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

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 139808

> >>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>

> >>Nora:
> 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. 
> <snip of examples>
> 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.

Betsy Hp:
But you're combining two different things, I think: taking JKR at 
face value and taking Sirius's statements at face value.  And 
frankly, you cannot do both.  Because JKR has given us *examples* of 
Sirius saying one thing, and I believe meaning it quite sincerely 
when he says it, but then turning around and doing something 
completely different.

There's nothing subversive about the contradiction inherent in 
Sirius's comments on the treatment of Winky and then his treatment 
of Kreacher. It's right there in black and white. (I believe JKR 
even speaks about it in an interview somewhere.) Sirius's letter to 
Harry at the beginning of OotP (don't do anything foolish) and his 
fire call conversation later on (do something foolish) is another 
good example of his contradictive nature.

Sirius says he'd have died for Peter.  I believe he meant it at the 
time he said it.  But I also think Sirius rated James as more worthy 
of loyalty than Peter.  If it had come down to a choice, I think 
Sirius would leave Peter to save James.
  
> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Asking anyone to keep a secret is putting them into *some* level 
> > of duress.
> > <snip>

> >>Nora:
> 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. :)  

Betsy Hp:
How?  And more specifically, how is it relevant to Peter being asked 
to get into a situation where it's *his* life on the line.

> >>Nora:
> 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?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
This is where we go back to what we know of their characters (taking 
JKR at face value <g>).  Peter would not be expected to refuse.  
He's not in a position within the friendship, IMO, to refuse James 
or Sirius anything.  Even Lily, as James's wife, is someone Peter 
would not be expected to say no to.  Especially as he's being asked 
to safe-guard James's life (the most noble job ever, per Sirius, I 
would imagine).

Though this is a mere exercise, IMO, because at this point Peter has 
already turned, I believe.  Unless there was another spy out there 
sowing the seeds of distrust amongst the Order members (and the 
Marauders' specifically) who has yet to be revealed.  So Peter had 
another reason for not refusing the job.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > 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.  

> >>Nora:
> Wildly out of character is not the same thing as presenting 
> characters acting differently. 

Betsy Hp:
But that's my point.  You cannot (or should not) have your 
characters acting out of character (or "differently") when they're 
first introduced to the reader.  Otherwise it's a cheat.  I think 
the interaction of the Marauders within in the flashback should be 
taken at... well, at face value.

> >>Nora:
> <snip>
> 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.

Betsy Hp:
Hmmm, I really disagree.  I think it *does* violate the character 
establishment.  It can be done, but the author needs to drop in some 
pretty big clues that "things are not as they seem".  And pre-Snape 
spotting, the boys seem to be well in character, very comfortable in 
their skin and their pecking order.

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

Betsy Hp:
Ooh, I *really* disagree with this one.  In the revelation model I 
think you have to be *incredibly* careful about playing games with 
your readers.  More so than in other genres, actually.  Because the 
shocks *must* be based on foundations you've already put into play.  
Otherwise, you're cheating.  If JKR suddenly reveals that Neville is 
Voldemort's minion I think fans round the world would cry out in 
protest, because it goes completely against Neville's character.  
However, revealing that Neville was nearly the "Chosen One" is okay, 
because as early as PS/SS Neville showed some hidden depths. 

Betsy Hp