Is Lupin ambiguous? was: What's subversive?

[olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org]

No: HPFGUIDX 101320

 > Pippin:
 > I agree. But what, in that characterization, precludes him from
 > joining Voldemort?   I found your list of OOP references
 > fascinating and useful but perhaps a bit, er, selective? Not on
 > purpose, I hasten to add. In that spirit, a few additions:
 >
 >  You mention that Lupin thinks the goblins would be tempted by
 > freedom more than gold, but not what he thought  they would be
 > tempted to do: ally with the murderer of their families.
 >

This was why I wanted to list every other appearances of Lupin. All 
that Lupin says is that goblins might prefer freedom to their current 
position (and it is implied in his statement that they are ready to 
suffer and inflict violence to gain freedom). It is Arthur who brings 
the question of Voldemort murdering goblins. Now, I know that your 
opinion is that if Lupin is willing to consider that goblins are 
willing to ally with Voldemort, then there is no reason why werewolves 
shouldn't.

But that's what I call subversive reading. Or maybe I dismiss as 
subversive any reading that confronts my subjectivity, I don't know. 
This is how I read the whole goblins discussion:
1) Voldemort is bad to everyone.
2) The wizards have been denying freedom to goblins.
3) Between two evils, the goblins might be tempted to chose Voldemort.
The logical conclusion to draw is that Lupin could be tempted to join 
Voldemort if he had any chance to be better accepted in a society ruled 
by Voldemort. That seems contrary to what I read in the books. Remus is 
a half-blood, nothing that is too much liked by Malfoy and Lestrange, 
the seemingly two lieutenants of Voldemort. Besides, he's a werewolf. I 
grant you that we don't know for sure Voldemort's opinion about those 
but Mrs. Black clearly despises them and she thought "Voldemort had the 
right idea." In the top-list of what Kreacher hates, one finds 
"Mudbloods and werewolves" even before "traitors and thieves."
Seeing that Kreacher adores Bellatrix, it is reasonable to suppose that 
werewolves are not too popular among pureblood-supremacist.


 > You agree with me that Lupin is capable of legilimency, but don't
 > suggest he might be using it when he aims  his long, hard look
 > at Sirius as Sirius is thinking about how much of what he knows
 > should be told to Harry.
 >

No, no, I actually grant you that, I  didn't mention it for fear my 
post would know no end.


 > Olivier:
 > > We can suspect that Sirius and  Lupin both know from the start
 > about Dumbledore's plan to trap  Voldemort in the Mom (look up
 > the fleeting look between them during the  diner). He has also
 > argued that Lupin's weak points are his cowardice  and his
 > desire to be liked. However, in all the references above, I  fail to
 > discern such traits. Even in the Pensieve scene, it is Peter  and
 > the pair James/Sirius who seems very concerned about being
 > liked.  Remus is utterly absent, he reads and wants to do some
 > homework.<
 >
 > Pippin:
 > Whoa!  Now *that's* what I call subversive reading, Olivier!  JKR
 > is the one who said that Lupin's great weakness was his desire
 > to be liked, and offered that as the explanation for why he cuts
 > his friends so much slack. (Albert Hall interview)
 >
I don't deny that. Lupin was certainly very eager to be liked when he 
was young, and there is no doubt that's why he never stopped James 
bullying of Snape. What I wanted to say is that I fail to discern both 
cowardice and an excessive desire to be liked in the grown-up Lupin. He 
doesn't fear to contradict both Molly and Sirius in their row for 
instance. Nor does he fear to tell Harry off.

