All about Lupin (warning: rant)

[Renee]

No: HPFGUIDX 122420


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Renee:
> > Alternatively, Harry wasn't forgetful and they did get to that 
> > point, only we're not being told. There was no way Jo could 
> have  done so without giving away what form Harry's Patronus 
> took.<
> 
> Pippin:
> Huh?  There's no way Lupin could have continued the lessons to 
> that point without Harry knowing what form his patronus took. 
> And he doesn't know:
> 
> He screwed up his eyes, trying to see what it was. I looked like a 
> horse.[...]It wasn't a horse. It wasn't a unicorn, either. It was 
a 
> stag. --PoA ch 21

> Somehow refuting ESE!Lupin theories always seems to require  
> the creation of new and gigantic plot holes. <g>

Renee:
Okay, I forgot about this quote, I'll grant you that. Apparently my 
memory's not as good as I thought it was :( 
In that case, this simply means there were no more lessons because 
the plot required that neither Harry nor the readers knew in advance 
what form Harry's Patronus took. So it seems to me that without a 
alternative showing what Lupin ought to have done instead, this 
can't be used to support the ESE!theory; without a choice, Lupin 
couln't have done the right thing, now could he?    

Pippin: 
> We can also conclude that Dumbledore accepted Lupin's 
> resignation. There must have been more to that than the 
> prospect of letters from angry parents. As Dumbledore says in 
> GoF: "Not a week has passed since I became Headmaster of 
> this school, when I haven't received at least one owl complaining 
> about the way I run it.[...]I refuse to accept your resignation, 
> Hagrid, and I expect you back at work on Monday," --GoF ch 24

Renee:
Of course DD accepted Lupin's resignation. Lupin's transgressions in 
PoA are worse than Hagrid's have been until now (and will be in the 
future, I bet). Lupin endangered the lives of three students and 
failed to tell Dumbledore Sirius was an Animagus. DD was right not 
to make light of this, and you won't hear me say Lupin didn't 
deserve to lose his job. He got his comeuppance and has to live with 
the consequences.

And no, I don't think DD was daunted by the prospect of letters from 
angry parents, and I agree there was more to it. What I think is, 
that Lupin was daunted by the prospect of getting any more Ron-like 
reactions from students who liked him well enough when they didn't 
know he was a werewolf. It's apparent that Ron's reaction - and Ron 
often represents the reaction of the average wizard - hurt Lupin. I 
can't blame him for not wanting to expose himself to any more of 
such reactions, and DD knows they'd be inevitable if Lupin stayed. 
And as it doesn't work very well to fight prejudice with decrees and 
rules, he also knows Lupin would become totally ineffective as a 
teacher when faced with the students of Slytherin House (and 
contrary to popular opinion I don't think DD has given up on the 
Slytherins). So if he wants a functional teacher for one of the most 
important subjects on the Hogwarts curriculum, Lupin can't stay.   

Pippin:        
> Given Dumbledore's passion for second chances, did Lupin not 
> get a second chance because he confessed everything?  or 
> because he didn't?  I agree, it would be stupid for Lupin not to 
> confess if he  believed that by doing so he could win 
> Dumbledore's forgiveness. But ESE!Lupin's great tragedy is that 
> he doesn't believe this at all. 

Renee:
If you believe Dumbledore gave Snape a second chance because he 
repented, you have to believe this of Lupin, too. Giving second 
chances to people who don't show any awareness of the fact they're 
getting one, are meaningless. Without a confession or at least an an 
admission from Lupin that he saw the error of his ways, DD would be 
a mindless idiot to give him a second chance, and DD is much, but 
not a mindless idiot. 

And for Lupin, even if he didn't believe in DD's forgiveness, it 
would still be stupid not to pretend he was sorry, just in case it 
might work. You've got a no, you might get a yes, as we say where I 
come from. So if he didn't confess, we'd have two stupid characters. 
Maybe attempts to refute the ESE!Lupin theory can lead to the 
creation of plotholes, but the theory as such seems to lend it self 
to the dumbing down of the characters involved. :)   

 
> Of course Lupin was admitted to the Order, but again, we don't 
> know how much Dumbledore trusts him. Dumbledore did not 
> decide which Order members would go to the MoM. 

