Lupin is worse was 'Re: Are there no depths

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 99504

> Pippin:
> Greatness isn't synonymous with  goodness, that's for sure.
> 
> Justine:
> It certainly can be, though.  My last post (98769) went through 
the different synonyms and the nouns for which the adjective 
"great" has been used.  I think, in the context of Jo's quote about 
Remus, greatness *does* seem to equal goodness.  When 
Ollivander talks of great things, he also uses the adjective 
"terrible," and he's talking about an extremely evil wizard.  When 
the Sorting Hat speaks of greatness, he's talking about placing 
Harry in Slytherin, and that house as a rather terrible connotation 
as well, doesn't it?  When she uses the word for Remus, she's 
also calling him a wonderful teacher and a nice man.  
<snip>
>  
> Here's a quote:
> If you had to choose one teacher from your books to teach your 
child, who would it be and why? 
> A. It would be Professor Lupin, because he is kind, clever, and 
gives very interesting lessons.

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/quickquotes/articles/2000/020
0-scholastic-chat.htm
> Justine:
> There's the word "kind."  That's even better than great, because 
it has no negative connotations, and better than nice, because it 
strongly implies there's positive emotion behind it.<

Pippin:

I guess it all depends on where Jo draws the line   between a 
trick and a con.  Rowling has tricked me over and over again in 
the books by encouraging me to draw false conclusions from 
context.   But she always gave   the true information somewhere, 
even as she encouraged me to discount it. Context implied that 
Snape was stalking Harry in Book One, that Scabbers was in no 
way interesting, etc.  But Hagrid did say that Snape wouldn't hurt 
a student. The lady in the creature shop did say that common 
rats don't live more than three years. But did I think, "Percy's
*old* rat,"  or that Scabbers had had time to lose his toe and part 
of an ear before Percy even got him? 

Remus definitely has his admirable qualities, and Jo is always 
effusive about them in her interviews, but she also points out that 
he has his flaws. She makes them sound rather endearing, but 
they are flaws all the same. She has never said, as she has of 
Dumbledore, that Lupin is goodness.

 I take Jo's words in chat and interviews in the spirit of watching a 
stage magician do his tricks. When she bares her arm and says 
there's nothing up her sleeve, the odds are she's shaking 
something into her palm from the other one. <g>

Is Lupin terrible but great? He can use the patronus charm, and 
he uses wandless magic to make a light that doesn't go out in 
the presence of Dementors. Snape considers him even more 
dangerous than Sirius--in the shack he restrains Lupin, not 
Black.

Is Lupin kind? Undoubtedly.  But Jo is  explicit that not everyone 
who is kind  means well. Tom Riddle brags of his kindness to 
Ginny. Fake!Moody's kindness to Neville reminds Harry of Lupin, 
no less. 

Is he an effective teacher? Certainly, but so was Fake!Moody. 
"Mind you, we still learned loads." -- Dean Thomas, speaking of 
Fake!Moody OOP ch 12 

Justine:
> Here's one more:
> Professor Lupin, who appears in the third book, is one of my 
favourite characters. He's a damaged person, literally and 
metaphorically. I think it's important for children to know that 
adults, too, have their problems, that they struggle. His being a 
werewolf is a metaphor for people's reactions to illness and 
disability.
> 
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/quickquotes/articles/2002/110
2-fraser-scotsman.html

 Justine continued:
> Remus is the wizarding world's version of a child who has 
been given a blood transfusion and has contracted AIDS, 
especially when thinking of the 80s when so many were afraid to 
even be in a room with someone who had it.  Wouldn't turning 
Remus into a traitor equal telling these children that such 
reactions are acceptable and even right?

Pippin:
Would it?  Our children have to live in a world where, 
unfortunately,  people who have genuinely earned their 
admiration do dreadful things and  bigots try to take advantage of 
it. A beloved athlete kills his wife. A  financier who  gave millions 
to charity goes to jail for cheating little old ladies of their
savings.  

Does it prove "they" can't be trusted with women, or "they" are 
slimy and avaricious? Of course not. Does it make life easier for 
bigots? 'Fraid so.   Is it going to help to refuse to talk about this
or even admit that it occurs?  

I think we'll know Harry, Ron and Hermione have really stopped 
stereotyping werewolves when they're willing to consider each 
one as an individual,  whatever Remus turns out to be.

Pippin