DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall/Dumbledore)

[Barry Arrowsmith]

No: HPFGUIDX 115756

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:

 >
Question for you, then; so Lupin buys it [Sirius's innocence] hook and 
sinker too?  Lupin seems to change his mind so quickly because he knew 
there was always something a little...off with Sirius going to jail, 
methinks.  But, of course, being Lupin, he's really rather passive in 
his approach to it all.  But convince him...
 >

Kneasy:
Lupin doesn't *want* to believe in Sirius's guilt. Sirius doesn't have 
to give a word of explanation before Lupin is all over him like a rash, 
putting words in Sirius's mouth and convincing *himself* of Sirius's 
innocence. No doubts or hesitation, no matter that Black has just 
broken Ron's leg, tried to throttle Harry, all is sweetness and light. 
Except for the trivial matter of the disposal of Pettigrew. "Let's cap 
the love-fest with a spot of murder." How nice!

 >
Nora:
 From his perspective, as we've discussed before, I don't think he's 
putting much faith in the WW system or Dumbledore.  Besides, Peter's 
body would probably be good enough to prove 'something is the hell 
wrong here', right? :)
 >

Kneasy:
Unlikely.
It'd be "We've caught that murdering traitor Black and he's finally 
killed poor Pettigrew; he tried before, you know.  Pettigrew's been 
hiding from Black's friends for years, it seems. Oh, and he's  got some 
cock and bull story about Pettigrew being the traitor, but who's going 
to believe that when we know Black was the Potters SK."
Peter is the only way Sirius could prove he wasn't the SK. There wasn't 
a trial last time and there wouldn't be this time either. Killing Peter 
would probably confirm his guilt in the eyes of the WW.


 >
Nora:
You know, I'm trying very, very hard to square 'Sirius set up Peter to 
fail' against JKR's recent comments about Sirius as a character. The 
comments fundamentally admit he's flawed--like that wasn't obvious.  
But you, Kneasy have the much harder task.  You have to convince me 
that, given the explicit authorial and canonical information that 
Sirius loved James like a brother, hated the Dark Arts, all that 
jazz--you have to come up with WHY Sirius would set up James, Lily, and 
the child whose godfather he was.  (Nice authorial confirmation of the 
Christening and the importance placed on his role as Godfather, on the 
website, you know.)

No matter what you say, it's going to be a massive complication of the 
text, because it's *not* merely filling out a portrait (like finding 
out that James was a git--the clues for that were always there)--this 
is a complete reversal of character.  I'm not sure it makes good 
literary economy, either, to subvert the Big Punch of one entire book.  
'Escaped convict not actually guilty'--what, we're going to spend plot 
time ono that, instead of what's happening NOW?
 >

Kneasy:
Loved him like a brother - Cain and Abel, Romulus and Remus, Arthur and 
Lancelot, lots of brotherly or near-brotherly love that ends in 
betrayal, plus about half of Shakespeare's tragedies that would be 
boring if not for anger, envy, jealousy directed at a so-called loved 
one. A classic theme - I  can see Sirius as Brutus any day of the week 
- "et tu, Padfoot?"

I don't  have to convince you of anything, just  as you don't have to 
convince me - it's an impossibility anyway, given the twists, switches 
and concealed information that JKR seems addicted to. We have a modicum 
of information and we make of it what we will. And JKR's pronouncements 
can be as misleading as the clues in the books. From being her 
favourite character (stated in interview after OoP was published) who 
she cried buckets over, Sirius is now downgraded to a socially retarded 
misfit with double standards who *had* to die and who we will learn 
more about in due course. The fact that she's written reams on his 
back-history is encouraging; whatever comes out it's unlikely to be 
boring.

The re-assessment of James (for the reader at least), took just two 
pages out of 766 (UK ed.) and wasn't particularly important to  the 
main plot of OoP anyway. The explication of GH, Voldy, Sirius, Snape, 
Pettigrew and all the rest will need a lot more, I think. I expect at 
least a combined total of a quarter of the remaining two books to 
concentrate on what happened when and who did what. I truly believe we 
won't understand what's happening *now* until we know and understand 
what happened *then*. The characters we bash keyboards about are what 
they are, do what they do, for good plot reasons - they are not 
arbitrary constructions.

 >
Nora:
So, go for, Kneasy!  Convince me that a dead character is going to have 
his function completely changed in the story, and the thematic idea he 
represents completely tossed out the window.  Convince me that 
Voldemort's spy wouldn't have or know about the Dark Mark.
  Convince me that JKR has been completely sneakily hiding the TRUTH 
about this character behind her nice words.  God knows he's not perfect 
in any way, shape, or form--but your willful character mutilation goes 
way beyond that. :)
 >

Kneasy:
"Wilful character mutilation" - I like it, though  a trifle emotional, 
I think.

What character am I wilfully mutilating?
The one that has made two attempts at premeditated murder?
The one who sends an unsuspecting student to a werewolf?
The one that breaks limbs?
The one that revels in bullying?
The one named Black? (JKR's predilection for tying surname to
character is pretty pointed.)
Black the hypocrite? (His words re Crouch and Winky cf his own 
treatment of Keacher)
Black the arrogant?

All strictly canon.
If you want to make excuses for him that's your business.
I'll take the one described in canon; and needless to say I take his 
own words and explanations with a large pinch of salt and will continue 
to do so until he's backed by corroborative evidence -  and I haven't 
seen any yet.