Renee:
Again, DD would be an idiot to allow someone in the order who is 
obviously clever, has shown himself capable to go behind DD's back 
but who has never expressed any kind of remorse. Last time there was 
a black hat in the order DD didn't know his identity (and I do hope 
he takes the probability into account that something similar may 
happen again). But precisely because he has to allow for unforeseen 
circumstances he can't take the risk of allowing an unrepentant, 
suspicious character in his ranks. Or not without at least informing 
someone else who has the authority to take decisions when he isn't 
there. And who might that be?     
 
> Pippin:
> Whew! It's true I do underplay Lupin's good impulses in my 
> posts. After all there are plenty of fans to post about how 
> wonderful he is. At one point  I did posit that he was some kind 
of 
> psychopath. I agree that would be redundant. Voldemort tells us 
> all we need to know about that kind of evil. 
> 
> But if only psychopaths had evil intent, there'd be a lot less of 
it. 
> There is another kind of evil that is done by people who realize, 
> in their better moments, that  they  have given in to the darker 
part 
> of their own natures but can't find the courage to change. 

Renee:
I don't see much difference between your ESE!Lupin and a psychopath. 
Could anyone commit the impressive number of murders and other 
atrocities, starting at the age of 16 - hating himself for what he's 
done, as you imply - and be the kind and caring person we see in the 
books? Harry can't properly use a Crucio because there isn't enough 
hatred in his heart. Likewise, I can't see Lupin repeatedly using AK 
or knowingly (= under the influence of Wolfsbane) tearing up someone 
without killing his own conscience and his heart, not the way JKR 
deals with these things. And the Lupin I see in the books has both a 
conscience and a heart. This is not the morally depraved person he 
would be if he'd done everything you accuse him of. 

Pippin:
 
> These people have no  evil ambitions on a grand scale to begin 
> with, but when their moral cowardice is married to the evil 
> ambitions of  a Voldemort, watch out! The point is made for 
> Voldemort that he is nothing, mere shadow, without his  
> followers. It takes a Riddle to conceive of carrying out Salazar's 
> noble plan. But it only takes a Ginny, too frightened of the 
> consequences to ask for help, to do the dirty work.

> The way I read the books, Snape is someone who found his
> courage, who came back to the light knowing he would always 
> be seen as a deeply horrible person (and so he is, though 
> he may be improving), but was willing to bear that, rather than 
> see all that he still loved and cared for submitted to Voldemort.
> 
> ESE!Lupin, meanwhile, is being sucked further and further into 
> Voldemort's designs, and unless he can find the courage to 
> escape, he is doomed to destroy everything he still loves.  
> Though you see  all the  crimes I've ascribed to Lupin as equally 
> atrocious I see them as progressively more  repugnant, starting 
> with mere rule-breaking, proceeding step by step to  the murder 
> of his friend Sirius, and ending hypothetically  with the 
attempted 
> destruction of Harry, the savior of his world. 

Renee:
Addressing the last thing first, and using the list you approved - 
you see betraying a baby to Voldemort so he kan kill him as less 
repugnant than framing Sirius? Killing a dozen Muggles as less 
repugnant than being ready to kill Peter? Having the Lestranges 
torture the Longbottoms into insanity as less repugnant than turning 
someone else into a werewolf? If that's the case, I don't think I 
can follow you. (I also wonder what you mean by Salazar's "noble 
plan" but that's a different discussion.)

What I don't understand either, is why you take a form of moral 
cowardice that is clearly related to the fear of losing your friends 
and the good opinion of your employer and then proceed to turn it 
into a general breeding ground for the evil influence of someone who 
wants all these people dead. No kind of behaviour or attitude is 
unrelated to the situation in which it occurs. Was Lupin afraid to 
lose Voldemort's friendship or his good opinion? 

And the Snape analogy doesn't work here, because we know for certain 
Snape was a Death Eater once, whereas ESE!Lupin is just a theory, 
even though you present it as canon.       

Pippin:
> I don't think this will contradict anything Jo has to say about 
love.
> Love is necessary, without it we'd all be Voldemorts. But no 
> matter how much you love someone,  you can't make him 
> choose to be good.That,  I think , is the message behind Jo's 
> warnings to the Snape and Draco worshippers, the lesson that it 
> took her thirty-five years to learn.

Renee:
I wasn't talking about the kind of love that makes blind, also known 
as infatuation, but about the love commonly called charity in a 
Christian context. And yes, I do think that JKR's message is that 
true charity will greatly enhance what goodness there is in people, 
and lack of it will diminish their chances of turning away from 
evil, with Tom Riddle and young Snape as the prime examples.