Traitors, friends, loyalty and betrayal (was Evil Hermione) long

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 155169

Nikkalmati wrote:
><snip>  Two 
> virtues appear to be paramount in Potterverse: courage and  loyalty.
 <snip> 
> The books begin with a huge act of betrayal by Pettigrew for the
base  motive of saving his own skin, thus, an act against both courage
and  loyalty.  Sirius is the opposite character in this scenario,
displaying  both courage and loyalty ( he advised Pettigrew he would
have died rather than  betray the Potters and he broke out of Azkaban
when he realized Harry was in  danger, for example). <snip>

Carol responds:
I agree with you about the importance of both loyalty and courage in
the Potterverse, but Sirius Black strikes me as having a rash sort of
courage that doesn't consider consequences to himself or anyone else,
and a fierce but highly restrictive loyalty to a very small group of
intimate friends, combined with indifference or intense dislike of
anyone outside that group. there's no question that he would have died
rather than betray James, but are you sure that he broke out of
Azkaban because Harry was in danger? Surely he knew Peter to be both
lazy and cowardly, never taking action unless he had to, and Harry had
not been harmed by him for the two years he and Scabbers had both been
at Hogwarts. I was under the impression that Black escaped from
Azkaban "to commit the murder [he] was imprisoneed for"--IOW, to
avenge James's murder with a murder of his own. At any rate, I don't
think he's held up by JKR as the epitome of loyalty and courage, a
role model for Harry to emulate whether or not he's the polar opposite
of Pettigrew.

Nikkalmati:
 Someone said <snip> that it would be better for Harry to be his own
man, to say I am loyal to  DD, but I am my own man.  I think that
statement would be contrary to the  themes we see in the books.  The
aim of the good person is not  independence, but honoring one's
connections, working with others, and remaining  faithful. <snip>

> I also believe that it is made obvious which is the good side and
that it truly matters which side one is on. 

Carol:
I agree with you here. We're supposed to admire Harry when he says
that he's "Dumbledore's man through and through" and our understanding
of snape depends almost wholly on "where [his] loyalties lie." But
loyalty to the wrong side (Bellatrix, Barty Jr.) ceases to be
admirable, and "treachery" to the Dark side--abandoning a loyalty that
is wrong in itself--is not evil, even a necessary evil, but good. IOW,
Voldemort is evil; therefore it is not evil but good to betray him,
whether you're Snape or Regulus Black (or Draco Malfoy?).

Nikkalmati:  
  Some acts are inherently evil and  cannot be done in the pursuit of
good.  However, treachery has to be  evaluated in its context. <snip>

Carol:
Possibly "treachery," which IMO has entirely negative connotations, is
the wrong word here. I would go with "betrayal," I think. But even
that seems like the wrong word for what Dobby or Snape or Regulus
Black does, since their actions (assuming DDM!Snape) involve seeing
the light and serving the side of good "at great personal risk." If
you're on the other side, their actions are treacherous, but if you're
on Harry's side (and fully understand their actions, as Harry doesn't
yet, even in Dobby's case), their actions are heroic. If I may be
forgiven for using an American example, to the colonists, Nathan Hale
was a hero and Benedict Arnold a traitor. The British no doubt held
the opposite view.

BTW, I had a bit of trouble spotting the attribution for the quotes in
this post, and I hope that Nikkalmati won't mind my suggesting that
she leave a space between her post and the one she's responding to.

Carol, wondering if the Nazis regarded Quisling as a hero