[HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius: PTSD (was: Sensory Deprivation and Slashing the Fat Lady)

[Monika Huebner]

No: HPFGUIDX 47797

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

> When we do see evidence of anxiety disorders in the Potterverse, it's
> usually in a very minor character (Mrs. Mason, and her severe phobia
> of birds), or in an unsympathetic character (Peter Pettigrew.)  

Hm, I admit that I haven't looked at Pettigrew like this before, but I
might have been too focused on the "good guys". While Voldemort
certainly strikes me as someone out of the range of "normality",
Pettigrew did not. 


> When discussing the time frame of Sirius' symptoms, a theory was put
> forth that Sirius was traumatized by the Potters' deaths, not by his
> own suffering.  I said he'd have to be a saint for that to be the
> case. 
> In response, Monika said: 
> > 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
> 
> I was saying that Sirius would have to be a saint to be ONLY
> traumatized by the Potters' deaths, and not by his own imprisonment.

Okay, I seem to have misread the quote (mea culpa)  Of course Azkaban
has affected him at least as much. So I should have rather blamed the
original poster. (Makes mental note: read more carefully and take care
to quote correctly.)


> On the subject of timing, Natasha had said 
> > "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."
> 
> Monika, I don't see where you *or* Natasha has cited any articles on
> the speed of recovery from PTSD, so Natasha could just as easily say
> this to you.  

Granted. 

> I don't expect a person with PTSD to show symptoms *all the time*. 
> However, I would say that Sirius doesn't show symptoms *at all* in
> GOF.  he is very different in GoF from how he was in PoA.

Okay, maybe we really shouldn't discuss this because it's a novel and
you are right that one can only look at fictional characters to see if
they act because of plot constraints or because they are supposed to
be real persons. ;-) But I still think both should fit together. I can
claim that the plot required Sirius to show symptoms in PoA and not in
GoF, but this will not satisfy you. I can't see that he has really
recovered, while you say he can't have PTSD or he would still have to
show symptoms. I think from an analytical POV, we might both be right.
I'll try to explain what I mean, but it might still sound a bit
confusing. Good story telling also includes not cluttering up a story
with unnecessary elements, it makes a novel drag. Without wanting to
deflect from our subject, there are also lots and lots of details that
have been discussed in the past, like why do we never see the students
say a prayer at table, or why don't we ever see Harry giving
*Hermione* a present instead of always the other way round. There are
more of those things that a lot of people would like to see because in
real life it would have to be so. But they are left out because they
don't advance the plot, and Rowling's books are extremely tightly
plotted. There aren't any superfluous descriptions, or very few of
them. Other novels are not as tightly plotted, and there you may find
those details you will probably like to read about, while other people
would find them boring and unnecessary. To come back to the point I
wanted to make: we actually don't know what is going on "behind the
scenes" of GoF. We are all  here because we like to read between the
lines of those books (or am I mistaken), and to me Sirius doesn't make
the impression he has recovered. He looks better, but it's never
stated he is really healthy again. Like we don't hear about eventual
nightmares he might have. We can only see what Harry sees, and we can
interpret his observations. On a positive note, this is just the thing
that makes it so much fun to discuss these books, it's the loose ends,
all the details that are left open to the imagination of the reader,
something that not many books can provide.
> 
> I've already said that the time frame does fit better for an acute
> stress response than for PTSD.  However, the question being discussed
> before was whether Sirius was suffering from *PTSD*.  So, that is what
> I was addressing. 

Well, doesn't it automatically become PTSD if the symptoms persist for
more than a month or two? (Might be a stupid question.) Or is it still
ASD if the trauma itself hasn't ended, even if it lasts for years?


> b) Does Sirius show the symptoms of PTSD (or Acute Stress Disorder),
> particularly anxiety?
> 
> OK, fine, I went back and read them again. In GoF, yes, Sirius is
> upset when he sees Harry, but Harry had been in mortal danger and
> another student had been killed, so I don't see Sirius' response as
> being pathological or showing excessive fear.  

