she'd had to cut from the books).

We don't know about how Draco behaves at home, unlike Molly. We don't know about how someone like Lucius has managed to make his son care so much about him - the flashes we see from Lucius are negative as well, and yet he cannot be that horrible to his son, otherwise he wouldn't worship him so much. We don't know what Draco's biggest wish is, unlike Molly's - her immense wish for her children to succeed. We are told Draco has to be ambitious, because he's in Slytherin, but we're shown that Molly is the ambitious one, because it's her who awards prizes to her children whenever they become Prefects.

So well, the good thing about this is that as Harry's perspective of Draco is very limited due to the fact that they don't interact much and due to Harry's immense dislike for Draco, we can catch some of these flashes and make out of them whatever we want. :)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree - and the reason for not being able to know the Slytherins or Snape in a way we know Ron, Sirius or even Molly is because Harry just sees them aloof and doesn't communicate with them.

Yes, when Snape is being unguarded it's usually with enemies. We see him infuriated with Sirius but I don't get a sense of what he was like with his own friends in school. That's why, as I said above, it almost seems fitting that he's alone in the Pensieve scene. Many people seem to jump on that as proof that Snape had no friends, but I prefer the idea that he went around with a gang of Slytherins (Slytherins always have gangs, you notice?).

We don't know about how Draco behaves at home, unlike Molly. We don't know about how someone like Lucius has managed to make his son care so much about him - the flashes we see from Lucius are negative as well, and yet he cannot be that horrible to his son, otherwise he wouldn't worship him so much.

Yes, most of the scenes we have with Draco make the same points about his personality. As I think I said above, even when we see him in a supposedly unguarded moment he's all about the plot and Harry. Even the cut scene with Theodore was about Harry--it's tempting to wonder what it was like. If he and Theodore were talking about what DE children grew up believing about HP, would we get genuine curiosity and an interesting conversation between them? Or would it just be another way for Draco to strut around and say Harry was really nothing while Theodore either agreed or quietly hinted there might be more to it than that, which Draco ignored. Like I said above, he's pretty much always "on" when we see him, playing his part. Maybe not in B&B, where we get some hints that he's maybe stuck, frustrated and hurt, but this isn't dwelled on in any way. It's more just, "And at home he's whiny too." The fact that he feels this way isn't presented sympathetically or anything, or taken seriously by anybody in the scene or outside it.

[mahoni.livejournal.com]

See, I don't agree with you on the absolute flatness of Malfoy and Snape. I actually find Sirius to be a much more thin character than either of them.

To me, there are four kinds of characters in Rowlings books:

1) characters we get to know well enough that they have depth we can see as well as guess at (the Trio, Lupin, various other Weasleys);

2) characters we get to know to an extent that it seems we SHOULD be able to know them well enough to see depth and guess at depth, but who in fact are fairly one-note when examined closely (Sirius, Hagrid);

3) characters we see not much of, and only one side of, but that side is so extreme or intriguing or telling that we could go on forever guessing at the depth and facets of their character (Draco, Snape, Tom Riddle, Neville [though Neville is gaining speed and looks to become one of the first two categories eventually], possibly even Tonks); and

4) characters who are pretty much just paper dolls filling the background [Pansy, Lavendar, etc).

It's hard to explain why, as far as giving details from the books, because it's been a while since I've read the books. But something that struck me very strongly, after finishing OotP, was that if I had to choose a character from the books to write an off-shoot book or series about, it would be a character from category 3. Characters in the first category have already had their stories pretty well told; characters in the second category couldn't carry a book on their own without devolving into cliche-driven personalities involved in cliche-driven events; and a book about characters in the fourth category couldn't be called an off-shoot because you'd pretty much have to create them out of whole cloth.

