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

[Monika Huebner]

No: HPFGUIDX 47643

On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 04:59:07 -0000, "Judy"
<judyshapiro at directvinternet.com> wrote:


> Well, one things is certain about Sirius: people find him a very
> interesting character to discuss!

That's the least you can say, even though he wasn't discussed nearly
as much as certain other characters when I was a regular participant
in this list.

> Both Audra and Monika said the paintings resembled computer
> simulations, which show complex behaviour but aren't sentient.
> I don't see the paintings as like computer simulations.  They seem far
> less predictable, and seem to do a lot of things under their own
> initiative. I could trade a character from a computer game with a
> friend, but I'd be pretty freaked out if characters just decided for
> themselves to go wandering off to another machine. 

Then I would strongly advise you to refrain from playing Creatures. At
least Creatures 3. ;-) I don't know if you are familiar with neural
networks, but unlike the Sims characters, the norns have "brains",
that is a neutral network which enables them to learn to a certain
extent and make their own decisions - the hallmark of artificial life.
Note that this is *not* hardwired, they are unpredictable, what makes
the game so fun to play. And in the last instalment of the series,
they actually can decide by themselves to go wandering off to another
machine through a portal if you play online through the Creature Labs
website (of course you have to be connected somehow to other computers
for this to work). It's not that I can't see your point, I just want
to point out what is already possible.


> Also, I can't see
> why the Hogwarts staff would negotiate with the Fat Lady to come back,
> if she were just a simulation. 

Do you read a lot of science fiction? Stories that deal with
artificial life in the future show complex behaviour in simulations
and robots, and I guess we would all have the tendency to treat a
"sentient" robot in this way.


> Monika said that the Fat Lady: 
> > 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'd say ghosts fit these properties, too.  So far, we have not seen
> any way to destroy a ghost, but let's suppose that there were some way
> to do that.  I'd say it would be wrong to destroy Nearless Headless
> Nick.  

Well, he was a "real" person at some point. That's why this would be
in fact wrong. And he was nearly destroyed by the basilisk. If he
hadn't been revived by the mandrake juice, he would have stayed like
this forever. But he had to be treated like a *living* person, just
like the other victims of the basilisk, including Mrs Norris who is a
living being, too, while the Fat Lady could be restored by Filch like
any other ordinary painting. If you don't see a difference here, I do.

> Some cultures also believe that taking a photograph "steals" a little
> bit of the person's soul.  This would explain how the photos move,
> although I really don't think JKR intended for things to work this way
> in the Potterverse.  

I'd say definitely not. It's not taking the photo by a wizard that
makes them move, but developing the negatives in a special potion (or
lotion). If you don't use this potion, they won't move and just look
like ordinary photos.

> 2) Now, back to the ever-popular question of whether Sirius has PTSD.
> 
> 
> a) Did Sirius have enough time to recover between PoA and GoF?
> 
> I was counting just the months that we don't hear from Sirius.  By the
> time Harry writes to him in August, Sirius seems quite different than
> in PoA, so that was the time period I was counting.  

Well, for the first time in 13 years, he could actually feel safe, of
course he was quite different from PoA then. I really don't know if
you are as familiar with PTSD as you say, but I have the impression
that this is not the case. Have you read at least a fair number of
clinical research papers about the subject? Or one (or more) books
written by a psychiatrist working in the field?

> 
> As for whether I think this is enough time to explain the change in
> Sirius' behaviour, I think Natasha said it best, in post 47400: "It's
> pretty obvious that he doesn't have PTSD. I completely agree that if
> he did have it in PoA he made the recovery of the century by GoF. I
> can't imagine anyone getting over PTSD that quickly."

Well, this is a statement without proof like any other. No offence to
Natasha, but if she isn't a psychiatrist or a psychologist and/or can
point me to some literature which supports her statement and proves
everything I have read about it myself wrong, I don't see why I should
take this for granted.

> Have you read what I wrote already on this thread?  If I have an ax to
> grind, it's not that I want to believe Sirius is a certain way; it's
> that seeing Sirius as recovering quickly implies that traumatized
> people should be able to "just get over it", even though that it
> doesn't work that way in the real world. 

