Harry's grief for Sirius, bullying, James's detentions (Was:Two Weeks of Posts )

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 156615

Cassy Ferris wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/155921>:
> 
> <<  By the way, I was really amazed how soon Harry recovered from
his loss. merely two weeks passed between the end of Ootp and the
beginning of HBP and he already managed to put Sirius's death behind
him. >>
> 
Catlady responded:
> I think that was totally unrealistic and the author did it only for
plot purposes. <snip>

Carol notes:
Maybe. But I don't think he's forgotten his godfather; he just didn't
have a way of dealing with that particular problem in HBP so he put it
on hold. It seems to me that Harry is stuck in the anger stage of the
grieving process. He didn't want to deal with the guilt he felt for
falling for LV's fake message and, contrary to his stated intentions,
being the one to cause Sirius Black to leave the security of 12
Grimmauld Place, so he displaced the blame onto Snape. Also, of
course, there's no funeral, so he can't really deal with his grief as
he does for Dumbledore and accept his loss.  I think that both, or
rather all three, problems related to Black's death will be resolved
in book 7. Harry will work out his problems with Snape (too
complicated to go into here but we all know what they are) and he'll
somehow get Black's body back from the Veil so he can have a proper
funeral. The combination of these events will, I predict, allow Harry
to move from anger and displaced guilt to acceptance, at the same time
placing the blame squarely where it belongs, on Bellatrix (and
Voldemort). Which is not to say that JKR didn't delay Harry's grief
"for plot purposes," but I think it's more complex than that, and more
in character for Harry than it appears.
> 

> Carol wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156003>:
> 
> << The strong have a duty to protect the weak, or at least a moral
obligation not to use their strength against the defenseless. (snip)
Fred and George should think before they act and not use their
strength against another's weakness whatever the victim may have done
to "deserve" it >>
> 
Catlady responded:
> Harry's strength is that he still loves despite his Dursley
upbringing and Voldemort's weakness is that he cannot love (which I
believe was inborn), and Dumbledore cheers for Harry to use this
strength against that weakness. On the whole, *effectively* using any
strength that the good guys, or even the Ministry, have against any
weakness that Voldemort has in order to vanquish Voldemort is
considered smart tactics rather than unfair advantage. <snip>

Carol again:
I agree that Harry's strength is his ability to love despite his
treatment by the Dursleys. Surely that's one of the main points of the
books. But your sentence on Voldemort doesn't follow from the that
idea. The Dursleys, despite their treatment of Harry are Muggles and
therefore weak in the sense that they're defenseless against magic.
Therefore, it's wrong to use magic against them and right to protect
them, as Harry protected Dudley against the Dementors, setting aside
any personal grievances against his cousin and chivalrously rescuing
him from a fate worse than death. 

The duty of the strong to protect the weak does not apply to
Voldemort, who is a multiple murderer and terrorist who must be
defeated and who is not a defenseless Muggle but a powerful
wizard--though, like Smaug in "The Hobbit," he has a chink in his
armor, which Harry will use to bring him down. The duty to destroy
Voldemort (or to fight the evil principle) does not negate the duty of
the strong to protect the defenseless, even if the defenseless are
bullies themselves.

> Betsy Hp wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156329>:
> 
> << just because we've been told that James and Sirius regularly
hexed people doesn't mean that it's a good thing. The fact that they
were punished so often for doing so is telling, IMO.  >>
> 
Catlady responded:
> Is there canon that ANY of their punishment cards were for hexing
other students? I think I could argue that ALL of them were for being
out after curfew as easily as that all of them were for hexing other
students. <snip>

Carol provides the canon:

"James Potter and Sirius Black. Apprehended for using an illegal hex
upon Bertram Aubrey. Aubrey's head twice normal size. Double
detention" (HBP Am. ed. 532). Unless Aubrey is a teacher, which I
doubt as they'd hadve received worse than a double detention, they
certainly received at least one detention for hexing students, not to
mention Lily's reference to James's habit of hexing students who
annoyed him in the hallways. I'm guessing that the quoted card is
typical of those that Harry had to copy.

Carol, hating to mix topics but needing to answer more than one point
in catlady's post