Sirius revisited

[Barry Arrowsmith]

No: HPFGUIDX 103685

Sirius is meant to be a sexy beast.
Herself said so; see post 255 - a report of a face-to-face exchange 
between JKR and an HPfGU member.

And what does 'sexy beast' imply? Byronic good looks, unreliable as 
hell and invariably trouble. That sort always let you down; come on, 
admit it, they're bastards. But you keep making excuses for them. So it 
is with Sirius -  in spades.

Whereas the ordinary run-of-the mill variety will disappoint you 
eventually, they do occasionally hit the high spots (or so I have been 
informed). By contrast Sirius keeps plumbing the depths - a high spot 
for him is an occasion when he keeps his mouth shut for once. Right 
from the moment of his introduction in PoA, where true to form he tries 
to throttle Harry, right through to his grand-standing final curtain in 
OoP, he never does anything right. Wherever he goes, whatever he does, 
he's a disaster waiting to happen.

The Siriophile excuses keep rolling out of course;
"He's spent 12 years suffering in Azkaban! What do you expect!"
"He's never recovered from his childhood with that horrible family of 
his! We must make allowances!"
"But he loves Harry, so he must be good!"

Yeah, sure.
Whenever I consider Sirius an old quote springs to mind:
"The more he protested his honour, the faster we counted the spoons."

So in the spirit of performing a public service, once again it's time 
to delve into the dossier of S. Black Esq. and see what we can see, 
fully conscious that rewards will  be slight and may consist solely of 
vituperation or worse.

We don't know much about his childhood, merely that he grew to dislike 
his family, leaving them to move into the Potter household when he was 
sixteen or thereabouts. However much he tried to isolate himself from 
them, early family influences still remain - the blustering, bullying 
attitude, the self-justification that is almost stereotypical of those 
from a privileged  background. Nurture or nature? Do bloodlines define 
the person in the Potterverse, or is it up-bringing? Or both?

Whatever, his personality is set. At Hogwarts he's known to indulge in  
bullying and will without compunction put the lives of others at risk 
out of spite - with little evidence of regret or  remorse afterwards. 
The fact that there was no punishment for his behaviour is unfortunate; 
lack of sanctions would tend to bolster his self-esteem and his 
conviction of being justified in his actions.

The 'Secret Keeper' fiasco has been pored over  often. It's difficult 
to imagine what he thought he was up to. He is the SK; the Potters can 
only be contacted through him. So he hands over the responsibility to 
Peter, citing the reason that Voldy and his pals would chase him 
(Sirius) as a known friend of the Potters, thus foiling their dastardly 
plans. Tripe.  Rubbish. What a load of old cobblers. Think about it.

1. If anyone needs to contact the Potters, they need to know who the SK 
is. Therefore knowledge of Peter's position must be spread around, 
otherwise there's no point in having an SK.

2. Sirius may not be able to divulge the Potters hiding place 
(presumably that location vanished from his mind when handing over his 
duties), but he does know who the new SK is. He must, otherwise he 
can't contact the Potters when necessary.

3. Sirius would last about 5 minutes under intensive Voldy pressure. 
Not only is Voldy one of the two most powerful wizards in the world 
with a whole range of 'persuasive' spells at his finger-tips, he's also 
a mind-reader of note. And there's only two recorded Occlumency adepts 
in the books - expecting Sirius to be another is asking a bit too much 
IMO.

4. All his master plan can achieve (assuming that it played out as he 
imagined it would) would be to put an extra person at risk. Instead of 
Sirius and the Potters being in the firing line, it's now Sirius, Peter 
and the Potters. Bloody brilliant.

Then the aftermath. More strokes of Black genius. He arrives at the 
house. As the supposed SK he's the prime suspect for the betrayal of 
the Potters. Does he proclaim his innocence? No. Just this one time, at 
a moment when his penchant for excuses might actually do him some good, 
he keeps his mouth shut. Why? There is *no* reason to. Shock? Unlikely. 
He's lucid enough to argue that he should take charge of Harry, but 
apparently not lucid enough to deny responsibility for making him an 
orphan. How very strange.

Instead he goes off after Peter. To kill him.  There's just one person 
who could clear him - and that's the one he tries to kill. Now if I  
had a suspicious nature I'd wonder at that. Clearing away loose ends, 
perhaps? Making sure there's nobody left to contradict his tale? How 
convenient. And no trial. Why not? Fear of what he might say in court? 
He can say nothing that would harm the 'good' side, but he could 
conceivably let the cat out of the bag where Voldy supporters are 
concerned. So he's quickly hustled off to the slammer where he sits for 
12 years.

