A Sirius Defense

[Penny & Bryce]

No: HPFGUIDX 35005

Hi --

I desperately want to comment on Elkins' thought-provoking essays(s) on 
canon interpretations but will content myself for the moment with at 
least putting out one small effort in the defense of Sirius ...

cindysphynx wrote:

<snip very amusing & plausible theory of how the Prank really happened>

> 
> Cindy (not mentioning the fact that she also likes the theory because
> it makes Snape look like a screw-up again)

I like any scenario wherein Snape looks worse than Sirius.  <g>

One thing I've been wanting to say on this whole Sirius vs. Snape thread 
of this past week -- whatever you may say about Sirius & his role in the 
Prank & his actions in PoA (whether motivated or caused by PTSD or not), 
Sirius *does* engage in interactive, give-and-take *relationships* with 
other human beings.  Snape does *not*!  I like Snape's complexity, his 
shades of grey .... wondering all the while "What is it that makes this 
guy tick ... I can't wait to find out."  But, his interactions with the 
other characters leaves a little to be desired, does it not?  C'mon 
Snape-fans, you've got to concede that your man Snape really really 
lacks interpersonal skills hugely.  There's a respectful relationship of 
sorts between Snape & Dumbledore, but I don't pick up on any *warmth* 
there.  There is apparently some sort of friendly rivalry between Snape 
& McGonagall, and it's this strangely that I find the most compelling of 
all Snape's relationships as depicted thus far.  There must be some sort 
of a normal human being lurking there if he's capable of having a 
teasing ongoing "friendly" rivalry with Minerva over Quidditch & House 
points.  But really, we have no real sense that Snape has *friends* or 
even interacts socially with anyone for that matter.

So ... as between Sirius & Snape, I'd side with the guy who's got some 
warmth, some substance, some oomph.  For all his shades of gray, I think 
I've finally hit on why I can't get too worked up about Snape.  He's not 
made me care about him.... because *he* doesn't care about anyone as far 
as we know.

Pippin wrote:

> Much as I enjoy shoveling speculation into the plot-holes, I think
> Sirius' motivation as given is enough.

Ah, see, I think there must be more to it than that.  I don't think we 
know the full story yet.  I'm not yet ready to concede that Sirius is 
fully to "blame" for the Prank.  "Fault" and "blame" are complex 
concepts, especially when we only have part of the story & not really 
from the perspective of any of the players.  I don't think we can take 
Sirius' muttered comments in the course of the Shrieking Shack 
revelations as entirely trustworthy.  The man has just escaped from 
Azkaban & lived on the run for 8-9 mths, after being imprisoned for 12 
yrs.  We may dispute whether or not he's suffering from PTSD, but he's 
clearly not a fully-functioning person at that point, and he really only 
interjects a few minor points into Lupin's relation of the barebone 
facts.  We've not had Snape or Sirius sit down with the purpose of 
telling or recalling their side of the story.  I really doubt that 
Snape's snooping around was sufficient to motivate a "prank" of that 
magnitude.

 
> Sirius probably figured Snape would get caught in
> the Willow and punished, not that he would be killed.  Sirius
> seems to have a very narrow focus, a sort of tunnel vision even
> as an adult, so he probably never stopped to think what it would
> be like for Remus if the worst happened,

Tunnel vision as an adult?  How so?

 Sirius hasn't had to relive this experience in
> Azkaban, since it's a happy thought that he got away with it, no
> one got killed and Snape had to quit spying on the willow (not
> stated in canon, but he must have, since he didn't find out any
> thing more).

Aside from the fact that I wonder how exactly would Snape be forced to 
quit spying on the Willow & the Marauders.... I don't know that we 
*know* this was a happy thought for Sirius.  Snapping that Snape 
"deserved" it in the midst of the Shrieking Shack revelations isn't 
exactly evidence that Sirius *really* believes that Snape deserved it or 
believes that he (Sirius) was in the right (and rightfully "got away" 
with his prank).  Sirius might well have very different feelings deep 
down, which he masks with an outer facade of "well, he deserved it."

> What I wonder is how Sirius got off.

As someone else pointed out, we don't know that Sirius "got off" with no 
punishment whatsoever.  All we know is that he presumably wasn't 
expelled since he appears to have finished his Hogwarts years with his 
classmates.

Going way back in time to one of Judy's old posts --

> Judy said
>>> [Sirius is] sorry if something bad happens to one of his friends,
>>>  but he couldn't care less if anything bad happens to anyone else,
>>>  not even if it happened *because* of him. <<
> 
> I asked:
>> Care to elaborate on what you mean here?<

Judy responded:

> 
> It's in my past few posts.  The high points are breaking Ron's leg,
> slashing the Fat Lady, terrifying everyone in England instead of
> asking Dumbledore for help (yes, some people here have excused that
> but I don't buy it), and never being sorry for any of it, in addition
> to saying Snape deserved "the Prank."

Er ... all of this can be explained if you assume it's possible that 
Sirius was suffering from PTSD & dissociating.  But ...

Ron's leg -- Sirius *is* sorry for this!  "Something flickered behind 
Black's shadowed eyes.  'Lie down,' he said quietly to Ron.  'You'll 
damage that leg even further."

Fat Lady -- my guess is that he doesn't remember this one at all.  We 
don't know that he *isn't* sorry in any case though.

Terrifying everyone in England -- a bit of an overstatement, isn't it? 
How's he supposed to make amends for this though?  <g>

Saying Snape "deserved" the Prank -- again ... we can't really know for 
sure what Sirius really truly thinks deep down from this one flippant 
remark.

> 
> 
> Judy also said:
>> > As for whether Azkaban is still an excuse for Black's violent
>> > behavior, even 10 months later, I don't think so. First of all,
>> > PTSD rarely makes people violent, unless they were that
>> > way to begin with.<<
> 
> I asked:
>> Source please?  <g> 

Judy said:

> 
> I don't have time to look up a real source, but I do have a
> Bachelor's, Master's, and PhD in Psychology, and have taught it at the
> university level for 8 years. (I will admit that PTSD isn't my
> specialty, though; in fact, psychopathology in general is out of my
> speciality.) PTSD disorder does greatly raise sympathetic nervous
> system arousal (ie, it raises adrenalin levels) but that on its own
> doesn't usually led to actual violence.

I asked a friend from church who *does* specialize in PTSD therapy (he 
does have a doctorate as well), which is partly why I'm so late 
responding back on this one.  He said that PTSD does not "normally" lead 
to violent behavior but certainly can.  One of the primary "signs" or 
"symptoms" of PTSD is "hypervigilance" which easily leads to 
overreactivity to certain stimuli.  This hyper-sensitivity and 
underlying depression, especially in men, can lead to violence because 
it "feels" more "powerful" than the fear that is really there.  He'd 
read HP and said the Sirius as PTSD-sufferer theory has merit in his 
book.  Reasonable minds can disagree of course.  :--)

Penny