I'm still perplexed you insist he is "over it". I really can't see
this. The fact that he is able to think clearly again in GoF is not a
proof that he just got over it, or anyone who is suffering from PTSD
would be a "maniac" all the time and completely dysfunctional. 


> b) Does Sirius have the symptoms of PTSD?

> These things have already been discussed in the past few days.  You
> didn't respond to my earlier posts, where I discussed these specific
> issues.

So, let's have a look at the messages I have missed.

<< Several people responded with a theory, of which Monika seems to be
the originator, that Sirius is not in fact traumatized by what
happened to him, but is instead traumatized by what happened to his
friends, James and Lily. Since the trauma of their deaths happened a
long time ago, he's had plenty of time to develop symptoms of PTSD. >>

<< I think this is possible, although it requires seeing Sirius'
personality as exceptionally altruistic. >>

You think he must be exceptionally altruistic because he was
traumatized by what happened to his friends and not to himself? Excuse
me, but this leaves me nearly speechless. Seeing violence done to
others can very well be traumatizing, any psychologist should confirm
this. Of course it's worse if the victims are family or friends. And
the fact that Sirius was betrayed by a friend makes it even worse. So,
instead of just stating things without giving any scientific evidence,
let's have a look at the definitions in the DSM IV:

-------------------
Diagnostic Criteria from
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders
DSM-IV

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD):
A.  The person has been exposed to a traumatic event in which both of
the following were present: 

(1)  the person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an
event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious
injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others. 
(2)  the person's response involved intense fear, helplessness, or
horror. 

Note: In children, this may be expressed instead by disorganized or
agitated behaviour.
-------------------end citation---------------

The important part here is "of self or others". While Sirius didn't
witness the murder of the Potters and wasn't injured himself (I give
you that), he was confronted with the death of his friends when he
came to Godric's Hollow and saw the destroyed house and the bodies. He
was "white and shaking", as Hagrid tells us. Don't say there was no
sign he was in shock. It definitely qualifies as intense fear (Sirius
himself says he was scared in the Shrieking Shack) and horror.


<< If you look at, say, people
who had family members killed by Nazis and were then interred in
concentration camps, their PTSD symptoms typically emerge after (often
long after) they are out of the concentration camps and safe. Both
the death of their loved ones and their own suffering were part of the
trauma, so they weren't in the post-trauma period until both these
events were over. >>

The Problem with PTSD is - as I already said - that the course of the
disorder (and the onset) is different for each individual. And while
there is an artificial distinction between post-traumatic stress
disorder and acute stress disorder because of the different onset, the
symptoms are the same. It's doing anyone a disservice to say they
can't have PTSD because they didn't wait a few years before developing
symptoms.


<< So, for the above argument to work, Sirius would
have to be so selfless that his own suffering didn't bother him at
all. This line of argument isn't very useful for trying to show that
Sirius is a nice guy, since it starts by assuming that he is a saint.
>>

Again, no offence meant, but you obviously haven't understood what
causes PTSD or ASD and how it works. You definitely don't need to be a
saint to get traumatized by the death of someone else. And that
something that is utterly traumatizing for one person, isn't perceived
like this by another. That's why you can never generalize when you
talk about the causes and symptoms like, say, when you talk about the
flu, which will always cause the same symptoms in everyone, and
everybody gets infected in the same way.

> 
> I said:
> >>>Then there's the incident when [Sirius] 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.<<<

Judy replied:
> 
> Yeah, I definitely disagree.  The classic symptoms of PTSD are anxiety
> and an inability to stop thinking about the trauma, not choking people
> and slashing things. Most people with PTSD are not violent.  

