Lupin's untainted chocolate

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 86354

Pippin:
> Just to clarify, my theory is not that the chocolate itself was 
> tainted. But  JKR may be deliberately evoking the sinister urban 
> folklore of the stranger with his bag of candy. 
> 
>  When I was growing up children were constantly being told they 
> should not, under any circumstances, accept candy from a 
> stranger, especially not one who seemed to know more about 
> them than he should, and  in a situation, like a train trip, where 
> no parent was likely to intervene.  The ostensible reason was 
> that the candy might be poisoned, that being the only reason  
> that most parents and teachers were willing to discuss.
> 
> If ESE!Lupin proves out, the incident is the kind that we can look 
> back on and see foreshadowing, as we now do with the 
> Grim=death omen scenes. Even though the black dog Harry 
> sees is not the Grim, the association with death omens turned 
> out to be  highly significant. In the same way, even though Lupin 
> is not trying to poison anybody in that scene,   it may be 
> significant that there are sinister associations attached to his 
> actions.

Carol:
I think we're supposed to be suspicious of Lupin (Why does he look
ill? Why is he sleeping? Why is he so poor? If he just became a
professor, why are the letters spelling out "Professor R.J. Lupin"
already peeling? and so on throughout the book.) Even his name, Remus
Lupin, suggests a connection with wolves, and he behaves rather
suspiciously when Harry mentions his father. After two bad DADA
professors, we have our suspicions about this one. And when he throws
his arms around the supposed murderer, Sirius, the reader feels
shocked and yet somehow vindicated (validated?). ("I knew he was no
good!") But then we hear their story, with some initial confusion and
skepticism that no doubt mirrors Harry's, and the pieces fall into
place. Ah! Lupin isn't quite the obvious suspect that Snape was in
SS/PS (that's closer to Sirius's role) but the suggestions that he's
evil are red herrings. (Sirius, no the other hand, merely slashes
portraits and bed clothes and really does intend to commit
murder--just not the murder we suspect him of. So, of course, like
Snape, who is merely mean to his students and likes to swoop around
the hallways like a bat at nighttime, he must be a good guy.)

Not sure where I'm going with this, except that I think we have two
sets of red herrings here--the obvious ones leading us to share the
WW's view that Sirius is a mass murderer out to kill Harry for his
master, Voldemort, and a second, more subtle set that resembles the
clues in GoF, where we have about five people with both the motive and
the opportunity to have put Harry's name in the goblet in hopes of
getting him killed. And (except for the two Crouches) those people,
like Lupin and Snape in earlier books, are still not absolutely
cleared of all suspicion. Is Ludo Bagman evil (or, more likely,
corrupt)? What about Karkaroff? Is he just a coward who will be caught
and punished by Voldemort, or will he turn traitor and betray Snape
(again)? Is Madame Maxime really a good guy? And what about Viktor
Krum, who obviously didn't want Harry's name in the goblet but didn't
resist the Imperius curse and was manipulated a little too easily into
Crucioing poor Cedric?

So the hints or clues that were used to make us suspicious of Lupin
still hang around him just as they do with these other people. But as
far as I can see, is that the evidence pointing to Lupin (and Snape)
as a good guy is much stronger than anything pointing in the other
direction.

Carol, who thinks that Bellatrix killed Sirius (but could, of course,
be completely wrong)