Sirius revisited. Character discussions

[Jocelyn Grunow]

No: HPFGUIDX 104221

Smart said:
>So what you are saying means that even when Sirius escaped Azkaban, he still
>had to relive his old life, feelings, memories, etc. since he was again trapped
>in that old house, in which no one stayed for long.  So basically, the only fun
>Sirius ever had was when he was immature and childish, during his school
>years after running away from home.  Then, for the rest of his life, he was
>forced to relive the horrible past, with one or two exceptions.  Forced to
>think about his past, this is what drove him to murder (Peter) since that is
>all he really had to think about in Azkaban, that wasn't necessarily a good
>feeling (it's murder/wrong) nor bad (avenging his best friend's death).


I guess I would say that I see the sequence as:
1) He was immature, but not unnaturally so, when he was involved in
traumatic events
2) He was immediately imprisoned and forced to relive all the bad things in
his life for another 10 years or so
3) This meant that he didn't use that time to grow up
4) Nor could he use this time to gain perspective
5) In fact he became estranged further from normal life, and obsessed with
revenge
6) When he escaped he was never going to be able to snap back to normal - he
needed time and counselling and love
7) Unfortunately he escaped into a war zone, where he was a fugitive and his
needs were not a priority.
8) I would add in here KATIE's suggestion that he was probably clinically
depressed during OotP.  I think that makes a lot of sense.

De said:
>I think there was at least one person who cared a lot for Sirius, who loved him
> : Remus Lupin <snip> I think Sirius might have refused, quite unconsciously
>maybe, any help his best friend wanted to give him.

Yes, I think you're right.  I didn't give enough consideration to Remus.

Katie also said:
> It seems to me (though I may well be wrong) that HP fans are often quite
> absolutist about the characters in the books. There's a  tendency to see
> characters as overwhelmingly evil or good, begetting  character assassination
> and complex theories (frequently involving charms and spells to affect
> personality) to justify a "good" character's morally ambiguous choices. My
> question is, why do we need characters to be overwhelmingly one thing or
> another, to a degree that would be unrealistic in real life?

I think this may be a function not only of personality, but also of
life-experience - and therefore partly of age.  I think as we experience
more morally ambiguous situations in life we come to recognise more shades
of grey.  We come to understand why people do heinous things without seeing
themselves as heinous people.

And I suspect more younger people participate in these discussions than
older people.  The ability to comfortably use computers in this way is far
more common among those in their 20s than those in their 80s, I would
venture!

Jocelyn