I counted this as reminiscent of what he had experienced the night
when James and Lily died. He is shaking with reaction, I interpreted
as fear that he might lose Harry, too.


I'd interpret the
> "deadened, haunted look" in GoF as probably a sign of depression, not
> anxiety.  (Depression often occurs in people with PTSD, but is not a
> diagnostic criterion.)

No, it's not. Of course this is a valid interpretation, too.

> 
> In the Shrieking Shack scene, JKR uses a huge amount of emotional
> terms in describing Sirius' behavior. 

Well, I guess you can interpret those in two ways: either she wanted
to show that, despite being on the good side, he is still a horrible
person, or that he actually isn't entirely sane.

> Of all those emotional moments in the Shack, the only time Sirius
> really seems worried to me is when Snape threatens to feed him to the
> dementors.  His fear here seems to be a reasonable response, not a
> pathological one.  Even if one wants to count both hiding his face and
> being startled when called "Mr. Black" as fear responses (and I tend
> to doubt that either of them are), anxiety certainly isn't his
> predominant emotion. 

Well, to me he seemed also worried when Harry threatened to kill him.
I definitely got the impression that he took him seriously. After all,
he couldn't know what Harry would do to him (certainly not AK, but
there are other ways, as has been discussed in the past). And I think
this was part of what caused him to sit on the bed for a while without
participating in what was going on. Of course there was also the shock
of Lupin suddenly turning up, and maybe he also realized what he had
done to Harry. And when Snape threatened to feed him to the dementors,
he seemed more than a bit afraid to me.


> I guess I'm still refusing, because I see Sirius displaying quite a
> lot of anger and a fair amount of evil grinning, but not a whole lot
> of anxiety.  Yes, JKR can do a good job of portraying PTSD (look at
> Frank Bryce), but who says she intended Sirius to have PTSD?  I don't
> believe she's ever said anything about that.  

AFAIK, no one has ever asked. I'd love to have the opportunity to do
so. I also counted his anger as a symptom, though.


> 2) Is Past Trauma an Excuse for Violent Behavior?
> 
> As I've said before, this is a philosophical question, a question of
> values, rather than a factual question.  I feel violence is justified
> in order to defend oneself or someone else.  Period.  The idea that
> having experienced trauma in the past is an excuse for traumatizing
> others doesn't fit my value system at all.  

This is certainly a philosophical question. I think "excuse" might be
the wrong word here. What I want to express is that my value system
prevents me from judging it with standards of right or wrong. It
doesn't mean that I condone any kind of violence, though. But in
Sirius' case I say it would be wrong to punish him for a behaviour
that was caused by unjust punishment in the first place. As for
defending himself or others, he tried to defend Harry. You might
object he could have gone straight to Dumbledore and tell him what
really happened, but I can't see him doing this. He had no reason to
think Dumbledore would believe him more now than he had twelve years
ago. He distrusted everyone, and yes, I guess he thought he could very
well handle it alone. Where could he have sought for help?


> I'm not saying that Harry has PTSD. 

Okay, so I misunderstood you. To me, it read like this.

> I'm saying that in the
> Potterverse, people can suffer all sorts of traumas without becoming
> violent. In particular, Harry suffers a great deal but still tries to
> avoid violence.  As the hero of the books, Harry to a large extent
> serves as the model of how a person should be. This implies that JKR
> believes that the idea person avoids violence, even after being
> traumatized.  How is doing some reading about PTSD supposed to change
> this? 

I already said I completely misunderstood this. The theory that Harry
had PTSD was also discussed (more than once I think) in the past, and
I don't see it. I won't object that Harry as a hero serves as a model
of how a person should be, but a book populated by model characters
would be pretty boring. At least to me. I can't see why this "model"
behavior should extend to other characters, and Sirius was definitely
written as a good guy. So she could have written him as a friendly
godfather, who just turned up after twelve years. But she didn't.
Maybe we will know the reasons for this in a later book. Or maybe it
was really just a good plot device, but I still don't buy it.