 > It would also be a subversive reading, IMO,  to think that
 > Dumbledore is not telling Harry everything he knows about the
 > Prophecy when he says he is.  And Dumbledore takes sole
 > responsibility for Harry's ignorance about the  prophecy. He says,
 > over and over, that he alone could have warned Harry that
 > Voldemort was trying to lure him to the Department of Mysteries
 > --meaning that up to the time of the conference in Dumbledore's
 > office, there was no one else, besides Voldemort and his
 > servants, who  to Dumbledore's knowledge was aware of it.
 >
 > Supposedly, the  Order only knew that they were guarding a
 > prophecy about Voldemort, that only Voldemort could retrieve.
 > Dumbledore says that Snape "deduced" where Harry had gone.
 > If Dumbledore thought Snape  knew that  Voldemort was trying to
 > get Harry to the DoM to retrieve the Prophecy for him, then he
 > wouldn't have thought  that Snape  had to deduce anything.
 >
 >  If Sirius and Lupin have knowledge of Harry's connection to the
 > prophecy, they didn't find out from Dumbledore.  So
 > that is an ambiguity. Maybe Dumbledore is lying. Maybe JKR
 > made a mistake. Maybe Dumbledore told James about the
 > Prophecy but wrongly believes that James told nobody
 > else. Or maybe Lupin's knowledge comes from Voldemort, and
 > he  told Sirius, pretending that he got the knowledge from
 > James. Which reading is subversive? Beats me.
 >

Maybe Dumbledore warn Sirius that Voldemort was probably going to use 
Harry
(afer all Sirius is Harry closest relative). And maybe Sirius told 
Remus (his best friend and possible partner) or Dumbledore also told 
Lupin because he trusts him as a possible leader of the Order if 
anything should happen to himself. That would be my non subversive 
reading.

Not to say your reading is flawed in any way, you could very possibly 
be right, but I don't think it is the most natural way to read the 
books.

 >
 > Pippin:
 > Hmmm. In each book there turns out to be  a villain whom Harry
 > thought innocent or incapable of   deceiving him: Quirrell, Tom
 > Riddle, Scabbers, Impostor!Moody, and Kreacher. In each book
 > there are ambiguities which the intelligent reader recognizes
 > were deliberately planted clues to the identity of this person. On
 > her website JKR says that she is constructing Book Six with the
 > help of a huge chart that tells her which clues have to go into
 > which "innocent" chapters.

My stand on that is that the "innocent seeming villain" was a symbolic 
device that may not be necessary anymore. But I will write more about 
that later. I remark though that, in OoP, it is questionable to say 
that either Kreacher's or Umbridge's forfeits came as big shocks.


 > Elkins also might be referring to the things readers imagine to
 > make an engaging tale fit better with their personal
 > philosophies or desires, in contravention of the authors' intent or
 > the sense of the story.  I could  be guilty of that, but I have tried
 > to support my ideas with references to JKR's philosophy and
 > intentions, not mine.

This is exactly how I understood it. And I must say that I have 
sometimes issues with how you interpretation JKR's philosophy. I was 
particularly intrigued by a comment you made on Mut (i.e courage) as 
the prime virtue in JKR's world. But I shall not try to delve into that 
for fear my posts turn into repeated attack on yours.

On the contrary, I will pay homage to them and try to understand why I 
feel so compelled to defend Lupin. That is, I will confess why I so 
eagerly hold to the (maybe subversive) hope nothing is deeply wrong 
with Lupin. I have a very psychological reading of the books, 
constantly seeing them as metaphors and symbols. So I naturally tried 
to fit my own persona in them. I had trouble doing so with the young 
generation, because I'm certainly not like Ron, and certainly not as 
hard-working as Hermione. So that left Harry, and indeed I often feel 
close to him, but there were significant differences. And there came 
Lupin. I felt very close to this gentle yet wary, caring yet sharp, 
intellectual man with an uncontrollable beast slumbering inside of him. 
So close in fact that when I first read PoA, I was sure that Sirius was 
not as Black as painted. The evidence pointed towards the fact that 
Lupin knew more than he said, and if Lupin knew, then Sirius could not 
be wrong. So I guess I hold on to the belief that Lupin is not evil 
mainly because I sincerely hope I am not doomed to follow the biggest 
bully in the playground myself.

Olivier