JKR characterizations--oversimplification?

[onnanokata]

No: HPFGUIDX 114992


Lisa wrote:
 
So there's been a lot of talk about new stuff on JKR's site.  Since 
I'm not 100% sure about the spoiler policies on that (it's not the 
book itself), I'll add a few spaces first:
la, la, la, la, la
la, la, la, la, la
la, la, la, la, la
la, la, la, la, la
la, la, la, la, la
la, la, la, la, la
la, la, la, la, la
la, la, la, la, la
la, la, la, la, la
la, la, la, la, la
la, la, la, la, la
la, la, la, la, la
la, la, la, la, la
la, la, la, la, la
la, la, la, la, la
la, la, la, la, la
la, la, la, la, la
la, la, la, la, la
la, la, la, la, la
la, la, la, la, la

Okay, then.  JKR says the following about Sirius in her update:
 
"Sirius is very good at spouting bits of excellent personal 
philosophy, but he does not always live up to them. For instance, he 
says in "Goblet of Fire" that if you want to know what a man is 
really like, 'look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.' 
But Sirius loathes Kreacher, the house-elf he has inherited, and 
treats him with nothing but contempt. Similarly, Sirius claims that 
nobody is wholly good or wholly evil, and yet the way he acts 
towards Snape suggests that he cannot conceive of any latent good 
qualities there. Of course, these double standards exist in most of 
us; we might know how we ought to behave, but actually doing it is a 
different matter!"
 
Now me:
I know I'm not the only one who was disappointed by this (hi, 
Jen!).  But I find myself unable to *not* comment on why.  I *know* 
Sirius is flawed.  I accept that.  I think most/all of the 
characters in these books are flawed, and that is a good thing.  I 
accept that JKR thinks he's flawed as well.  But several of her 
comments really bugged me, in that she actually puts forth 
interpretations that I found frustratingly simplistic when I saw 
*readers* spouting them.  In one case, she also really misrepresents 
what she actually wrote in forming this interpretation.
 
For example, the whole thing about how one treats one's inferiors as 
it relates to Sirius' attitude toward Kreacher.  Frankly, I just 
don't see it.  Yes, Sirius loathes Kreacher (as JKR confirms, if it 
wasn't already obvious).  But JKR's own depiction of Kreacher as a 
character (who is horrid, btw, even to the one person who is kind to 
him) and her description of Sirius' background (and Kreacher's place 
in it) suggests that Sirius loathes Kreacher for who he is and what 
he represents of Sirius' past, not because he is an "inferior."  
Dumbledore even points out that Sirius didn't have this attitude 
toward house elves in general.  Yet JKR then goes on to use "Sirius 
loathes Kreacher" as evidence that he doesn't live up to his own 
pronouncement.  Right.

Dharma replies:

Lisa I appreciate your point of views on JKR's comments from the 
perspective of a Sirius fan, but I think there are some important 
ideas to factor into what JKR is saying.  She directly attributes 
some of Sirus' flaws to lack of development time.  She goes directly 
to him being locked away in Azkaban for 12 years at the age of 22.  
When combined with the context of particular actions in events and 
circumstances in books 4 and 5 Sirius', JKR's statements seem 
reasonable to me.  

Her statements implied that Sirius might have been better able to 
cope with the responsibility of dealing with Kreacher, and everything 
the House Elf represented, if he would have had time to mature.  
Whether Sirius looked down on Kreacher or not is not the sum of the 
inferior/superior issue.  Kreacher is enslaved by enchantments and 
attached to number 12 to some degree.  Sirius is Kreacher superior 
by "magical mandate" not by choice, and as such has the 
responsibility to make sure that Kreacher is neutralized as threat to 
the Order.  

I think that JKR's statements on this matter are justified.  Because 
Sirius was still so pained by his past experiences, he was unable to 
live up to his own standard in this case.  This particular flaw was 
very costly, given that the central objective of the Order is to stop 
Voldemort.  Perhaps JKR is implying that had Sirius been able to work 
out some of his feelings during those 12 long years, he might have 
had the presence of mind to deal with Kreacher differently.

Lisa wrote:
 
Then there's the whole "no one is wholly good or evil."  Well, to 
start off with that's *not even what Sirius says in the book.*  He 
says that the world is not divided into "good people and Death 
Eaters."  And how is that inconsistent with almost all of what we 
see/hear about his view of Snape???  In GoF he points out that he 
can't imagine Dumbledore letting Snape teach if he'd been with 
Voldemort, while at the same time making it clear that he doesn't 
like Snape at all.  Hmm.  So Snape is not "good" but also not a 
Death Eater?  And the inconsistency is where?  Color me confused. 

