Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty)

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 139757

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:

>> Nora:
>> As JKR disagrees with you, I'm going to take her exegesis on the 
>> character over yours. :)
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> As I'm basing my exegesis on JKR's presentation of the character, 
> I'll just say, she's deep that one, and stick to my guns. <g>

So, here's a tangent for you.

Let me repeat the comments: "I think the question really is do you, 
as readers, believe that Sirius would have died? Because Sirius is 
saying that...Right, well, that's what I believed."

In other words, JKR is saying that Sirius is utterly sincere in this 
situation, and his declaration is pretty much to be taken at face 
value.  

This seems to me to be, to the chagrin of some, a tendency that's 
increasing in strength through the series.  For entertainment's sake, 
let's pull out another one which struck me very strongly:

"...because the plan was, which I really hope I fulfilled, is that 
the reader, like Harry, would gradually discover Ginny as pretty much 
the ideal girl for Harry. She's tough, not in an unpleasant way, but 
she's gutsy. He needs to be with someone who can stand the demands of 
being with Harry Potter, because he's a scary boyfriend in a lot of 
ways. He's a marked man. I think she's funny, and I think that she's 
very warm and compassionate. These are all things that Harry requires 
in his ideal woman."

So, it's also obvious that JKR thinks, absolutely unproblematically, 
that Ginny is *the* perfect girl for Harry, end stop no doubts no 
questions asked.  This is, to put it mildly, an issue that some 
readers have had issues with.  Is there more 'depth' to be read into 
Harry's attraction to Ginny?

I can think of other things.  Dumbledore's assertions about Harry: 
his heart saved him and not his mind, Harry has a fundamentally pure 
heart.  Enough potential treacle to make us look for a hankie, but 
all also intended in utter sincerity.

I'd offer the proposal that there are many things in the series which 
JKR as the author *intends* to be taken at their face value, and 
accepted by the reader.  Correspondingly, this means that the 
subversive readings (which do not accept these things) are highly 
unlikely to receive any validation or confirmation in canon.  Of 
course, nothing can stop the determined theorist.

I'd love to hear what things y'all might put in this category.

To pick back up...

> Betsy Hp:
> Asking anyone to keep a secret is putting them into *some* level of 
> duress.  And this is a really big secret.  One Sirius worried the 
> Death Eaters would kill for.  Hence the shell game.  So yes, Peter 
> *was* asked to put his life on the line.  Though I will back up and 
> say that I do think Sirius felt himself willing to die to 
> protect "Peter the Secret Keeper".  But ultimately, it was all in 
> service to James (and James's wife and James's child).

I see you've cut out the whole issue of Order Member in addition to 
personal friend, but I still think it's relevant on some level. :)  
Or, let's throw out more hypothetics.  If Peter had refused, would he 
have been pressed hard--assuming that Lily is in on this too?  Peter 
of Good Faith could have gone to Dumbledore and spilled what they 
were asking--breaking the bonds of friendship and secrecy, but he 
ends up doing that anyways.  No, Peter volunteers--and sells them 
out.  The why is the interesting thing here, of course.  Was Peter 
torn and conflicted about this?  No good canon either way.

[And argument from absence is dangerous, too.  Nothing to say that 
Remus and Sirius didn't talk about the will and Remus, in his typical 
way, refused to be a beneficiary.  It's just as good of an argument 
as yours.]

> Betsy Hp:
> Post-Snape spotting things do get furiously muddled, I agree.  And 
> yes, to assume, based on one scene, that Snape was *always* the 
> victim and James and Sirius *always* the nasty bullies, *is* 
> dangerous.  But I seriously doubt the characters change to too 
> drastic a degree.  Within a fictional world, where character 
> exposure is limited, it's unwise for the author to have her 
> characters act wildly out of character the first time she 
> introduces them to her readers.  It's not a mistake JKR makes, that 
> I've seen.

Wildly out of character is not the same thing as presenting 
characters acting differently.  For instance, I didn't think that 
Hermione was OOC in HBP, although many people did.  She was, however, 
certainly not acting completely the same as she was in book 5.  
Correspondingly, I think the snapshot is still exceedingly dangerous 
to extrapolate from.  Also, given the method of presentation of the 
material--flashback--it's really quite easy to introduce a 
contrasting situation, and then leave it to the reader to try to 
reconcile both.  I don't consider that violating the grounds of 
character establishment.

-Nora notes that you can do all sorts of things when you're working 
on a revelation model of storytelling...shocking sorts of things