Spy novel? maybe (was Lupin's secrets )

[Sharon]

No: HPFGUIDX 118600


Naama:
> First, my argument is about the *general* trustworthiness of people 
> in the Potterverse. 

Azriona:
And generally, I would have to say that my theory still stands.  
Trust, but verfy.

>Naama:
> Secondly:
> 1. We, and Harry, never "saw" Sirius or Peter. We hear of them, we 
> see Sirius' picture - that's all. 

Az:
I think you're taking me too literally here.  I'm not refering to an 
actual face-to-face meeting here.  I'm talking about our first 
impressions of Sirius or Peter - which, for both Harry and the 
reader, were very much the opposite of what we learned later.

>Naama:
Neither of them gained Harry's 
> trust and then betrayed that trust...

Az:
You're right, they didn't.  Which leaves me to consider: Harry got 
the bulk of his information about Sirius and Peter from the 
conversation in Hogsmeade, in which McGonagall, Fudge and Hagrid told 
Rosmerta about the entire SK thing.  Does this mean, since the three 
of them (unwittingly) gave Harry erroneous information, that he 
should no longer trust them?  Or that he should simply no longer 
trust information he can't personally verify?

(Trust but verify *again*.)

Another point to consider:  Harry has heard first that Sirius Black 
was a traitor.  And then that traitor gives him another story.  
Immediately, Harry goes for the second story, and trusts Sirius 
fully.  Seems a bit rash, doesn't it, particularly given that Remus 
Lupin isn't exactly an unbiased opinion in the matter.  

Perhaps verification in the form of Peter Pettigrew was enough for 
Harry - but Harry doesn't even pause to hear Peter's side of the 
story.  Trust that Peter is suddenly in the wrong, no verification.

>Naama:
> 2. Fudge was signed (not least, by his name) from the very 
beginning 
> as a moral coward - not evil, but reluctant to face unpleasant 
> realities. The first time we see him, if you remember, he is caving 
> under public pressure - he is sending Hagrid to Azkaban for the 
sole 
> purpose of being as doing something (the classical scapegoating 
> manoeuver).

Az:
I'll give you Fudge.  But we heard about him in PS/SS previously, if 
not by name, but by the fact that he was owling DD often for advice.

>Naama:
> 3. I still see DD as kindly and as having Harry's best interests at 
> heart. The end of OotP, in fact, should show us how very much at 
> heart he had Harry - to the point of risking the final defeat of 
> Voldemort.

Az:
"Here, kid, you're fifteen and it's either you or Voldy, and I 
haven't told you squat about what that scar really means, or your 
connection with Voldy, plus it's not like I've even looked you square 
in the eye recently or explained why, and I know you're not at your 
most powerful, and you've just suffered a blow because your godfather 
kicked the bucket a minute or two ago, but here, go fight the most 
evil wizard of our time, and no pressure, but please win."

If this is Harry's best interests at heart, thank ye gods that DD 
likes the boy, otherwise I'd be afraid of what might happen next.


> Naama:
I didn't say that 
> we always know everything about a character right away - that would 
> make the story boring; but, *by and large*, added information does 
> not contradict previous information.

By and large, no.  But for the movers and the shakers of the plot - 
which include Sirius, Peter, Voldy, Percy, et al, extra information 
*does* either contradict or put a different spin on previous 
knowledge.

> Naama:
5. Actually, the Moody example strengthens my argument. Moody (the 
> real Moody) is exactly the kind of person the readers are led to 
> believe he is - loyal to the cause and to DD. The twist is that 
> somebody else impersonated him. To me, this shows how reluctant JKR 
> is to subvert readers' established views on characters.

Sure, Barty Crouch did a great job impersonating Moody.  That doesn't 
mean that JKR didn't deliberately trick us or use him to point out 
that we can't always take things at face value.

Do I trust that the real Moody is who everyone says he is?  To a 
point, sure.  But do I trust that the next person to pop up won't be 
Polyjuiced into someone else?  Heck no.  When DD says, "This is my 
brother Aberforth and his pet goat Janice," you can bet I've got a 
very close eye on Janice.

> Naama:
6. Yes. Both Harry and the reader are mistaken about Riddle. This is 
> one case - maybe the only one - where we are truly deceived. 

So.  If we aren't deceived about Sirius Black, does that mean you 
think he's a DE?  If we aren't deceived about Peter Pettigrew, does 
that mean you think he was framed?  If we aren't deceived about 
Percy, do you think he's under Imperio?  

Heaven save us from a plot in which the characters behave in 
predictable patterns...in which we never receive contradictory 
information...in which without the element of mystery and surprise we 
no longer want to turn the page.  The book which has no deception, 
twist, and wrongly placed loyalty in it will never be so widely loved.

--azriona