Dharma replies:

Again I think that JKR is using the maturity/lack of development time 
to get to the heart of an inconsistency.  Snape's pettiness and anger 
are not justifications for Sirius to overlook the business of the 
Order or Dumbledore's leadership.  JKR never says that Sirius needed 
like Snape, or even agree with him in most circumstances.  To me, she 
is implying that Sirius was unable to let go of his past experiences 
with Snape.  The constant squabbling with Snape was problematic.  It 
reinforced the idea to Harry that Snape was not trustworthy, despite 
Dumbledore's choice to include Snape in the Order.  

In contrast, Snape was constantly goading a prodding Remus when given 
an opportunity, but Lupin had the presence of mind not to give in to 
the foolishness.  The maturity to deflect Snape's nastiness and get 
on with the common good was/is a burden for other members of the 
Order.  It is fair to question which behaviors resulting from 
personality conflict are unproductive and which are 
counterproductive, in my opinion
 
Lisa said:

Frankly, even if Sirius *had* said what JKR is now attributing to 
him, I don't know that his hatred of Snape has much to do with 
that.  He may not think about whether there is any "good" in Snape 
(and the feeling seems quite mutual), but that doesn't necessarily 
mean that, if pressed, he would say that he thinks the man 
is "wholly evil."  I honestly don't know that we know enough to tell 
(and neither did Sirius live long enough to have a chance to find 
out).  And as a friend of mine pointed out, in terms of OotP in 
particular, Sirius has in fact just found out that Snape really 
*was* a Death Eater, which can only serve to add fuel to the view of 
him as a nasty person who has always been up to his eyeballs in the 
Dark Arts.

Dharma replies:

Again JKR never says that Sirius had to embrace Snape's faults, 
however, the constant bickering may have served to undermine the work 
of the Order.  Dumbledore as Head of the Order has an obligation to 
use the most effective methods to counter Voldemort.  If Sirius 
objected strongly to Snape being part of Dumbledore's plan, Sirius 
could have made different choices about his own level of involvement 
with the group.  Offering up number 12 as HQ was a noble deed, 
however it was clear from the end of GoF that Snape was a part of 
Dumbledore's plans.  Any like or dislike Sirius held for Snape was 
not going to change Dumbledore's objectives for the Order.  

As adults, we often find ourselves in situations with unreasonable 
people and part of maturation is the process of learning to deal with 
them effectively.  JKR's statement about the 12 years in Azkaban 
covers some of this as well.  To me, JKR grants Sirius this fault 
with sufficient reasoning.  Implying that he did not deal with Snape 
effectively in the context of the OotP really seems fair to me.  
Sirius is unable to put aside his differences with Snape.  I 
personally cannot come up with a reason why these personal issues, 
are more important than participating fully in a collective effort to 
stop Voldemort.
 
Lisa wrote:

Then again, I find her reduction of Sirius' good points/virtue to 
his loyalty and affection for James frustratingly simplistic as 
well.  Why bother to tell us so much about his family and childhood, 
about how he left home because of his beliefs and his opinion of his 
family's beliefs, if none of that means anything with regard to 
Sirius' character????

Dharma replies:

JKR does not seem to be implying that his past means nothing.  In 
fact I garnered the opposite from her statements and the information 
she gave us through Dumbledore.  Sirius seems so deeply rooted in his 
past experiences and his familial strife, that he is unable to act in 
a manner that is consistent with own beliefs at times. 

As to loyalty and affection for James...the numerous risks that 
Sirius took for James are key to the entire series.  Because of the 
love between Sirius and Potter's, he was named Harry's godfather.  
Sirius was sure that Voldemort would come after him to get to Lily, 
James and Harry, so he suggested a different Secret Keeper.  He then 
took on task of protecting Peter (too bad Pettigrew was the spy).  He 
broke out of Azkaban to protect his godson.  There are other positive 
things that Sirius has done for Harry that seem truly rooted in his 
loyalty to James and love for the Potters.

Lisa wrote:

I *know* the books are about Harry.  I understand that I probably 
shouldn't look quite so hard at Sirius, or any other secondary 
character (and I like or am interested in quite a few).  But OotP 
made me wonder (for many reasons which I won't go into now as 
they're not germaine to the main point of this post) whether JKR 
wasn't quite as good a writer as I'd thought she was, and this sort 
of reductionism (even vis a vis a "minor" character) isn't making me 
more confident.

Dharma replies:

At the risk of veering off the topic, I'll offer up there last 
thoughts.  When addressing questions about living characters, JKR may 
be constrained in her ability to answer without giving away 
information.  She could potentially have quite a bit more to say 
about minor characters after book 7.  

Personally, I think that answering questions about Sirius could be a 
tough one.  She has hinted that we will see him again, and that the 
mirrors might have something to do with his reemergence.  Perhaps, 
this character, who was stifled by a variety of circumstances, will 
be more insightful in his next incarnation.  Her comments might be 
disappointing to Sirius fans, but they offered up just enough 
information to get people talking.  If nothing else she is putting 
her web site to good use on this one.