ESE!Lupin condensed and Lupin and Sirius replies

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 147127

> Pippin:
> The identity of Wormtail *is* an "official" mystery, at least until 
> Lupin says, "Peter is Wormtail." At that point it seems solved -- 
> but what if it isn't?

Neri:
Who were Moony, Padfoot and Prongs were also official mysteries at the
time, but they were officially closed together with Wormtail. Of
course, this doesn't mean that Wormtail (or Moony, or Padfoot, or
Prongs) can't turn out to be somebody else now. It is just that when a
theory designed to be a big Bang at the climax of the whole series
doesn't solve even *one* big official mystery, this is when I start
wondering if it's even going in the right direction.

Pippin:
But you take it for granted that JKR isn't going to spring a
big "unofficial" mystery on us again, and I don't. Because the
first thing she'd have to do, if she wanted to fool us *again*,
is convince us that there's nothing up her sleeve. It's been
a straightforward fantasy adventure/bildungsroman from OOP
on. Right. And I'm the Easter Bunny.:-)

OOP has the "official"  mystery of who hexed Podmore, with
no "official" solution, just Hermione's guess that Lucius might
have done it. Tied to this is the "official" mystery of what
caused Harry's scar to hurt when Umbridge touched him and
other surges of scar pain which seem to be connected with the Podmore matter except 
that none of the characters make the connection. That's odd,
unless the solution isn't what Hermione thinks it is.
 

> Pippin:
> There are mysteries for which we are given provisional solutions
> which in later books turn out to be incomplete...why Dumbledore left 
> Harry at the Dursleys, for example, or why Snape hates the Marauders. 
> There is usually some hint that they are partial, as there is in
this case.

Neri:
Incomplete yes, but I can't remember an official solution that was
later turned 180 degrees. 

Pippin:
You mean besides Snape being responsible for the hexing, or
Sirius being a traitor?  We had no reason to doubt either of 
those when they were first put to us.

Neri:

Regarding Snape knowing the Marauders' nicknames, I'm personally sure
he knows it from the pensieve. He didn't hear it the first time
around, of course, but he probably visited this memory again, and I'm
sure he wouldn't resist a chance to spy on the Marauders, even 20
years after the fact. If Harry could hear the Marauders' conversation
in the pensieve, then so could Snape. In fact, I always thought that
the pensieve scene was written, in a small part, to answer the
question of where Snape had learned the Marauders' nicknames.

Pippin:
But Snape acts like he doesn't know for sure that the
map is connected with the Marauders,and he *would* know if
he'd had access to a pensieve at that time. He'd have
known  about running around with a werewolf every month
too.


> Pippin: 
> Wormtail's inconsistent ability *is* an "official" mystery: 
> "But Wormtail --displaying a presence of mind I would never have
> expected of him--convinced Bertha Jorkins to accompany him on
> a night-time stroll." --GoF ch 33. 
> 

Neri:
Hmm, I'd say this is even more borderline than Hagrid's support of
Snape in SS/PS. If there's a mystery here at all, it could very well
be presented as "why had people underestimated Wormtail?" Or it could
be taken as the official closing of a mystery: "Wormtail *was*
underestimated". Especially since at that point we have good reason to
believe Wormtail had deceived the whole WW to think he's dead for 12
years, successfully lies to Voldy and has the guts to cut his own hand. 

Pippin:
The  "official" mystery, put by Sirius, is "I'll never understand why 
I didn't see you were the spy from the start." He continues to call
Wormtail a "weak, talentless thing" who supposedly turned to Voldemort
for protection, while simultaneously thinking Peter was capable of
killing or kidnapping Harry under Dumbledore's nose if he heard 
Voldemort was getting strong again. 

Voldemort goes right on calling Wormtail a poor wizard, despite
all the wonderful things Pettigrew's supposedly done for him, and
we see Peter being weak again in HPB. So I'd say the question of
how Wormtail could have done all that stuff is more open than
ever. Snape certainly shows a dangerous contempt for a wizard who's
supposed to have killed twelve people with a wand held behind his
back, even if they were Muggles, a wizard he must know has 
successfully lied to Voldemort, if your theory is correct. Or doesn't 
Snape know about the life debt either?