> I'm not sure what you mean by "children never get violent." There have
> been a number of murderers who are younger than Harry, unfortunately.

Well, then there's the question what made them become murderers. Was
it always past trauma? 

> I *definitely* believe that PTSD exists.  But, I also believe that
> behaving violently generally indicates a character flaw.  The two
> beliefs are not mutually exclusive.  > 
> Here's why I keep referring to the fact that most people with PTSD
> aren't violent. Suppose we have a group of people with PTSD.  Some of
> them will be violent; most will not be.  So, how do we explain these
> individual differences in violence level?  It's not as if some
> stressors routinely produce violence, and others don't.  (If you've
> read something to the contrary, Monika, I'd be very interested to hear
> about it.) 

What I understood is that people suffering from combat PTSD have
higher rates of violence than someone who has been traumatized by some
other event. Violence seems to generate more violence, but then, I
might be mistaken. 


> It's not as if all the people with severe PTSD are
> violent, and all the people with mild PTSD are non-violent.  So, it
> seems likely to me that pre-existing differences in violent tendencies
> provide the most likely explanation of why some people with PTSD are
> violent, and others aren't. 

Okay, but I would still say it also depends on the stressor.

> 
> Now again, we may be running into a philosophical difference here. 
> Suppose we have a person with a fairly high tendency towards violence.
> (Yeah, I know there's no real way to measure this, but suppose there
> were.)  Now, suppose this person experiences trauma which results in
> PTSD.  Suppose the person becomes violent, and we know for sure that
> it was the combination of the person's original violent tendencies and
> the PTSD that caused the violence.  (Again, there would be no real way
> to tell this, but suppose there was some way to tell exactly why the
> violence happened.) Monika, you seem to be saying that the person
> should not be held responsible at all for the violence, because the
> violence wouldn't have happened without the PTSD.  I say the person
> *should* be held responsible for the violence, because the violence
> wouldn't have happened without the underlying violent tendency.  (If I
> were a judge, I'd be willing to consider the PTSD as a mitigating
> factor that reduces the punishment, though.)  We have different views
> of what constitutes moral responsibility.  This concerns opinion, not
> fact. 

I can see your point, but it's true, I have a different view of this.
Does this make me morally corrupt? I think not. It's against my sense
of justice. But then I ask you if you really think it would help
Sirius to inflict more punishment on him. I really don't think so.
Locking him up again, even without dementors (and what else could you
do?) would do him more damage than good IMHO. 

> So, Monika, you are saying that if Sirius had been female, choking
> Harry and so forth would have been wrong, but since he's male, it's
> OK?  

I didn't say that. I was implying it might not have happened, but if
it had, there's no difference in my perception. And again, I might be
utterly wrong here, but I can't see it as either right or wrong, it
was IMO a reflex he couldn't control. I can't see how this can be
considered with standards of right or wrong. So we're back to the
philosophical question here.

> That *no* women or children with PTSD are violent seems like an
> exaggeration to me.  However, I definitely agree that men with PTSD
> are more likely than women or young children with PTSD to be violent.
> But, even in people *without* PTSD, men are more likely to be violent
> than are women and children.  My explanation for this pattern is that
> men are more likely to have violent tendencies than women.  

I see it as males are more aggressive than females in most species.
But this is not a character flaw, but has in general the function to
ensure the survival of the species (protecting the females and the
young). This "violent" tendency is still present in modern humans,
although in modern society it has lost most of its meaning, at least
in western countries. So, I seem to say just the same thing as you do,
that men are more likely to have violent tendencies than women, but I
don't see it as a character flaw, rather as a maladaptation, a
leftover from the time when civilization didn't exist.

