[HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius: Sensory Deprivation and Slashing the Fat Lady

[Monika Huebner]

No: HPFGUIDX 47589

 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Judy" <judyshapiro at directvinternet.com>


Judy said:

> There was a lively debate in the past few days as to whether Sirius
> had PTSD. Several people suported the idea that he did. I said that he
> didn't, because his symptoms were wrong (no overt signs of anxiety),
> he recovered too quickly, and that his symptoms developed while he was
> still being traumatized instead of afterwards.  

Well, I'm not a psychologist, but I have read quite a lot about the
subject. I really don't think his symptoms are wrong, IMHO they fit
just fine. The course of the disorder is never the same in two people,
and that there's a whole range of symptoms, and you don't have to
display them all to qualify for a diagnosis, you know that, don't you?
As for "no overt signs of anxiety" I heartily disagree. It just
depends on your perception of "anxiety". A person who has PTSD is
afraid the original trauma will happen again, and in Sirius' case,
that is the destruction of the Potters. Of course he is afraid the
same thing might happen to Harry, now that he's aware that Pettigrew
isn't dead after all. He might himself call it an "obsession" that
made him break out of Azkaban, but if this isn't a deep anxiety/fear,
I don't know what would be.

As for him recovering "too quickly", I insist that he has *not*
recovered yet. He just had enough time to get a grip on himself, and
we really don't see enough of him in GoF to be sure all his symptoms
have faded away. And in the literature about PTSD you will always read
that people recover at very different rates (some of them rather
quickly, even after being severely traumatized), you can't just say he
recovered too quickly because you believe him to be a bad tempered
guy. BTW men suffering from PTSD were usually stigmatised as
"hot-tempered", violent and impulsive for a long time, before the
disorder was officially recognized as such and included in the DSM in
1980. Now, for your argument that his symptoms developed while he was
still being traumatized: first of all I'd say his symptoms developed
*after* his original trauma (the murder of the potters and his
"involvement" in it), and while he was still being traumatized in
Azkaban, it was his second trauma so to speak. You can very well have
PTSD while already being in the middle of the next trauma. And you
know what Acute Stress Disorder is? The symptoms are basically the
same as for PTSD, but the onset is immediate, not delayed. Some people
develop symptoms right after the trauma instead of several weeks
later. I always assumed this happened with Sirius when he went after
Peter. And don't forget he had a nervous breakdown when he was
arrested.


> This was another point that was discussed quite a bit in the past few
> days.  By the way, I believe the summer break at Hogwarts is only two
> months (July and August), not four.  

Well, let's have a look at the timeline then: Buckbeak's "execution"
took place on June 6, and apparently Sirius stayed in England a little
bit longer, but safely hidden (following his own words in his letter
to Harry). And even though term begins on September 1, he only came
back near the end of October (if I remember well), so your argument
doesn't hold up here. And I repeat that I don't believe he entirely
recovered during this time, just that he was functional again when he
came back. That's a huge difference.


> I can't see the argument that Sirius "really" has PTSD but JKR just
> didn't write him to fit the disorder because of plot constraints.  

Here I can't follow. My argument is/was that JKR actually *did* write
him to fit the disorder because of plot constraints. It was an elegant
way of making us believe he was a bad guy until the end, and the
symptoms (namely his overreactions) fit just fine.

> I could just as easily argue that Snape is in actuality a very kind and
> nice guy, and his nastiness to Harry is only because JKR couldn't fit
> his sweetness and light into the plot. 

Okay, I don't want to explore this further, but Snape was written if
not as a bad guy (we know he's on the "right" side, at least now), but
definitely as a nasty guy. BTW JKR said so in an interview. And
there's nothing in the plot that lets us believe that Snape is really
kind and sweet. <ducks from rotten tomatoes from all the Snape fans> I
am really sorry, but I can't see your argument here.


I said:
> > I will agree on
> > this. Okay, those portraits seem to have feelings, but I still
> > rather consider them as "objects". 
> 
Judy replied:

> Are you sure you want that as your philosophy?  If things that have
> feelings can be considered objects, with which one can do as one
> pleases, then what objection can be given when Lucius treats house
> elves, and even non-magical humans, as objects to be tortured for fun?