Neri:

I'd say the question "Who killed the unicorns in SS/PS?" is an
officially solved mystery. Quirrellmort killed them.

Pippin:
How can it be officially solved when Quirrell never confessed
to killing them? 

I'm not sure we agree on what an "official" solution is. I'd
say it's one where the culprit confesses and is removed from
any possibility of recanting. The confessions of  Lockhart, 
Quirrell and Barty Jr are final, IMO. Voldemort, Pettigrew, Lupin,
Umbridge and Snape no doubt have more to tell us, some of which
is likely to contradict what we've already heard, as none of them
are particularly noted for their honesty.


Neri:
I don't think Voldemort is so blind that he can't *recognize* love and
gratitude, even if he doesn't feel them himself. Here are some of
Dumbledore's words about Voldemort:
<snip quotes>

But assuming for a moment you are right, are you saying ESE!Lupin
didn't tell Voldemort about Wormtail's Debt, and didn't explain him
the significance of it?

Pippin:
I'm saying Voldemort knows about Wormtail's debt, but discounts
its significance  as the kind of "ancient magic of which he knows,
which he despises, and which he has always, therefore, underestimated
-- to his cost" OOP ch 37. 

Voldemort knows that brave wizards who defy him, like Harry or 
Dumbledore, will put themselves in danger in order to rescue 
someone they care about. He can't imagine a weak, cowardly 
wizard doing that. As long as Wormtail remains genuinely 
frightened of him, Voldemort will think he's safe, debt or no debt. 
That Wormtail could unexpectedly act with the courage to 
which, as a Gryffindor, he must have once aspired, is not a 
thought that troubles Voldemort deeply, though he does need to
reassure himself that Peter remains afraid. That the debt itself
could give Pettigrew the strength to act does not enter LV's darkest
dream. IMHO, of course.


> Pippin:
> Whether Dumbledore was reckless in trusting Snape is also an
> "official" mystery. At least automatically assuming Lupin was 
> worthy of trust is a far more understandable mistake.
> 

Neri:
I agree this is an official mystery since Snape, McGonagall and Harry
raise the question, but I'm not sure I understand your point here. Are
you saying that Dumbledore recklessly trusting ESE!Lupin explains him
recklessly trusting Snape, or what?

Pippin:
I'm saying I accept Dumbledore's reckless trust as his weakness.
But I'm not sure that it was Snape he recklessly trusted, and trusting
Lupin recklessly is a much more understandable mistake.  Lupin
is so personable and seemingly so anxious to please that suspecting 
him would feel  like kicking a puppy, and the rap against werewolves 
as untrustworthy would make it seem horribly insensitive to boot. 

But Lupin has, by his own admission, twice taken advantage
of Dumbledore's trust.  

> Pippin:
> That's a stretch, IMO. Why not have Lupin suggest taking 
the other children  back to the castle? Surely Ron and Hermione 
don't need to see Pettigrew die? 

Neri:
It would mess with the next parts of the plot, and it would show
disloyalty to Sirius, letting him shouldering the blame alone.

Pippin:
Friends don't let friends murder alone?  I'm afraid I
don't share your respect for a man who wants to execute 
a traitor in front of three young teens.
Seeing death is a life-changing experience for a wizard. 
I ask again what need was there to involve Ron and Hermione 
in an execution? Oh, the plot fairy made him do it! <g>

Personally, I prefer a character who doesn't give a damn to
an author who doesn't, but I guess that's a matter of taste.:)

Neri:
I think Lupin's forgetfulness is easily explained by the DADA jinx. 

Pippin:
I don't think so.  It seems to work like
the opposite of felix felicis, causing people to make foolish
decisions confidently. It was foolish of Quirrellmort to
touch Harry, foolish of Lockhart to try to obliviate someone
with a broken wand, foolish of Fake!Moody to try to kill
Harry under Dumbledore's nose, and foolish of Umbridge 
to insult the centaurs. Needless to say it was foolish of 
Snape to rush to the tower. 