> Monika also said that I:
> > think people should be punished for something they actually can't 
> > control.
> 
> No, I don't think that.  But, I think it's rare for violence to be
> truly out of a person's control.  There are many men who beat their
> wives and say that they couldn't control it, yet, for some strange
> reason, these same men never attack their bosses or random large men
> on the street.  This suggests that the violence *is* under some
> control, because these men don't act violently unless they think they
> can get away with it.  If Sirius had attacked Fudge, or the dementors,
> or lunged at Lupin when Lupin had a wand and he didn't, then I'd be
> more inclined to think that Sirius had no control over his violent
> behavior. 

Well, I don't think it would be a good idea for anyone to attack a
Dementor, and I don't see why Sirius should lunge at Lupin, but he did
lunge at Snape when he tied Lupin up. Does that count? It always
struck me as something that someone in his right mind wouldn't do.
Sirius is supposed to be intelligent, that's clearly stated, so he
should know he has no chance against Snape when Snape has a wand and
he does not, and also that he is in no physical condition to knock
Snape out or overpower him by sheer force and violence. It just
doesn't make sense. It might make sense for a violent guy, but I still
don't see Sirius like this.
> 
> I suspect this debate isn't resolvable, because it is not really about
> factual matters.  (We actually agree on things such as that the death
> of a friend can cause PTSD; it was a misunderstanding that made it
> seem that we disagreed on this.)  The debate is actually over things
> like what constitutes responsibility, how we interpret Sirius'
> behavior in the books (anxious or not), what we think Sirius is doing
> during the periods (especially in GoF) when we don't see him, and
> whether we want to analyze Sirius' behavior as it appears in the
> books, or as it might have been written if JKR wasn't constrained by
> the plot.  These aren't questions that depend on facts.

Okay, I can't very well object to this reasoning, so I suggest we bury
the hatchet (if there ever was one, no, I am not a violent person).
;-) We interpret was is actually written and what we read between the
lines in a different way. Like I said above, if JKR hadn't left so
many details unsaid, there wouldn't be as much traffic on this list,
and people wouldn't stay as long or keep coming back.
>
> We might get further if we changed the question.  For example, we
> could ask whether people think that Sirius is good, or evil. 

Okay, this might be a more reasonable and fruitful approach, and I
guess the opinions will differ as much as they differ about Snape.

> I see
> Sirius as flawed, but think that he is more good than bad.  I don't
> think his violence is justified, I think he lacks empathy, and I
> suspect he was something of a bully when he was young.  

I certainly don't think he's a saint, and someone without flaws isn't
very interesting in my mind, but I don't think he was a bully. That
would put him in the same league with Dudley, and I just can't see
that. Let me explain: Dudley seems to derive his "power" (sorry, I
cannot think of a better word right now) from bullying other kids. He
has buddies, we hear at least of one in PS (Pierce Polkiss), but I
doubt he has really close friends, and all they do is bullying other
kids together with Dudley. Well, at least Harry, to be precise. I
can't see them as practical jokers, I doubt they can make anyone
laugh. Sirius had at least one really close friend, he and James were
like brothers. And Madam Rosmerta states in the pub that they always
made her laugh when they came to the Three Broomsticks. And they are
also compared to the Weasley twins (who are not bullies, although far
from being "saints"). I don't know, but I am someone who has always
preferred having only a few friends and at least one among them whom I
can tell everything, instead of a whole bunch of people to party with,
so I can identify with this.

> By the way, I see Sirius and Snape as similar on the continuum of good
> to evil -- both are flawed, but on balance are mostly good.  I like
> Snape while disliking Sirius, but this doesn't mean that I think Snape
> is better morally. 