Like someone else has already stated, there is a *huge* difference
between magical portraits and house elves, and I thoroughly agree.
They are living beings, they are born and they have a life cycle. They
have to eat and drink to survive, and they I assume they use the
"normal" way to reproduce. Eventually they will die like all living
things (or the wizarding world would be overrun by house elves). The
portraits are created by magical artists, but at the risk of making
you all yell at me, I rather see them as the equivalent of artificial
life. And there are some really good simulations nowadays, you know,
one of them being the Creatures series by Creature Labs which I have
been playing for several years know. Those critters mimic biological
life in your computer, they have a rather sophisticated genetic
makeup, they have a neural network for a brain, they are born, they
play, they mate, they can get ill and will eventually die when their
lifecycle is finished. They even evolve over generations and are
capable to "adapt" to a certain degree. And yes, when the first of
those programs came out in 1997, there were lots of players who
treated them like pets and screamed for "equal rights for norns",
because they considered them as animals. To make my point: I am not
for torturing house elves, non-magical humans or any kind of creatures
(including animals). But the proof those portraits are actual living
beings and not the painted, more sophisticated equivalent of wizard
photos (or Muggle artificial life) has yet to be made. They seem to be
alive, but they can't live outside of their canvasses, like my norns
can only live in their own world within my computer. You can export
them and import them into another person's world, and the portraits
can leave their canvas and visit another portrait, but you won't see
them roam the corridors of Hogwarts and attend the feasts in the great
hall (like the ghosts do).


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <alicit at aol.com>

scheherazade said:

> Now, I agree that it is rather cruel to slash the painting, and it does harm 
> the Fat Lady emotionally, but it does seem to be a superficial harm, she gets 
> back to her old self in a little bit after Filch patches her up(I don't have 
> my canon with me so I cannot be exact, sorry).  I think that the Slashing was 
> a "you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs" thing for Sirius;

Yes, I agree here, and the violence involved definitely is a hint that
Sirius is suffering from PTSD, which is basically a malfunction in the
automatic defence reflex of the central nervous system which has been
built in by evolution at the time when our ancestors were still
roaming the grasslands of Africa, but which is a maladaption in modern
environments.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Audra1976 at aol.com>

>Then Audra said:

> Well, that's all true, but I wasn't referring to philosophical proof, which 
> as you correctly implied, we can never have.  I meant canon proof, as in JKR 
> stating in the books that the painting people are really alive or human, and 
> that hasn't been stated.  The point I was trying to make is that Sirius 
> slashing the Fat Lady's portait can't really be said to be a character 
> inconsistency in an otherwise "good" person, because the Fat Lady's portrait 
> is an object, not a person.

I couldn't have said it any better. ;) And I maintain that Sirius
*had* to do something "terrible", so we would continue believing he
was a dangerous murderer. Then there's the incident when he slashes
Ron's bed hangings, and when he chokes Harry in the Shrieking Shack.
*All* these situations mimic a part of his original trauma, not being
able to finish off Pettigrew, which provokes this kind of
overreaction. Judy might still disagree here, but those *are*
classical PTSD symptoms.

> Yes, I see your point, but my Sims characters act that way too.  They come 
> visit each other, talk about their interests.  When one is in a bad mood, 
> another comforts them.  When one gets too friendly with another one's wife, 
> the other one punches him in the nose.  But I know they don't have real 
> feelings (or I'd feel much worse when they drown in the swimming pool).

And I bet your Sims don't even have a genetic makeup and don't evolve
from generation to generation like my norns do. But I still don't
consider them as real animals, although they do quite a good job at
mimicking nature. The Fat Lady is a wonderful wizard simulation of a
person, but she is IMHO not a real person. Life is also defined by
"something able to reproduce itself", and my norns even do that, but
they still aren't real animals. Nor is the Fat Lady a real person. She
wasn't born, and she can't die. She doesn't have to eat or drink to
stay "alive", and she can't reproduce herself. So, while Sirius'
violent act might shock a lot of people, it's not murder or even
attempt at murder.

> I just really think the portrait people are more comparable to my Sims than 
> to me.  The portraits, I assume, are created by wizard artists, and wizards 
> are powerful, but not gods.  I don't think they would have the ability to 
> create a life like that.

Well said. Like they don't have the power to make the dead return to
life.

Monika