Unfinished Business (was: did Lupin kill Sirius)

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 83080

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Nora Renka <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> An intended-to-be-short response here; as much as I'm
> enjoying this conversation, it's veering off into the
> unprovable.  Let me make some statements upfront about
> the first part of the post I'm replying to: quite
> simply, we have a radically incomplete picture of the
> Snape/MWPP dynamic, and any argument made is going to
> have serious holes.  There is no explanation of the
> prank incident that makes full sense to me.  There's
> no direct incident in canon showing Snape getting the
> better of James et al., but there well could have
> been.  I suspect that's an authorial tactic, for later
> revelations.  I could be wrong, but I suspect that I'm
> not, here. :)  This is why I never ever do work on
> works in progress...
> 

Good heavens! Not speculate? How can this be?

JKR has  set us a cracking selection of puzzles. I for  one relish
the chance of pitting my wits against hers knowing that the odds
are stacked against me. To wait, tapping the foot and checking my 
watch until the next volume is not a reasonable option for an 
inquiring mind. Yes, Holmes said "It is a capital mistake to theorise 
before one has the facts," but there are enough of those available 
to construct a fascinating selection of hypotheses which can be 
tested against the wit and caprice of other posters.

To  do otherwise would  be to limit ourselves to a species of
literary archaeology. Very unadventurous.

Nora:
> Let me simply note here that 1) we don't know whether
> Sirius 'reformed' at school or whether he was already
> sick of it all...this is unproven, but I got the image
> of a little Sirius who already dislikes what his
> family spouts sitting on the chair and being sorted
> into Gryffindor, which then *completely* shoots his
> family relations.  2) In this passage, Sirius is being
> remarkably (for him, at least) charitable to Snape,
> even thinking that he possibly wasn't involved as a
> DE.  

Kneasy:
Hanging around the  family home it is highly likely that Sirius 
learned quite a lot about Dark Magic, whether he liked it or not.
It would  be an everyday, family activity. 

I get the impression that Sirius is consistently wrong about a lot
of things; constantly stumbling from one cock-up to another.
He  seems particularly  bad as a judge of character. I distrust
his opinions on such matters and his assessment of Snape 
reinforces my views.
 
Nora:
> Bierce wasn't a cynic because he cared.  And for a
> true cynic, the yardstick is (ironically enough)
> themself.  Because to the true cynic, *he* can see all
> the corruption around him, and everyone else is simply
> deluding themselves.  Mencken is someone I enjoy in
> small doses, because you come to realize how
> profoundly unproductive his attitude is.  That level
> of corrosion can't build, it can only tear down.  I
> always feel sorry for cynics, because they're locked
> in their own self-confidence of their complete
> knowledge.


Kneasy:
Are you  surprised that I  disagree?
Corruption occurs with disappointing frequency, but what 
is more hilarious is the self deception  of the so-called 
rational man. Rationalising man is more accurate. The 
excuses after the event enter the realms of fantasy and whimsy.
The fault is universal and nearly everybody pretends it isn't there.
What a joke!

Nora:  
> [An interesting side point; I don't think Snape is a
> true cynic. I think he leans to that side, and that's
> when he's most regrettable.  I do acknowledge that at
> times he's profoundly right; the setup in PoA with his
> comments about James is a good case in point.  Funny,
> though, how he often manages to either be wrong when
> he's being right, or to be right for the entirely
> wrong reason...and I admit, I'm a Kantian, reasons
> matter.]> 

Kneasy:
Snape is too intense and  focussed to be  a cynic. He lacks
a sense of the ridiculous necessary when dealing with human 
foibles. I see him as pragmatic; he won't care about theory or
analysis so long as he gets to where he wants to be. He sees
almost everyone else as a distraction or a tool. I wouldn't see
him as a Kantian, his emotions will over-rule logical thought
if my theories are correct.
(BTW, how are  Kantians coping with empirical logic?)


Nora: 
> I will completely and utterly take you on and destroy
> you on the opera point, but I'm a musicologist.  Bring
> it! ;)
>

Kneasy:
Quite probably. But I can't take opera seriously. Once I was
asked to leave the auditorium  because I couldn't stop laughing.
(A vastly overweight soprano pretending to be a slip of a girl.
Ridiculous.)

 Nora:
> It's more powerful than despair, or disillusionment. 
> It comes from someone who's been a powerful moral
> voice in the cycle, but who now proclaims that there
> are *no* differences to be found between the good and
> the bad; she simply wants her revenge, and states "The
> blood of one will pay for all of your crimes!"  Her
> ready willingness to give up distinctions between
> polar opposites leads to death and destruction.  It's
> moral cowardice to abdicate judgement like that.


Kneasy:
You presented Brunnhilde as the  epitome of cynicism.
Are you now claiming that cynicism is more powerful than despair
or disillusionment? If so we have been talking about vastly different 
things. Cynicism is not an emotion or  an aspect of revenge;
it is an intellectual viewpoint. Nor does it claim there is no difference 
between good or evil, but that one can masquerade as the other for 
advantage.
 
Nora: 
> Ambushing a student like he does on the first day of
> class?  I've seen that done by professors, but it's
> either 1) the whole class, and that's a tactic usually
> only taken on grad students (who should know their
> stuff) or upper-level undergrads, or 2) in a specific
> case I know of, it was the professor being a sexist
> pig and trying to run out a woman from the class. 
> That second case is nasty and inexcusable, and it's
> not mindless, it's *deliberate*.  Hmm, there's a
> thought; deliberate transferrance is a considerably
> more heinous sin than mindless, wouldn't you say? :)
>

Kneasy:
You are  probably too  young and in the wrong country.
It was quite a common opening gambit in Grammar Schools 
in the UK, certainly in the 50s when I attended one. Students 
(and society) were so much less fragile then. Understandable,
the generation above us had fought and died in a major war.
Hogwarts would be entirely recognisable to those of  my 
generation in its organisation, teachers, teaching systems, 
modes of address and school ethic, including division into 
four Houses. 
Some difference in subject matter, of course.

 
Nora: 
> Stoicism is a moral system that requires a rational
> evaluation of harm by the individual.  It makes you
> ask questions like "How bad was what was done to me? 
> Why was it bad?"  There are standards here,
> internalized in this moral system, so that it is up to
> the individual, but it is certainly not completely
> subjective.  This and other systems demand that the
> victim think through what has happened, not react
> blindly, and yes, these do often include an assessment
> of the emotional impact, as well.  You can be rational
> and not bloodless, after all.

 
Kneasy:
I doubt Snape is in a philosophical frame of mind.

 
Nora: 
> I got the impression overall from the flashbacks that
> the family life was profoundly unhappy, not in the
> sense of 'oh, an occasional row', but in the sense of
> something more disturbing than that.... Do I think 
> that's affected Snape's behavior? You betcha.  

Kneasy:
Flashbacks? There was only one, (plus a bored teenager)
that are possibly from the Snape household. Even then
we are not certain what is going on. This is just the
sort of misdirection that I  fear from JKR. Make us 
comfortable in our certainty and then pull the rug out.

Nora:
>Do I think he's still
> morally cretinous at times?  Sure do.  Children aren't
> fragile little flowers, but when you hurt them, they
> have wounds that often take a long time to heal. 
> Harry's really started to show this past book.

Kneasy:
Can't agree on morally cretinous. Amoral suits better, IMO.
Cold, amoral, pragmatic and vengeful.

Fiction needs a few more like him to add zest to some of the 
too many depressingly mundane books foisted  onto the public.