But characters in the third category - so many possiblities exist as far as why they act the way they do (psychologically, as well as the various possible details of their lives), and how they might react in situations that *don't* involve Harry Potter. I feel like I've been given just enough to make a strong start, and could go forward and not only keep them relatively in character but also have fun with them. If that makes any sense. I also think, incidentally, that this potential in them - the fact that that they so possibly have a great deal of depth beyond what we get from Harry's (or the author's) point of view - makes them really solid characters. Even if Draco ends up doing something stereotypical at the end of the series (either some kind of weird redemption/turn-around, or else something Very Blandly Evil), I will not believe that any pat reasons given for his actions are the full story. I'll always suspect something more was going on.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I do agree that there are no Slytherin characters who've been developed to the extent of the main (and as it happens, Gryffindor) characters. But I don't agree that Sirius is a solid character; and I don't agree that Snape and Malfoy *aren't* solid characters. Rowling might give more details about Sirius, and fewer about Malfoy and Snape, on the page, which means that strictly-by-word canonically they are more or less fleshed out, respectively. But my opinion is that by doing so she has unbalanced the potential they have for fully realized characterization.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

But characters in the third category - so many possiblities exist as far as why they act the way they do (psychologically, as well as the various possible details of their lives), and how they might react in situations that *don't* involve Harry Potter. I feel like I've been given just enough to make a strong start, and could go forward and not only keep them relatively in character but also have fun with them.

You know, I think in this post you put this much better than I did--I think you're absolutely right. Because as I'm understanding what you're saying, we sort of do "know" more about somebody like Sirius because his purpose and meaning is pretty much covered in the story. That doesn't make him the more complex or developed character, though. Sirius' story is told in the books, it's complete. As you said, it seems like we should know him better, that he is a complex character, but when you really look at him he's pretty straightforward. There's not a huge pile of unanswered questions about Sirius.

Whereas with the third kind of character, they make an impression but since we don't get this wider personality there's more potential. We don't know how these characters behave in many situations, but they make enough of an impression that they make us wonder.

I think where that hooks into the impression I was getting about talking about their flaws is maybe that we basically can talk with more confidence about characters like Sirius and Hagrid because they are what they are. We can hear that one note pretty well and "get" what they're standing for. It's like you can hold Hagrid and Sirius in your hand, whole, and compare them to each other, whereas with Neville, Malfoy, Snape, et al. you're wondering about filling in the blanks before you can begin to do that.

In fact, that's why it often seems to me that when people have strongly held opinions about these kinds of characters and confidently claim to understand them, they've usually supplemented them with outside sources. Like, they know all about Malfoy because he "is" the people who picked on them in school, giving that same illusion of depth that's really flat. Whereas if you're really looking at canon you couldn't really begin to say what made him tick in other areas of his life. Unless I'm completely going off in the wrong direction here about what you're saying...

[malafede.livejournal.com]

characters we see not much of, and only one side of, but that side is so extreme or intriguing or telling that we could go on forever guessing at the depth and facets of their character (Draco

This is really, really helping me putting the finger in the way I have always found Draco a satisfactory character in the canon, not flat but rather minor, and at the same time, incredibly compelling. He intrigues the rare times he appears, and then you go back and check the text and find many little details and try to put them together, in and out of authorial intent. You bring a lot of yourself in your reading of Malfoy because it's unavoidable seen how he's a strange mixture of archetype and contradictions, but this seems the opposite of flat, to me.

Thanks!

[mizbean.livejournal.com]

I can't really explain why I love Draco because I agree; he is flat, flat, flat. But I think I like him for the potential his character has, if that makes sense. I really do want to see the other side of him, whether he is a bad to bone, spoiled junior corps Death Eater or if there is potential, if not for redemption, for his acknowledging that pureblood fanaticism in wrong.

I like what you said that the flashes of insight is what makes characters interesting. One of those flashes about Draco that I love is when Draco fiercely defends his mother to Harry and Ron during the Quidditch World Cup. That and he seems to revere his father. Most of the spoiled rich kids or bullies I knew growing up were rather contemptuous of their parents. I can read from that that he has a happy home life, that and Narcissa is always sending him sweets (tell me she’s not a horrible mother). Then I start to wonder why he is such a bastard and do see the possibility for him to change. That’s why I love reading Draco fanfic so much, I want to fill in the blanks.

