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

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 139926

> Pippin:
> But they were only shown mercy, not trust. I'm asking
> how Dumbledore's belief that someone on their second
> chance can be *trusted* is to be validated if Snape
> failed his trust.
>

Neri:
Well, you have pointed out yourself that Lupin was awarded that kind
of trust. So either we will have ESE!Lupin and Innocent!Snape, or we 
will have Loyal!Lupin and Guilty!Snape. Whichever of these happens 
we are assured that at least one character would justify trust
awarded as a second chance, and thus Dumbledore's epitomness is 
guaranteed.

Neri

Nora:
I hadn't thought of it in those logical terms, but I do believe that 
Neri is right. :)

We've been arguing about how implausible it is that Dumbledore be 
fooled, but if we hew to Pippin's ESE!Lupin theory (which she has 
supported without break or failing heart), Lupin has gotten one over
on Dumbledore--and has, indeed, been doing it for *years*. With real 
style, too, to evade suspicion and be granted as much forgiveness and 
acceptance as the Order has offered him.

In this scenario, Dumbledore has given Lupin repeated chances to
prove himself trustworthy--all of which Lupin has betrayed, but 
Dumbledore just keeps giving Lupin more chances. Does that make 
Dumbledore an idiot, or Lupin into the uber-smooth spy of the 
century?

I suppose that it's BANG-ier than having Snape, who's worked much
more closely with Dumbledore, be the betraying character. But it
still makes Dumbledore into the fallible figure that ESE/OFH!Snape 
does, which means that very same thematic objection can also be 
applied to  the ESE!Lupin theory.

Pippin:
I must say this sudden outbreak of enthusiasm for ESE!Lupin 
is gratifying.<g>

However the  situation is not the same. First of all, there
is no evidence that Lupin remained in close contact with 
Dumbledore during his missing years, in fact those missing 
years are one big fat evil Lupin clue.

Second, let's break down the  'second chances' thing. 
Dumbledore gives people who mess up  a second chance, 
but does not assume they are worthy of trust. 
That is for those who express genuine remorse and turn 
over a new leaf, as Dumbledore hoped Riddle would do.

Now, unless I missed something ESE!Lupin hasn't confessed
as yet to any of his real crimes, so he hasn't expressed genuine
remorse. He hasn't shown much capacity for turning over new
leaves, either. Dumbledore's principles are not tested by
this example, because Lupin never gave him a chance to 
apply them.

Thirdly, of course in either scenario Dumbledore is fallible. 
But Nora argued herself that we are to take his major ethical 
pronouncements at face value. If so, he should be fallible
because he fails to apply them, not  because the principles 
themselves are faulty.  And Dumbledore shouldn't be failing to 
apply them in glaringly obvious ways. Though all of Jo's 
mathematical errors do not for one moment threaten the 
laws of arithmetic, all the same I don't think I'd trust a 
maths textbook with her name on it.

Dumbledore can make a mistake or two, just as textbooks do. 
But however huge they are once their consequences have 
multiplied, they should not be so obvious in the beginning
that a  gormless teenager could spot them in embryo. 

What we don't know, of course, is how Dumbledore determined
that Snape's remorse was genuine, or  whether he ever 
treated Lupin's breach of trust in not informing him about Sirius 
with  the, er, seriousness that it deserved.

Pippin