So I would expect a foolish decision from Lupin, such as 
deciding to leave a trail for Snape out to the Shack, not
some kind of selective amnesia. 


> Pippin:
> It's a strange thing. My theory is unashamedly plot-driven, yet
> it allows the characters to behave in character-driven ways, while your
> theory, which is supposedly character-driven, appears to require
> clumsy plotting to support it.
> 

Neri:
Not by my count. By my count, Goodguy!Lupin acts OOC hardly once
during the whole night when Hermione does also.

Pippin:
Except that you have to blame all that forgetting on the DADA
curse. Except when he speaks with "a steely note in his 
voice Harry had never heard before." Except when he has
the presence of mind to remember to pick up Harry's I-cloak,
when he's supposedly so scattered he can't even remember
he's a werewolf. And it's not OOC for Hermione, because
when the arena shifts from words to action, she's still at this
point got a tendency to freeze rather than fight.

I admit I haven't been consistent about Lupin's motives. I'm
not trying to argue the case like a lawyer, picking the most
convincing story and discarding everything that doesn't fit.
It's more like I'm trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle with the
picture on the cover hidden and some of the pieces still in the box. 
I'm trying to guess what the hidden parts of the puzzle show.

JKR usually doesn't tell us too much about the subvillains'
motives until they have their big Idunnit and here's why
scene. Quirrell was power mad? Riddle was Voldemort? 
Who knew?


What  I can tell for sure at this point is that wavering *is*
Lupin's character. That's canon. He wavered about whether
to continue the animagi outings, and he wavered as an adult
over whether to tell Dumbledore about Sirius, and then
about whether to pursue his interest in Tonks. So I don't
think it would be out of character for him to waver a bit in
the Shrieking Shack.

I grinned when the website told us when his birthday was. 
He's a Pisces, the sign of two fish swimming in opposite 
directions. Pisces supposedly find it difficult
to make up their minds. 


We also know that Lupin wants everyone to like him,  
everyone he respects, at least. He doesn't seem to care 
if Slytherins or Ministry officials like him or not. But it's 
hard, isn't it, not to respect people who're fighting 
for your freedom, even if they're doing terrible things? 

He's got to be tempted by what Voldemort has to
offer, no matter how hard it would be to make
Voldemort keep his end of the bargain. 

"If they're offered freedoms we've been denying
them for centuries, they're going to be tempted."
Those are Lupin's words, explaining why the Goblins,
even though they know what Voldemort is capable of,
might listen to him and help him.

Saying 'no' to temptation is not something Lupin's 
ever been good at.



> Pippin:
> It really doesn't matter what style or genre she's writing in.
> Unless you can explain why it improves the story for JKR to
> ignore the interior logic of the rules she herself has invented
> in a crucial scene involving the principal characters, it's bad 
> writing for her to do so.
>

Neri:
I'm not sure what you mean here by interior logic and rules. 

Pippin:
JKR established that AK leaves no mark, and had Dumbledore 
repeat it in HBP, just to make sure we didn't forget it. She points out
(deviously) that blood usually dries quickly, both in the episode with
Harry's face, and by letting us know that dragon blood *doesn't*
dry quickly. Horace magicks it off the walls and pronounces it 
still usable.

After all that finicky detail, there's poor Dumbledore, supposedly
lying dead for all that time, supposedly AK'd, with a trickle of blood on his
face that Harry easily wipes away. If it's not important, it contradicts 
the logic of reminding us  about the rules for AK  and the logic of how blood 
is treated in the story, otherwise  a matter of some 
significance. It might work in an absurdist or dreamlike fantasy,
but the atmosphere of the books has become steadily more realistic.

To say that it's now a bildungsroman so the mysteries don't matter
anymore (I think that's Olivier's argument) is a bit of a puzzlement.
Boys of sixteen or seventeen aren't expected to have much of a
handle on life. But it's very common for them to think they do.


Pippin