When is 'Harry Potter' not Harry Potter?
Sin Man Lea Cheng
I. Introduction
Every fanfiction begins with theft. Writers snatch characters from their original worlds, dressing them in new roles, bending their flaws and virtues to fit borrowed plots. When Harry Potter fans reimagine the Boy Who Lived as a detached, calculating leader, abandoning his reckless idealism for cold pragmatism, they risk unraveling the very essence of his identity: Is this still Harry, or has he become a stranger wearing his name? This tension lies at the heart of what fans decry as “out of character”: the violation of some intangible essence that makes Harry Harry, no matter the story. But what does it mean for a character to be in character? I suggest the following: for a character to maintain their identities across narratives and adaptations, they need to retain their essential properties.
II. Essential and Accidental Properties
A common way of defining personal identity is through essential and accidental properties. Essential properties are properties that make an object that object (Robertson Ishii, Teresa Atkins, & Philip, 2023). In other words, if the object lacked that property, it would simply no longer be that object. Fictional characters, particularly those reimagined in fanfiction, offer a unique lens to examine this distinction: unlike real people, whose identities are entangled with lived experiences and subjective selfhood, fictional identities are constructed through deliberate authorial choices. The Harry Potter series provides a compelling framework for this analysis. With its vast fanfiction subculture and deeply familiar characters, Harry’s identity is both universally recognizable and endlessly contested. Take Harry Potter himself (Rowling, 1997); most fans agree that without the property of being a wizard, he would not be himself because his understanding of himself and his growth as a character is closely tied to his acceptance and exploration of his abilities. That is, if Harry were not a wizard, he would not be Harry anymore. This means in every possible world where we find Harry, he has to be a wizard. In this way, we can say that there does not exist a possible world where Harry is a muggle, because Harry being a muggle is inconceivable just as it is inconceivable that you and I are not persons.
Accidental properties are the complements of essential properties; they are properties that something or someone happens to have but that they could lack (Robertson Ishii, Teresa Atkins, & Philip, 2023). For example, Harry Potter’s name, “Harry Potter”, is an accidental property. Even if we changed his name to “Ron Weasley” and kept everything else the same, he would still be Harry Potter. This is because his name is not a determining property; it does not affect his ability to survive the Killing Curse, to be a wizard, or his capacity for love. Even though his name is recognizable and significant within the story’s context, it is not what grants him his unique status or abilities. There could be many possible worlds where a person with the same properties as Harry is assigned a different name, yet they would retain the essence of who Harry is. In other words, they would still be Harry. This applies equally to real individuals: a historical figure like Cleopatra remains Cleopatra even if her name were changed, so long as her defining traits, her ambition, political acumen, and legacy, persist. Names, for both fictional and real entities, are often accidental.
With that said, where do we draw the line between the essential and accidental properties of fictional characters?
Narrative consistency is critical for the audience to be fully immersed in a story without being jolted out by inconsistencies or contradictions. Therefore, essential properties are properties that are fundamental to a narrative's integrity. For example, Harry Potter surviving the Killing Curse and obtaining a lightning-shaped scar is a fundamental part of his identity, relationships, conflicts, and the story's progression. Changing this would alter the very foundation of the series. On the other hand, accidental properties are those that can vary without affecting the narrative's core. For example, the color of Harry's eyes is often mentioned as green, mirroring his mother's, which adds depth to his character but can be (and has been) altered in adaptations (e.g. Daniel Radcliffe's blue eyes in the films) without changing the core of Harry's identity or narrative role.
The creator's intention should also be considered when analyzing essential and accidental traits. J.K. Rowling has emphasized the importance of Harry's ability to love and sacrifice. These traits are highlighted as being central to his character and his ultimate victory over Voldemort, reflecting the theme of love's power over death. In contrast, Rowling has also written about Harry's life after the series (such as his career as an Auror), which, while interesting, does not define the core identity he established within the original books.
III. Definitions of Fictional Identity
Having established how essential and accidental properties allow characters to retain their core identities across narratives, we arrive at the heart of the matter: defining fictional identity itself. I define fictional identity as follows:
For a character to maintain their identity across narratives and adaptations, they need to retain their essential properties. That is, character x from fictional world X is identical to character y from fictional world Y if and only if the essential properties of x and y are exactly the same.
For example, the adaptation of Hermione Granger from the books to the screen shows that even though there are variations in her accidental properties (such as her appearance), her essential properties are still preserved (such as her intelligence). This makes it so the audience is still able to recognize her as the same Hermione from the books but just in another possible world (the movie).
However, some cases are more difficult to classify. Imagine a Harry Potter fanfiction where Hermione Granger, instead of getting to know Harry and Ron, only befriends Draco Malfoy. Now, would this fanfiction Hermione still be the same Hermione as the one in Rowling’s book series? In the book series, in terms of narrative consistency, Hermione’s relationship with Harry and Ron is central to the story as they set a foundation for Hermione’s actions and decisions throughout the series like her use of clever spells and quick thinking in dangerous situations. They are all in service of her friendship with Harry and Ron and their shared goals. In terms of the creator's intent, J.K. Rowling meant for the three of them to become friends in the book series. In this sense, it would be reasonable to conclude that Hermione's relationship with Harry and Ron is her essential property. While some readers might argue that her cleverness exists independently of these friendships, it is the authorial intent that defines their importance. Rowling deliberately constructed their bond as a central element of the narrative, and this friendship directly shapes Hermione’s development and many of the series' key events. Because of this, the relationship is not just significant, but essential to her identity in the original canon. Thus, because the fanfiction contradicts this essential trait, we can conclude that fanfiction-Hermione is not the same as book-series-Hermione.