Well, again I ask you to cite the literature where you get this from.
While reexperiencing is indeed a classic PTSD symptom, it's not *all*
the symptoms there are. You thoroughly ignore one of (several)  of the
hallmarks of PTSD, that is the hyperarousal symptoms. Any serious
paper dealing with PTSD will tell you that they have to be present
just like the reexperiencing. You can't just claim they don't exist or
aren't as important, because this is just plain wrong. Let's cite the
DSM IV again:

-----------------------------
Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (not present before the
trauma), as indicated by at least two of the following: 

(1)  difficulty falling or staying asleep 
(2)  irritability or outbursts of anger 
(3)  difficulty concentrating 
(4)  hypervigilance 
(5)  exaggerated startle response
----------------------end citation------------------

Note that not all of these symptoms have to be present. But
irritability or outbursts of anger *are* common, and if you read
papers dealing with hyperarousal caused by PTSD, you will find that
violence is a common problem. Note that it is only a problem in male
patients, and this has to do with the evolutionary path humankind has
followed. It's a fact that the so called "fight and flight" mechanism
doesn't function in the same way in men and women. And children never
get violent, so your argument that Harry doesn't show any violent
behaviour doesn't hold up, because violence simply isn't a PTSD
symptom in children, but it is in adults. And if you look around and
do a bit of reading, you will also find case descriptions of people
with PTSD who attacked others and were acquitted for cause of
temporary insanity. And while most people (all women, children and a
percentage of male patients) aren't violent, a rather high percentage
of men are, and it's just too easy to say they get violent because it
is their nature and/or bad character.


> Most people who have been traumatized do not attack others.  If
> someone responds to a trauma by becoming violent, I'd say that's
> strong evidence that the person had a tendency to violence all along.

No, no, no. Sorry, but here I am adamant. You just tend to repeat
everything that was put forward in the past to deny that the disorder
even existed and that those behaviours were merely a character flaw in
those who suffered from it.

>  In the US at least, PTSD does not qualify for the insanity defense;
> it doesn't excuse violent people from punishment. 

I'm not very familiar with US law, but I'm pretty sure that I have
read about a few cases were it was used as insanity defence. But since
the diagnosis is still so "new", there might have been just a few
cases in the last twenty years. But what I read in your sentence is
that you think people should be punished for something they actually
can't control. I think this is a bit easy, you know, even though I
hear this quite a lot. 

I just don't agree with it. That something is sanctioned by law
doesn't always make it right. At the risk of getting a howler from the
moderators (no, I have no intention to elaborate further on this) what
first springs to mind is the death penalty when I try to think of
something that might very well be law in some countries, but which I
don't agree with. It still exists in western countries (including the
US), but I won't agree it's right just because it's the law. I grew up
in a country that was divided in two halfs until I was 30, and in the
eastern half the right of free speech didn't exist, and it landed you
in prison when you dared say something against the government. In the
best case you just lost your job and were unable to find a new one. It
was the law, but does this make it right? No. Maybe I'm a bit too
sensitive about it because it didn't happen in some obscure South
American or African country but right next door to me where a part of
my family lived. But to get back to my point: the fact that people are
punished for something that is caused by a mental illness is just
wrong in my mind, even if the law doesn't recognize they shouldn't be.
Case closed.

> 
> Whether past trauma *should* excuse violence is a philosophical
> question, so there's really no way to resolve it factually.  However,
> judging by the books, JKR agrees with me that trauma is no excuse for
> violence. Just look at how she portrays the hero of her books, Harry.

Well, Harry is 11, 12, 13 and 14 in the books. This disqualifies him
from displaying "adult" PTSD symptoms, I'm sorry. That's a fact, not
just an assumption of mine. Go and do some reading about PTSD in
children (and adults, including about gender differences) and we
discuss this point again later.

>  He's been mistreated by the Dursleys most of his life, is in constant
> danger from Voldemort and his followers, and suffers greatly during
> PoA from the flashbacks of his parents' murder.  Yet, he doesn't go
> around choking people and slashing things.  He can't bring himself to
> kill Sirius, even when he thinks Sirius is a mass murderer trying to
> kill him, and he later spares Peter's life.  Doesn't this indicate
> that Harry has much less of a propensity for violence than does
> Sirius?

No. You are comparing apples and oranges here. And how does Lupin fit
in here? There's no hint at him being a violent man, but he is
immediately willing to kill Peter together with Sirius. And if Remus
and Sirius were actually born killers, Harry wouldn't have had a
chance to persuade them not to do it, I am sure of this.

