Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP

Tue Nov 1 15:14:23 UTC 2005

No: HPFGUIDX 142378

Lucianam:
> Yes I know JKR was once a single parent herself, and I know there's 
> a link to the One Parents Families Charity in her website. Well, 
> that's her personal life, not her writing. It doesn't change the 
> fact that she chose to write Harry's legitimate guardian, a single 
> man appointed by his own mother and father, as a slighty deranged, 
> reckless, moody, tragic man, smelling of booze and `a case of 
> arrested development' too. 
> 
> Those characteristics make Sirius clearly unfit as a substitute 
> parent, and they are stressed by Molly's attacks and Hermione's 
> agreement with Molly. I find such a negative portrait of a potential 
> alternative family – Harry and Sirius –  in opposition to the 
> perfect family, the Weasleys, to be very unrealistic.  I don't think 
> it was a `bad' thing to do, ethically, but I expected better. Not 
> because of JKR's personal life, but because we're in the XXIst 
> century.

Pippin:
Sirius isn't shown as having those characteristics because he's
single. The Weasleys in OOP are far from an ideal family either --
Molly is so distraught she can't manage even a third year spell, one
of their children has become completely estranged, two others
drop out of school, and Harry feels smothered by Molly's efforts
to make him feel loved and protected.

Maybe Sirius and Harry wouldn't have done very well in a nuclear
family situation, but that's not JKR saying that  single parents 
are no good. Besides Neville, who's already been mentioned, 
there's Hagrid, raised by his father from the age of three.

The deaths of Lily and James remind us that even happy, two-
parent families don't always remain so.

Lucianam: 
> On to more OotP disagreement. 
> 
> Why was it okay to leave Sirius to his own devices, if it was clear 
> even to Harry (a child) that he was depressed?

Pippin:
Sirius wasn't depressed all the time. Harry  has a tendency to disregard 
any evidence that doesn't fit the model in his mind. He draws a straight line
between Sirius's sullen mood in August and his dissolute 
appearance at Christmastime, just as he draws a straight line
between Sirius and Snape's fight at Christmas and Sirius's decision
to go to the MoM. In both cases he's ignoring the floo conferences 
which happen in between and showed Sirius functioning pretty well.

Though Sirius is understandably upset that Snape has stopped
the occlumency lessons, he says he isn't proud
of the way he treated Snape as a kid. That doesn't sound like someone
who is still burned up over their last encounter.

It strikes me that Sirius was always moody even before Azkaban.
In the pensieve scene he's down about having nothing to do as well.
It could be that Dumbledore and Lupin were used to these sort of
mood changes, expected Sirius to rebound, and didn't see them as 
something Sirius needed help with.

I think Sirius was like Harry in that his emotions were very close to the 
surface. That may be 'arrested development' but I think
 this is why Harry liked him so well. They could
relate without the layer of pretence that most adults put between
themselves and children in the name of sheltering them from the
darker side of life and setting a good example. 

 I'd bet Sirius wouldn't be very good at occlumency either.

There may be more to Sirius's problems at Christmas than we
think at the moment. Like Tonks in HBP, Sirius is upset  while
Lupin is absent and there has been a werewolf attack.

I'm pretty sure we haven't got the whole reason why Sirius had
to stay in the house. Alla asked what changed between GoF and
OOP. The obvious answer is that the Death Eaters were reactivated
and Snape went back to Voldemort. Regardless of which side Snape
was really on, he had to convey some genuine information to both
sides. Dumbledore and Snape act as if they know Sirius has been 
specifically targeted -- and maybe they do. 

Lucianam:
> Now, HBP. It got a little worse.
> 
> `But while I was at the Dursleys',' interrupted Harry, his voice 
> growing stronger, `I realised I can't shut myself away or _ or crack 
> up. Sirius wouldn't have wanted that, would he? And anyway, life's 
> too short 
 look at Madam Bones, look at Emmeline Vance 
 it could 
> be me next, couldn't it? But if it is,' he said fiercely, now 
> looking straight into Dumbledore's blue eyes, gleaming in the wand-
> light, `I'll make sure I take as many Death Eaters with me as I can, 
> and Voldemort too if I can manage it.'
> 
> `Spoken both like your mother and father's son and Sirius's true 
> godson!' said Dumbledore,  with an approving pat on Harry's back. `I 
> take my hat off to you _ or I would, if I were not afraid of 
> showering you in spiders.
> (from Chapter 2, `Horace Slughorn')
> 
> That sent shivers down my spine. In two very small paragraphs, in 
> short sentences coming out of the mouths of the biggest heros in the 
> series, JKR demolishes centuries of religious, ethical and moral 
> debate. Yes, children, it's allright to kill Death Eaters. As many 
> as you can!  

Pippin:
When I was a child I was given Samson in the temple as a moral
example, so while this may be  controversial, it's hardly
anything new. Nor did I get the impression my teachers were 
trying to tell me that indiscriminate killing was okay.  

The context for Harry's remarks is the attacks on 
Emmeline Vance and Amelia Bones. Harry is talking about what he 
would do if he was trapped by a death squad and about to be 
executed, not what he would do if he had the upper hand and the 
Death Eaters were at his mercy. This difference is emphasized in  
the tower scene, where despite appearances, Dumbledore doesn't 
regard himself as at the mercy of the DE's. Not only doesn't he try to 
take them with him,   he freezes Harry to keep him from doing so.

Lucianam:
> `I see,' said Dumbledore eventually, peering at Harry over the top 
> of his half-moon spectacles and giving Harry the usual sensation 
> that he was being X-rated. `And you feel that you have exerted your 
> very best efforts in this matter, do you? That you have exercised 
> all of your considerable ingenuity? That you have left no depth of 
> cunning umplumbed in your quest to retrieve the memory?'
> 
> When was the last time I read about, or watched a movie about a wise 
> and righteous mentor telling his young apprentice to leave `no depth 
> of cunning umplumbed' to get something?  I can't remember! Yoda and 
> Obi Wan-Kenobi never told Luke anything even remotely similar.

Pippin:
Unlike Lucas, Rowling wants us to trust Harry's moral judgement. 
Dumbledore certainly does. He doesn't need to insult Harry by telling him 
not to do anything Dumbledore wouldn't do (and Dumbledore's cunning 
is considerable.) He believes that Harry wouldn't and in any case, he's 
already told Harry that force or coercion would be 
counterproductive.

It wasn't his moral scruples that were keeping Harry from trying to get 
the memory, it was that he was devoting his considerable ingenuity 
and depth of cunning to spying on Draco instead, something that
Dumbledore had good reason to fear would lead to disaster for both
of them. 

Pippin