Another author looking at this topic had some key insights. “Sometimes realistic psychology doesn’t make a good story.”1 He elaborates that in researching one of his own characters, reading psychology, and the things that the character he had in mind would likely experience and, because of the resulting trauma, would exhibit left him feeling disgusted with himself, and with the vision of the potential character. The author continues:
I wouldn’t want to live for a page with a character like that, let alone for a whole book.
So I threw out the idea of realism and went with idealism. It’s my book and I want my readers to love my main character despite her rough edges2
Nor is this unique to either Rowling or the author I reference here. Charles Dickens, writing in Oliver Twist, clearly faced the same dilemma and the same conclusion, as his protagonist faces an even more unambiguously abusive situation with equal resiliency. Kipling’s work, Kim faces severe neglect rather than physical or emotional abuse (not that neglect cannot rise to the level of a form of child abuse, but of a different sort/kind), but again shows unexpected health/resiliency. Jane, in Jane Eyre is probably damaged, but in ways that it is hard to tell how much is because of the abusive home, the horrific school, and how much the thread of Calvinism that weaves through the Bronte sisters’ writing. On the other hand, Sanderson writing in his Mistborn series has Vin, who does suffer from the effects of her trauma, with severe trust issues and bouts of paranoia. Different authors have allowed the past to colour their characters’ personalities to differing degrees as the needs of their differing stories dictate.
And that’s important to remember. This is a work of fiction, and nothing can ultimately be trusted to be real.