> Monika also said that perhaps Sirius' behaviour was due to an acute
> stress response.  I think this fits better than Post Traumatic Stress
> Disorder, although there is still the problem that JKR doesn't portray
> Sirius as having signs of anxiety, only rational concern for Harry,
> and that most people having an acute stress reaction aren't violent. 

You seem to like to say "most people" and rule out the rest who
actually *do* get violent. Your argumentation isn't scientific, I am
sorry to repeat it. JKR very well portrays Sirius as having signs of
anxiety, only you refuse to see them. And given the fact that she was
an active member of Amnesty International for some time, she
apparently knows very well how people like Sirius react in certain
situations. Her portrait of Sirius in PoA is quite realistic for
someone who has suffered what he did.

<< JKR would have no trouble showing us if Sirius were anxious. Sirius
would have a little twitch in his face, or his hands would shake. When
the Death Eaters were mentioned, he would "look paler than usual" or
"a cold bead of sweat" would appear on his forehead. >>

Please go and read the Shrieking Shack chapters and the chapter at the
end of GoF when Harry meets Sirius in Dumbledore's office again.
Sirius' face actually *is* twitching at some point in the Shrieking
Shack (even though I personally wouldn't see it as a sign of anxiety,
so I just mention it for the sake of completeness here), he is at the
verge of tears when he talks about James and Lily, and there are *two*
"shaking incidents". Both within the timeframe of an hour. The first
one after Lupin turned up, when Sirius is sitting on the bed, making
no noise, pretending he's not there. This doesn't fit the violent guy
very well. The second one takes place just after they forced Pettigrew
to show himself, when Sirius accuses him to have sold James and Lily
to Voldemort. Interesting reaction, that is. But not many people seem
to notice it. And when Harry and Sirius are meeting at the end of GoF,
Sirius' hands are shaking, at least in my British first edition they
do. Then there's the moments when the "deadened, haunted" look in his
eyes is mentioned, each time he turns up in person in GoF (except for
this third time, but there we have his shaking hands). I don't see why
he should look paler at the mention of the Death Eaters, though.


<< Or, Harry would
simply "see the anxiety in Sirius' face," just as Sirius is said to
see the anxiety in Harry's face in the "Padfoot Returns" chapter. But,
JKR says none of this. In PoA, Sirius is grinning at the thought of
killing Peter. In "Padfoot Returns", he seems almost relaxed: he is
happy to see Harry; he has plenty of appetite (albeit produced by lack
of food), and he's quite able to concentrate.>>

Yes, because, even though he is still on the run, he feels quite safe
in his cave. And you still deny the deadened look in his eyes which
becomes more pronounced at the mention of Barty Crouch jr. (at this
point, he doesn't know yet he's still alive and that he was really a
Death Eater), but which is *always* present, this is clearly stated.
As for him grinning in the Shrieking Shack, you don't want to claim
seriously that he was joyfully grinning at the thought of killing
Peter, do you? I won't go as far as saying he was deranged, but IMHO
he wasn't entirely sane at this point. But then, lots of people also
deny he had a nervous breakdown when he was arrested and prefer to say
he laughed at the irony of the situation because he really thought it
was funny. I just discussed this a bit off list with a friend who is
actually studying psychology, and she just shook her head. And yes,
she agrees with me that Sirius is suffering from PTSD and that this is
a valid explanation for his violence in PoA.

As for discussing the PTSD issue further, I would like you to point me
to some references that support your argumentation.

> 
> 
> c) Plot Constraints

> My point is, we can look at fictional characters in one of two ways. 
> We can look at them as fictional constructs, in which case we might
> say "Sirius was written a certain way to fit the plot constraints." 
> *Or*, we can treat them as if they were real people and ask "If Sirius
> were a real person, would he fit the criteria for PTSD, given the
> behaviours he exhibits?"  But, it doesn't make sense to do both at the
> same time. 

I disagree again. ;-) Yes, it does make sense to do both at the same
time, and you know why? Because this is the essence of good story
telling. A story that doesn't do this will never ring entirely true.
And JKR is one of those - alas rare - writers who have the knack for
it.

Monika