Werewolf Adventures, Boring Harry, Veritaserum (WAS cronyms for Ludo

[cindysphynx]

No: HPFGUIDX 34254

Tabouli wrote:

<snip list of fabulous acronyms from Tabouli, Alexander and Judy>

<snip usage of the word "Forsooth">

> B.L.A.M.E.S.I.R.I.U.S. (Badly Led Astray, Moonlit and 
Excommunicated: Surely Implicating Remus Is Unjust Slander)
> 

> 
> Not that I'm particularly anti-Sirius, mind, I just can't help 
>suspecting that a teenage boy impulsive enough to send Snape into 
>the jaws of a werewolf is also likely to be reckless enough to egg 
>his friends into moonlight jaunts with deadly werewolf in tow.  

::fumbles around in purse for S.I.N.I.S.T.E.R. badge and finds gum 
wads stuck to it::

Poor Sirius!  He can't even buy a break on credit.

I'm all for absolving Remus of responsibility for his werewolf 
adventures, but of the remaining three Marauders, I wouldn't pick 
Sirius to blame.  If anyone was incapable of demonstrating maturity 
beyond his years, it was Sirius.  The boy was probably so arrogant 
and immature that he was helpless to resist a good party.  Peter 
probably couldn't stand up to his three friends under any 
circumstances.

James, on the other hand, sounds like the guy who should have put a 
stop to the adventures.  So if we are going to find someone to 
blame ::waves at Luke::, I'd lay it on James.  He's dead, so he won't 
mind.

**********

ZoeHooch wrote:

> I've been struck lately by the number of posts pointing out all of 
> the negative opinions of characters in our, or at least my, 
>favorite 
> books.

<snip>

> I guess I'm of the opinion that if the characters in the books 
>acted 
> the way we all think they should, then the Harry Potter books would 
> be the most boring set of books ever written. 

Aw, now I feel bad.  I have been very hard on certain characters, 
that's true.  ::hangs head in shame, but peeks out to see if anyone 
is watching::

My point, however, is not that characters should be perfect.  I have 
two issues, I think.  First, we have some characters (OK, one 
character, Hagrid) who just has too many flaws for my tastes.  He's 
over the top in that department.  I understand from our discussion 
that there are probably only two of us who feel that way, and most 
people adore Hagrid.  But I still feel that way.  

I wish JKR had removed some of Hagrid's flaws.  He still needs to do 
some dumb things to advance the plot and keep it interesting, of 
course.  If he has to cross-breed skrewts, I guess the students have 
to handle them to keep things interesting.  If he has to leak 
information in PS/SS, so be it.  But Hagrid doesn't have to drink.  
He doesn't have to cry.  He doesn't have to give Dudley a pig's 
tail.  He doesn't have to run and hide when he is upset.  And if he 
didn't do those things, he wouldn't be boring, IMHO.

My feeling is different about the bare-knuckles brawl between Arthur 
and Lucius.  That just felt like a cheap Hollywood stunt to me.  It 
isn't a criticism of the characters; it is a criticism of the 
writing.  I wish JKR had accomplished this scene in a more inventive 
way.

I understand the idea that perfect characters are boring characters, 
but that's not always the case.  Lupin is a great character, and he 
would still be great if he hadn't made the mistakes he made in the 
books.  Several of his mistakes (failing to rat on Sirius, forgetting 
his potion) he had to make for the plot.  Sometimes a character has 
to take one for the team, so that's OK.  The werewolf adventures, 
however, didn't really enhance his characterization for me and could 
have been omitted.  They really didn't trouble me that much, though, 
so, whatever.

For the record, I like all of the way all of the characters (that 
we've discussed this week) are conceived except Hagrid, so JKR gets 
very high marks from me, but not perfect marks.  My point isn't that 
the books are less stellar because of these character flaws.  I just 
think it is enlightening to discuss them with a group of very clever 
people, as I never in a million years would have though anyone would 
have a problem with Moody.  

**********

OK, back to griping about character flaws.  ::waves at Zoe:: <bg>

Eloise wrote (about Bagman):

> Not wishing to condemn the man without a proper trial, I think the 
biggest 
> argument against Bagman's involvement is the fact that Crouch Jr 
doesn't 
> mention it. But then, Veritaserum doesn't necessarilly make you 
tell the 
> *whole* truth and Dumbledore doesn't ask him if anyone else was 
involved. 

I remember on my first reading of that scene that Dumbledore's cross-
examination of Crouch Jr. underwhelmed me.  Why didn't he ask who 
else was involved in the plot?  It seemed like a rather glaring 
omission to me and was probably done to create suspense and advance 
the plot.  Fair enough.  I do wish JKR had provided some reason why 
Dumbledore doesn't get a chance to ask this question, however.  
Crouch could lose consciousness or any number of things to cut off 
the questioning.  As it stands, I am left with the idea that 
Dumbledore forgot to ask about accomplices or thinks it unimportant.  
It's a nit, granted, but I did notice it.

Cindy (trying to think of a way to satisfy Elkins and work on this 
idea that Arthur Weasley has some sort of history with the DEs and 
Imperius Curse)