Responsiblity for Black's death

[kiricat2001]

No: HPFGUIDX 80057

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, A Featheringstonehaugh 
<featheringstonehaugh at y...> wrote:

<some snippage>
> What's more,  Sirius was an adult wizard, not a house elf incapable 
>of disobeying his master's orders. DD could advise, direct, decree - 
>whatever- but the fact remains that Sirius had freedom of choice and 
>he chose to comply (however grudgingly) with DD's wishes .

>Likewise it is too easy and sentimental to attribute the death to 
>Sirius' devotion to Harry. That's what we fans of Harry want to 
>believe.  That again, someone finally loves our boy so much he'd
>  die for him.  Well, DD wasn't the only one not leveling with 
>Harry. Why didn't Sirius explain what was happening and the reasons 
>behind DD's thinking? 

Maybe you've already outlined the reason as above.  Sirius would have 
liked to, but he was (however grudgingly) following Dumbledore's 
wishes. Poor Sirius - we shouldn't feel sorry for him because he 
could have traipsed around London whenever he pleased.  He was not 
forced to stay in that house.  And, of course, when he makes the trip 
to the train station, he gets ripped for traipsing around London.  

And, somehow, had he told Harry *everything* that he knew and that 
Dumbledore didn't want spoken of, people would be taking Sirius to 
task for *daring* to abuse his position as Harry's godfather to tell 
him things he shouldn't be told at this point.

AF:
>As his godfather - a position he seems to use readily enough when 
it's to his advantage and gives him a chance to throw his weight 
around -  he had an obligation to talk honestly to Harry.  The books 
are full of people confiding in one another, so it's not like this 
goes against some kind of WW Secrecy Code.  We know why the Weasley's 
didn't tell him - they honestly believed Harry was too young and the 
situation too dangerous for Harry to know. We heard them verbalize 
those reasons. They made a judgement call and stuck with it. 

Umm, not entirely, they didn't. Arthur Weasley did not back Molly up 
when she insisted that none of the children be told anything of what 
the Order was up to or what they thought Voldmeort was up to on 
Harry's first evening at 12 Grimmauld Place.  Molly specifically 
asked Arthur to back her up and he tells her that Dumbledore accepts 
that Harry will have to be filled in to a certain extent now that his 
is staying at Headquarters... And Lupin jumps in and sides with 
Arthur. And Sirius, who, by the way, was the one at this point who 
wanted give Harry information. 

> But notice that we didn't hear Sirius, the one person with real 
>standing to do so,  saying those protective things. What we DID hear 
>was Sirius offering vague advise about not doing magic and being 
>polite but then goading the boy by comparing him to his father. 
>Being surly and antagonistic to the very person
>  the Order is fighting to protect. Some godfather.    

He made a mistake. Like most fathers, mothers, and other adults. 
Besides, if Sirius were perfect, wouldn't you hate him more???

 I think one of the themes that people have alluded to on the list 
for OoP is the idea of disillusionment.  Including the idea that 
people that Harry held in high esteem being revealed to be imperfect 
humans.  He finds that out about James, Sirius, and Dumbledore in 
this book.  


> Sirius died of an overdose of hubris and no one was responsible for 
that but Sirius himself.   

> AF 

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.  I think a number of factors 
came into play in leading to Sirius' death, one of them being his own 
character.  I think you also sell JKR a little short if you think 
that a character operates solely in a vaccuum, and that other 
characters' actions, motivations, mistakes, personalities, or 
whatever don't have at least some cause and effect impact.

Marianne, going on vacation