I've covered his 'escape' from Azkaban in some detail in post 79808, no 
need to go through it all  again -  suffice it to say that his story is 
full of holes and a good case can be made for his 'escape' being the 
result of a deliberate conspiracy (probably by Fudge). The only 
question is whether or not Sirius was a knowing participant in the plan 
or an unwitting catspaw. Once  again he has one aim. Kill Peter. After 
12 years of sitting around, claiming that it was only the knowledge 
that he was innocent that kept him sane, his preferred first action is 
to kill the one person who could actually *prove* his innocence. Some 
people never learn.

Well, we all know what happens next - he offers Harry a home, the 
Dementors dement, he escapes on Buckbeak (where does he go? We're never 
told, but it's obviously just a coincidence that Voldy is holidaying 
abroad too. And it's obviously another coincidence that Trelawney's 
second Prophecy could apply to him too.)

He's a fringe figure in GoF; good job too. He can only think of  rotten 
ideas for spells to use against dragons (surprise, surprise). I dread 
to think what the result might have been if his Floo episodes hadn't 
been interrupted. He turns up at the end, but it's noticeable that DD 
gets him out of the way as soon as possible. Feeble excuse, too. Would 
you send the most wanted man in the WW wandering round the streets 
carrying messages  to various addresses when you've got a barn full of 
owls and a Floo-capable fireplace as alternatives? No, neither would I.

On to OoP. Here he's at his obnoxious best. He has a lot of influence 
over Harry and he doesn't use it responsibly. Does he see Harry as the 
adventurous, up-for-anything James? Or  as a proxy for himself? ("Well, 
I'd do it that way myself, but as things stand...")  He wants to be 
sole mentor to Harry, to have the yea or nay for anyone else's plans. 
Certainly Harry  is emotionally dependent on him and supports Sirius's 
views as a matter of course. Are his feelings reciprocated? Maybe. 
There  could be other explanations - survivors syndrome, for example, 
or he may see Harry as his sole source of credibility; without Harry he 
is nothing, a total failure. The Godfather bit I consider to be a red 
herring. In the UK 'Godfather' is a purely symbolic title and confers 
no rights nor places responsibilities/obligations on the recipient. Of 
course, Godfather does have another meaning, ask Mario Puzo.

But there are those that think that Sirius would be a most suitable 
guardian for Harry, even though:
He's spent 12 years in Azkaban and is on the run
He has no experience with children
He has no idea of Harry's emotional or physical needs
He is rash, disruptive, argumentative, a potential murderer (twice plus 
the 'Prank'), compulsive, naive, and has totally unrealistic 
expectations of Harry.

Would you hand a child over to such a person? No - and neither will DD. 
He's not to be trusted with the care of someone as critical to DD's 
plan as Harry is.

That is, if he's to be trusted at all.
As can be  seen from the precis above, at best he's an ambivalent 
character; the results of so many of his actions can be interpreted as 
aiding  and abetting Voldy - the deaths of the Potters; the escape of 
Peter (twice); influencing Harry against Snape and the Occlumency 
lessons; being recognised (in animagus form) with Harry and so 
revealing a vulnerability to Malfoy and the DEs. He  could hardly be 
more destructive if he'd planned it.

Some posters (myself included) have wondered if his demise was not the 
result of enemy action but of deliberate friendly fire. "He's too 
dangerous, better a poignant memory than an active disruptive 
influence" might be a thought that occurred to someone in the Order. 
"Bye, bye Sirius. That's one problem solved."

It's been said that his death is just a plot device that somehow 
promotes maturity and self-reliance in Harry. (These are often the same 
posters that argue for Sirius as mentor, male role model, authority 
figure and emotional support. Seems a bit contradictory to me.) Just  
when things are getting really tough, Harry's supposed emotional prop 
is kicked away. Hardly seems fair, does it? Unless he's something else 
entirely.

Why would Sirius be terminated in book 5 of 7 - with strong hints that 
there will be further revelations to come regarding Sirius' place in 
the plot? "..learn much more about Sirius," is the phrase used IIRC. 
What else  can we learn that we don't  know already? Nothing - unless 
he wasn't what he seemed to be.

It's to be expected many of the softer-hearted fans are suckers for the 
'damaged hero' figure in fiction. Handsome, anguished, just a touch 
dangerous - oooh! Personal fantasies go into overdrive and denial sets 
in -  "He can't be bad - I like him!"

Oh yes he can. And he probably is.

Kneasy