Now that we have talked about my approach to determining fictional character identities, let’s take a look at other philosophers’ methods.
In “Fiction and Metaphysics”, Thomasson (1998) defines fictional identity as:
If x and y are fictional entities originating from the same work, then x=y if and only if x and y are ascribed the same properties in that work. In a similar vein “Against Fictional Realism”, Everett (2005) defines fictional identity as: If x and y are fictional entities originating from the same work, then x=y if and only if according to that fiction, x=y. Note that they are equivalent if we assume Leibniz’s law. For the sake of this essay, we will just assume that it does and the two laws convey the same meanings.
Based on these definitions, the identity of a fictional character is determined by the totality of properties attributed to them within their original work or according to that originating fiction. Crucially, within the framework presented by Thomasson and Everett, as discussed here, this typically refers to all properties ascribed to the character in the originating work. Their definitions, at least as presented and challenged here, do not explicitly distinguish between what might be considered "essential" or "accidental" properties – a distinction central to my own approach. They seem to rely on a comprehensive, undifferentiated set of attributed properties from the source text.
This means that if two characters from the same story have all the same traits described in that story, then those two characters are considered to be the same character. This means that if Harry1 and Harry2 come from the same work (the Rowling book series) and are given the exact same set of properties such as a lightning scar, brown hair, round glass, etc. then those two entities can be considered identical. On the other hand, based on Thomasson/Everett’s law, Harry and Ron are not the same character because they are attributed different properties such as Harry having a lightning scar on his forehead, while Ron does not.
However, problems arise when we consider the following possible fanfiction. The story begins at the end of “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” (Rowling, 1997), Harry Potter was so traumatized by his fight with Professor Quirrell that he became cowardly and refused to continue to learn magic. At the end of the story, he doubts himself so much that he joins Voldemort to give himself direction. “Harry” in the fanfiction sequel does not sound like himself at all, as he is doing things Harry Potter would never do. He loses the properties that Rowling consistently assigns him throughout the book series.
Nonetheless, Thomasson/Everett’s law, as interpreted based on its focus on the properties in the originating work, would still state that this character in the fanfiction is the "same" Harry Potter. This is because the fanfiction character originated from the Harry Potter depicted in Rowling’s series, and their definition relies on the set of properties ascribed to Harry in that original story. The significant change in behavior and values does undeniably represent a change in the character's properties (e.g., a change from courageous to cowardly, from morally opposed to aligned with evil). However, the challenge posed here stems from how Thomasson and Everett's definitions, in this context, seem to prioritize the initial set of properties from the source text over subsequent transformations or variations, no matter how profound those changes in property might be.
But is this really Harry Potter? Many would intuitively say no. This strong intuition arises precisely because the character has lost properties widely considered fundamental or "essential" to Harry's identity within the fictional world – his courage, his moral alignment with good, his role as the primary antagonist to Voldemort.
In scenarios like this, the definitions of fictional identity as outlined by Thomasson and Everett are heavily challenged because they seem unable to account for our powerful intuition that losing or gaining certain types of properties can fundamentally alter a character's identity, rendering them no longer the "same" character, even if they originated from the same source. Their reliance on a comprehensive set of properties from the source text, without differentiating their importance or acknowledging the impact of radical change, fails to align with our intuitive grasp of character identity, which is sensitive to changes in what we perceive as essential traits. The reason "many would say no" is precisely because their judgment of identity depends on the preservation of these core, defining characteristics, which the fanfiction character lacks. This demonstrates a limitation in definitions that do not differentiate between properties or give weight to how characters evolve beyond their initial depiction, particularly when that evolution involves changing seemingly fundamental traits.
Notably, however, this example would not be affected by my law because it explicitly distinguishes essential properties. My law would argue that because the fanfiction failed to preserve Harry’s essential properties (e.g., his bravery, his link with magic, and his opposition to Voldemort), the character in this fanfiction cannot be considered the same Harry Potter as in the Rowling’s book series, aligning with what readers plausibly think after reading the fanfiction.
Therefore, my approach offers a more nuanced and adaptable framework for understanding fictional identity than Thomasson/Everett’s law by accounting for the significance of essential properties and the intuitive judgments readers make based on them.
IV. Conclusion
In conclusion, defining fictional identity is complex, as illustrated by the Harry Potter case study. We saw how a character originating from the source material, like Harry, can undergo transformations in fanfiction that lead us to intuitively feel they are no longer the "same" character. This conflicts with definitions, such as Thomasson's and Everett's (as interpreted), that might still identify them based purely on originating properties from the source text.
This conflict highlights the paper's central argument: fictional identity isn't solely determined by the properties a character holds in their original work, but crucially by the preservation of their essential properties. The Harry Potter example demonstrates that losing these core traits fundamentally challenges our perception of identity, revealing that our intuitive grasp of who a character is depends on more than just historical continuity or a complete list of initial attributes. The philosophical insight drawn is that fictional identity is tied to the preservation of these defining characteristics. My approach, by focusing on essential properties, offers a more accurate framework for understanding and determining fictional identity in alignment with these intuitions, clarifying that core traits, not just source origin or any attributed property, are paramount. So go forth, read widely, and may you always recognize your favorite heroes, even when they venture far from home!
Re
V. Bibliography
Everett, A. (2005). Against fictional realism. The Journal of Philosophy, 102(12), 624–649. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3655676
Robertson Ishii, T., & Atkins, P. (2023). Essential vs. accidental properties. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/essential-accidental/
Rowling, J. K. (1997). Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Vol. 1). Scholastic Inc.
Thomasson, A. L. (1998). Fiction and Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.