Sirius revisited. Character discussions

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 104273

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at y...> 
wrote:
>  
> > Kneasy:
> > Yes, she does. Naturally I discount this (would you expect anything 
> else?)
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Actually, Kneasy I do expect something else from you. Of course, it 
> does not mean that you have to do it. It is just my take on the debate
> 
> 
> McGonagall's statement is a canon support to the argument of Sirius 
> being smart. I, quite frankly expect you to acknowledge it, because I 
> don't remember anything in canon, supporting the argument that 
> McGonagall would call a student smart, if he /she was not.
> 
> 
> For example, as you know , I despise Snape's teaching methods with 
> passion. :o)
> 
> But, when confronted with the canon support that Snape's class is 
> academically advanced (statement from Umbridge), I acknowledge that 
> this is a  good evidence in support of the argument that academically 
> Snape is a good teacher. Does not mean that I am buying this argument 
> completely (still waiting for the resuits of the OWLS), but it is a  
> good support to it.
> 
> 
> When the other side's arguments are just dismissed with a shrug, I 
> feel exactly like Lisa does. What is the point then?
> 
> You will always defend Snape, I will always defend Harry and Sirius 
> and we will not change each other's minds of course, but it is kind 
> of gracious, I THINK to acknowledge if either side comes with the 
> good argument in support of their position.
> 

Do not despair.
You may have noticed that I never use emoticons, those little smiley
constructions that crop up all over the pplace. Never  will, either, so
you'll just have to insert *with an evil grin* every third sentence. Then
you might get the tone of my posts.

But I will state plainly, I  don't  believe everything said in canon. You
don't either, or you shouldn't. Exaggeration and an occasional
outright lie are to be expected. You want examples? OK.

Hagrid - Nobody went bad but they was Slytherin - then we find out 
Peter was in Gryffindor.

Voldy - Hagrid kept werewolf cubs under his bed - then JKR says in
interview, not even in the books, that this was a lie.

Both of the above were accepted as strict and immutable canon for
a long time; dozens of posts included them as fact. But they're not.
So, if someone says something which has canon support elsewhere
in the books, we can believe it - probably. If someone expresses a
personal opinion, not supported elsewhere, I put a question mark 
over it.

What  is common is for posters to accept statements from someone
they like and try to dispute statements from those they don't like.
Partiality. I've quoted canon (Voldy's statements in the graveyard)
for those  that don't agree with my interpretations to say it doesn't
count, 'cos Voldy would lie on principle. No counter argument, just
a dismissal because it runs contrary to their own thoughts. At least
I gave a reason for doubting McGonagall.
Me, I distrust *all* the characters; any of them could turn out to be
different to our perceptions of them to date.

To a certain extent I defend Snape, but I've never  claimed he's nice
or misunderstood. What I say is that his motivations could make
his actions comprehensible. And it's his motivations that we don't yet
have. Even when we get them it won't make him 'nice' but it might
give him a motive for the way he acts. I want to know  what  it is.

This is going too far for some - Snape is evil, full stop. Why? because
he's rude and sarcastic to some students. The fact that such behaviour
appears to be accepted without demur in the WW passes some people by.
Because it is unacceptable in their RL it must, in the opinion of some 
posters be totally unacceptable in HP too. Not so. HP ain't real. JKR has
written her own rules for the WW and  probably for good reasons. I'm
quite  happy to string along until she tells me different.

And no, I'm not trying to convince *anyone* to change their mind and
come round to my way of thinking. I don't like orthodoxy, it's boring.
My posts  are made as alternative interpretations whose validity will
assessed when the series ends. Most will be wrong, I accept that and
it doesn't  bother me in the least. Same as I'm not bothered if my posts
are passed over or ignored by other readers. Some posters irritate;
there's currently three that I never bother reading, I pass over them
deliberately - always.  But I don't make a song and dance about it. I
don't tell them they are spoiling my fun, because objectively, their
opinions are no different to mine - personal thoughts expressed on
site.

Yes, I  have changed my mind about certain characters and probable
outcomes and yes, there have been times when I've been in error and
I've apologised. That's no problem; it's not as if I'm sacrificing my first-
born. It's only a book. I work to  the principle "I may be wrong, but I'm
not uncertain" which means I will defend a position until it becomes
untenable, concede and then take up another position on something else.
Compromise is unattractive and mostly not feasible anyway,
not given the way the story is set up. Snape can't be half-evil, Sirius
can't be half-good; they're ambiguous, true - but something must weigh
more heavily on one side of the balance than the other and tip the scales
to allow a final judgement.

But if you're unhappy with my posts on Sirius then you have a choice -  
ignore them or counter with canon. The "but I like him" "But he loves
Harry" and particularly the "Azkaban stunted his development" threads 
don't exactly counter what I'm saying. If Sirius is dodgy, then he was 
dodgy *before* going to Azkaban. That's when most of his disasterous
'decisions' were  made - before Azkaban. If he's bad, he was probably 
bad even then. If he's not bad then we'll find out sooner or later and I'll
have to eat my words, but as things stand too many things don't add
up when I look at Sirius. 

Nora picked up on my contention regarding intelligence. Good for Nora.
That's the sort of response I like. "Make the bugger support his case."
Stops a poster from getting sloppy. A response from someone else of 
"You're just saying that because you don't like him" or "That's because 
you're a Snape apologist" is not worth bothering with IMO. It's reducing 
discussion to the trite, mundane and non-canonical; name-calling.
Nora and I have crossed swords before, to our mutual enjoyment, I hope.
I doubt there's much we agree on but we do thrive on our disagreements.
And she checks her canon, and she's tenacious. She's not enamoured of
wishful thinking (the "I think there's a spell that they used that we don't 
know about" syndrome). Good. That's what I enjoy, mostly because I hope
I lean that way myself. 

Kneasy