But, honestly, we have to talk about authorial intent. I don’t know if JKR ever intends to expand Draco’s character if her comments and his diminished face time in the books are any indication. Which is a shame, because she obviously doesn’t have the same affection for his character as I do. C’mon Jo, you can like both Harry and Draco, I do!

Snape, I do think is going to be explained more. We have to find out why Dumbledore trusts him so and why, conversely, he allies himself with the Order when he obviously doesn’t feel welcome or is just tolerated by its membership. And I hope we find out why he became a Death Eater and I hope it’s more than to just get back at the Marauders. We are supposed to find out more about Snape and Sirius’s rift per JKR’s comments on the upcoming book.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

mahoni really explained this well too--what we have really does give us the groundwork for good fanfic in ways other characters don't even really have. We're not crazy for being interested!

Most of the spoiled rich kids or bullies I knew growing up were rather contemptuous of their parents

You know, that's something that always strikes me as well, about him, particularly since Dudley fits that mold more. He bullies his parents, demanding more presents as a kid. In B&B I see people describe Draco as bullying his father when exactly the opposite is happening. That does make him more interesting to me, and different from Dudley, and different from the cookie-cutter spoiled brat kid in many ways. It does seem to give him more potential and even more depth.

But, honestly, we have to talk about authorial intent. I don’t know if JKR ever intends to expand Draco’s character if her comments and his diminished face time in the books are any indication. Which is a shame, because she obviously doesn’t have the same affection for his character as I do. C’mon Jo, you can like both Harry and Draco, I do!

Yeah, that's what it comes down to, isn't it? It's not hard! You can love both of them! But I agree it's quite possible he's going to get less explanation rather than more, while Snape will presumably be more revealed to us. But then, that also makes sense in what Ishtar said above, that what we get about Snape is more in terms of revealing existing facts, since he's an adult. Malfoy has more potential to be reacting to things going on and shaped by them, just as all the kids do.

[sieda.livejournal.com]

I apologize being off topic a small bit, but you reminded me that
I always felt sorry for Malfoy. That first flying lesson was the start of a downhill fall for him. That lesson was his chance to show off and prove that Harry was wrong for dismissing him on the train, it would have been his revenge. Instead, Harry becomes super-natural-flier-boy and matches him in something that Malfoy takes pride in. Not only matches him, but does it his first time on a broom. Then, to make it more humiliating, Hogwarts (McGonagall) buys Harry a new broom (which is against Hogwarts rules) and puts him on a quidditch team (which has to be even more against the rules) for a reward to something that was (supposedly)an expellable offense.
What rubs salt in the wound is this all came about because of Draco Malfoy himself. It doesn't help that he gets a scolding for lying and telling tales when he gives McGonagal the truth about the dragon.
Draco tries to prove that he is just as good as Harry but always falls short. It is just out of his reach, like waving a bone in front of a dog. It doesn't matter what Malfoy does he can come so close but Harry always comes out on top. And now, Harry has taken away the most important person in Draco's life (other than himself and maybe his mother).
I just wonder what more humiliation and mental torture Rowlings will put him through.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I can't help but feel that way too. It's a very specific kind of sympathy, because, as you say, he brings it on himself. It's rare that you can argue he's really being treated badly, exactly, it's just like a train wreck. You can see things adding up to more and more misery. Also for me there is something sort of wince-inducing about it all works. The character has nothing so he's sort of shaking his fist at the heroes from below them and the only result is that he usually winds up falling lower himself.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

...Sometimes I really and truly believe you are the most sane person in the fandom, man :D



/non-constructive

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

LOL! Totally constructive--I was really in one of those places where I wondered if I was crazy!