Sirius - who is right?

[marinafrants]

No: HPFGUIDX 73769

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Wanda Sherratt"
<wsherratt3338 at r...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...>
> wrote:
<snip>
> > I don't think Dumbledore was being intentionally cruel to Sirius,
> > any more than he was being intentionally cruel to Harry by 
holding
> > himself at a distance all year.  It seems to me that he was so
> > caught up in his abstract schemes and stratagems that he lost
> sight
> > of the fact that the pieces he was moving around on his mental
> > chessboard were actual human beings.
> >
> I think that Dumbledore is getting a bad rap here.  Everyone
> complains that he bungled as far as Sirius goes, that he should 
have
> known better, done things differently, etc.  I have to ask, just
> WHAT was Dumbledore supposed to do?  He states plainly the reason 
he
> did what he did: to keep Sirius alive.  And Harry's response, and
> that of a lot of Sirius fans is basically 'Thanks for nothing.'
> What would have been the better solution?

Let Sirius stay somewhere other than GP.  Give him useful work to do.
Let him run an occasional errand in disguise, or under a 
disillusionment charm, or under an invisibility cloak.  Arrange a 
secure communication channel between him and Harry while Harry was 
at Hogwarts -- Dumbledore himself admitted that such channels 
existed.

Yes, Sirius would've still been out there running risks, just as 
Lupin, Moody, Snape and the rest of the Order are out there running 
risks.  But he would've been in a much better fit to deal with those 
risks effectively.  The way I see it, Sirius was killed not because 
he went to the ministry, but because he went in the wrong frame of 
mind.  He was more focused on enjoying the fight than on surviving 
it, so it's no surprise he didn't survive it.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com