Well, for me it's the other way round: I dislike Snape while I like
Sirius. One of the things I dislike most about Snape is his bullying
those who are weaker than he is, namely his students. You say you
wouldn't have liked Sirius if you had been at school with him, well I
wouldn't have liked Snape if he had been my teacher. I guess I have
been bullied myself too much at school to find anything sympathetic
about him. And although we are far from having seen all about Snape so
far, he seems to like to bully those who can't get back at him. And
gets away with it. Not to mention that in the Shrieking Shack, he
didn't only want to feed Sirius to the Dementors (which could be
explained by him believing Sirius was a mass murderer), but also
Lupin. It didn't sound to me like an idle threat.



> I said:
> > Do you read a lot of science fiction? Stories that deal with
> > artificial life in the future show complex behaviour in simulations
> > and robots
> 
> I've read both science fiction and philosophy on this topic.  If
> machines are ever developed that show as much autonomy and
> intelligence as humans, there will be a real question as to whether
> these machines are sentient and should be given rights.  One major
> theory of sentience is that it's essentially a byproduct of thinking,
> and that intelligence without sentience is therefore impossible.  

Well, that would certainly be a question. Would it be wrong to switch
such a robot off? Maybe. But it still bothers me that you actually
can, without harming him. Like it bothers me that the Fat Lady can be
restored like a normal painting, while ghosts have to be treated like
living beings. 

> 
> Sherry objected that perhaps the portrait people are *not* sentient,
> because Sir Cadogan seems unintelligent.  I'd say that Sir Cadogan is
> just supposed to be crazy.  (In fact, Sherry, you point this outself
> when you quoted Bill Weasley from GoF: "Is that picture of the mad
> knight still around?  Sir Cadogan?")

Hm, this raises another question: if Bill asks if he is still around,
this implies that he might not. I doubt he can "move" by himself, so,
do wizards "dispose" of those portraits from time to time? What do
they do with them then? If they are sentient, they can't very well
toss them in the dustbin, can they. Which confirms my opinion that
they are actually paintings with a highly sophisticated charm on them,
but paintings nevertheless. We know that the wizards can enchant
things to show some kind of intelligence, after Sirius broke into the
castle for the first time, Flitwick charmed the entrance doors to
recognize Sirius by showing them a foto. This is just too weird. Then
there's Mr Weasley's car who is now living in the forbidden forest on
his own. I know it can't talk, but it rescued Harry and Ron from the
spiders in CoS and then drove off to the forest again. 

> Hey, where were all of you back when we were discussing
> Sociopath!Sirius?  ;-) 

Cosily at home, making no noise, pretending we weren't a member of
this list, I suppose. :-)

> I think there's two ways of viewing Sirius.  One view looks at his
> deep remorse over the Potters' deaths, and concludes that he's a
> caring person who takes responsibility -- perhaps too much
> responsibility -- for his actions.  In this view, if Sirius doesn't
> show remorse for an action, either he did nothing wrong (e.g., Snape
> had been awful and deserved to die, or perhaps Snape was really in no
> danger), or the circumstances simply have prevented him from
> exhibiting his remorse so far (e.g., in the Shack, he had no chnace to
> apologize.) 
> 
> I have a different view.  I think Sirius cares about a few people
> (mainly the Potters.)  He feels bad when something bad happens to
> them.  But, as for people outside this small circle, well, as Rebecca
> said, he feels they can just go to hell. If he's feeling especially
> angry, then the circle of those he cares about shrinks to nothing
> (e.g., he chokes Harry.)  I think this view is the most consistent
> with the evidence about Sirius that we've been shown so far, but I
> think the first view has not been ruled out, and is quite possibly the
> one JKR intends.

If you see him like this, then what would very well motivate him to
participate in the war against Voldemort? When Peter asked him what
was to be gained by refusing him, he replies, "only innocent lives,
Peter". I can't believe he meant "James, Lily, Harry and Remus" by
those "innocent lives", and the rest of the wizarding world could go
to hell. At the end of GoF he is also ready to fight Voldemort again.
Only for Harry? This seems a bit far fetched. Someone who lives on an
island and does only care about a very small portion of the world
won't join a cause that involves doing something for the whole
community. Just IMHO.

Monika