Cutting RL slack (or not)

pippin_999 foxmoth at qnet.com
Mon Jan 28 16:17:54 UTC 2002


No: HPFGUIDX 34197

I wrote:


>>If [Remus Lupin] thought scaring innocent people was just 
part of the fun, he's no better than the DE's at the World Cup, 
IMO.<<

Amy Z said:
>I would agree if that were the case, but I don't think he did think 
scaring innocent people was part of the fun. There's nothing in 
canon to suggest it, IMO; rather, he wanted the freedom and 
companionship.  <Snip> it's not at all conclusive to my mind 
that that's amusement about having terrified people.<<

IMO, the iffiest line is  "roaming the village and the school 
grounds."  They could have stayed in the Shack or stuck to the 
Forbidden Forest. 

Remus knew he was endangering people and felt guilty about it, 
which answers Gabriele's point about whether he was old 
enough to feel morally responsible. Then he decided that his 
pleasure was more important than his own and others' safety. 
There is, as Gabriele admits, no excuse for that. I'm not entirely 
sure he's learned his lesson, either. Giving the map back to 
Harry at the end of PoA was the same kind of decision. 

Okay, he's not Harry's teacher anymore, so he hasn't got a 
responsibility to Dumbledore. But what about his duty  to protect 
Harry and the other children? He put Harry's pleasure first, even 
though he knew that Harry was not a safe guardian for  the Map 
and it would be a threat if it ever fell into enemy hands, which of 
course it did.

I didn't mean to imply that young Lupin had racist or sadistic 
motives. Although, if he harbored no animus at all toward the 
society that shunned him, he was a saintly young man indeed. 
However, the fact that menacing people was only incidental does 
not excuse him from criminal responsibility. At least where I live, 
if you assault a bank guard in the course of a robbery, you aren't 
allowed to claim you didn't intend any harm. The fact that you 
were already engaged in a crime  is considered conclusive. I'm 
convinced  that  a werewolf who plots to break  custody and roam 
in an inhabited area is, by wizard law, committing a crime. Does 
anyone think otherwise?

Pippin







More information about the HPforGrownups archive