Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 142428

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at y...> wrote:

> Carol responds:
> My apologies if I sounded heartless. (You know I'm not.) I was just
> trying to state what I perceive to be facts without any attached
> emotion. I wasn't considering depression (of course he was depressed
> staying in 12 GP, and not exactly sane after his stay in Azkaban, 
> but if we're looking at motives, his motive in escaping Azkaban was 
> murder and revenge--not exactly commendable, right?).

PoA, p. 371 (American HB):

"But then I saw Peter in that picture...I realized he was at Hogwarts 
with Harry...perfectly positioned to act, if one hint reached his 
ears that the Dark Side was gathering enough strength again..."

"...ready to strike at the moment he could be sure of allies...and to 
deliver the last Potter to them.  If he gave them Harry, who'd dare 
say he'd betrayed Lord Voldemort?"

That looks like eminently sensible and commendable motive given 
Sirius' utterly unique knowledge of events, methinks.  That's not 
just a blood and revenge motivation there; it's the imperative of a 
man who knows things that no one else does, but also doesn't know who 
(if anyone) can be trusted, being as he's been pretty let down 
(objectively, in terms of sheer fact) by those who he 'should' have 
gone to.


> One choice, one serious misjudgment, limited his future choices and 
> in essence, ruined his life. (The same can be said of Snape's 
> decision to join the Death Eaters. In many respects, they're 
> parallel characters or foils--more on that later.)

If we want to be reductionist in our plotting of events, we can pull 
most things in history back to one pivotal point.  (Alexander doesn't 
die, then Octavian doesn't take over Egypt--to give a specious 
example.)  But it's really quite reductionist, and I think that's 
what people have been objecting to.  There are so many points where 
other influences come into play and tip the scale.  It's like a 
chaotic system that changes along the way, so that many 'initial 
conditions' tip into it. 

Otherwise, we're just reading the story of how things have spun out 
inexorably and unchangably from certain foundational events.  I know 
that it's possible to read everything in the books as this kind of 
straightforward reaction, but I think we're having to chop off a lot 
to do it that way.  IMO, I'd say we're actually being *discouraged* 
from reading the books this way.  This isn't cold hard brutal realist 
determinist literature here.
 
> Carol responds:
> Of course! I never said that he didn't. It's just that, as you said 
> in the portion of your response that I snipped, Snape's motivations 
> are mysterious whereas Black's really aren't. 

Yes--it's so very easy, far easier indeed, to be sympathetic to 
someone who you don't really know about than to someone who you do.

I find it a fascinating process to see how people read and fill in 
the blanks, especially when there's so much of a chance of any and 
all filling in being completely and utterly wrong.  [There's a crow 
buffet ready for all of us in a few years.  Picking the bones out 
first is a good idea.]  It means, at minimum, that we have to be far 
more contingent and diplomatic for the unknowns if we want to be fair.

-Nora ponders the inappropriateness of the word 'certainly' in so 
many posts...