[HPforGrownups] Re: Nitwit? - Remus John Lupin

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 168104

> Alla:
>
> Well, I was arguing and still am against the argument that since
> Remus already betrayed Dumbledore's trust once, he can do it again,
> and that is why the quotes that JKR likes him and wants him to teach
> his daughter make no sense as support for Lupin being, should I say
> DD!M? I guess it would be appropriate here.

Magpie:
I agree--the fact that Remus betrayed a trust once (twice if you count his 
running with the Animagi in the past, but then the two are sort of connected 
together anyway) doesn't mean he'd betray it again. Perhaps it could even 
weigh against the idea, because Remus did what he did under very specific 
conditions. If those conditions aren't present again, there's no reason to 
think he'd betray anyone again. Pippin has considered possibilities where he 
would have the same situation arise again, so it's not like she doesn't know 
about those conditions. We just don't know yet that Lupin is in the same 
bind as he was back then.

Alla:
> So, yes, I am saying that Lupin concealing Sirius being an animagi
> does not equal betraying Dumbledore's trust as canonical fact.
> Interpretaion? Sure, I can see that. Fact? No, sorry, I do not see
> it.
>
> I mean, twelve years passed and Remus believes Sirius the moment he
> saw Peter on the map. So, yes, I do think it was possible, totally
> that he believed deep inside in Sirius innocence. No convincing was
> needed from Sirius that he is innocent, at all, to me it means
> something.

Magpie:
I don't see how the two things have to relate at all. Once he saw Peter on 
the map he had the facts to back him up. Sirius didn't kill Peter, which 
meant all that everyone knew could be wrong. There's no reason, imo, to 
think that Remus ever *wanted* Sirius to be guilty, even back then. He's not 
resistant to the facts the way Snape is, for instance. But I don't see how 
that means we can add different motivations to the story than are ever 
introduced by anyone else. I  think we can think of Remus as wanting Sirius 
to be innocent and maybe not wanting to turn him in. But it doesn't seem 
like Remus is *actively* working against Dumbledore in PoA, as he would be 
if he thought Sirius was innocent. He's just passively not giving 
information. I don't see why he'd have any reason to lie to Dumbledore and 
Sirius about that motivation and instead make one up about not wanting to 
out himself.

Alla:
> So, if you are for example saying that Remus concealing Sirius being
> animagi led to Ron and Fat Lady being hurt, sure, I will grant you
> that. But I am not buying the generalisation of Remus not telling
> the secret equals willingly putting hundreds of lives at risk.
>
> There is also IMO very important moment why I am not buying that
> Dumbledore's trust had been betrayed. It is because Dumbledore
> himself does not seem to think so ( I mean, if you think that Lupin
> is a liar, that is a different story, but I am proceeding that he is
> telling the truth here)
>
> "Why?" said Harry. "The Ministry of Magic don't think you were
> helping Sirius, do they?"
> Lupin crossed to the door and closed it behind Harry.
> "No. Professor Dumbledore managed to convince Fudge that I was
> trying to save your lives." He signed" - PoA, p.309, paperback,
> british edition.
>
> I don't know Dumbledore really does not sound to me like someone
> whose trust had been betrayed here. Of course it is quite possible
> that he gave Remus a mouthful in private, but since I did not read
> it, I will think that it did not happen for now.

Magpie:
I think Dumbledore, being Dumbledore, is supposed to see Remus' motives for 
what they are and so understands his personality. He doesn't think Remus was 
actively working against him because he wasn't. He seems to get that Remus 
was really just keeping his own personal secret, and everything's turned out 
well and he can deal with that.

But I still wouldn't say it was uncanonical for someone to say that Remus 
had betrayed Dumbledore's trust if they meant that very same thing. For 
instance, I don't think it's uncanonical to say that Snape let Dumbledore 
down in OotP by not continuing the Occlumency lessons, even though 
Dumbledore obviously doesn't consider Snape a traitor for doing it. Or that 
Hagrid let him down by spilling the beans about Fluffy. I think when people 
talk about Remus betraying trust--and this is just how it comes across to me 
in what other people say, so I could be misinterpreting--I think they're 
just saying that it's canon that Remus has this very clear limit that we're 
aware of. He, Hagrid and Snape all have these limits we've seen.

I'm not explaining this well, but that's more what I think it's about, is 
mapping out the weak spots and limits of the characer. Neither Lupin nor 
Snape are perfectly in step with Dumbledore. He's aware of their weak spots 
and he doesn't think they're reason enough to consider them traitors, but 
they're there. I don't think Dumbledore being upset or not is why people 
describe their actions this way. It's more about what makes Snape and Lupin 
tick than Dumbledore.

Alla:
> Dumbledore does not sound too upset to me here either after learning
> this information. If his trust had been betrayed, shouldn't he had
> been more upset?

Magpie:
Not necessarily. He's just admitted his trust was betrayed. He gave Lupin a 
chance at school and Lupin did betray it by taking risks as a werewolf. All 
these years he never knew about it (he always seems a bit pleased when kids 
put one over on him). He's just not angry about it. Similarly, DD tells 
Harry in OotP that he thought Snape could get over his issues and teach 
Harry Occlumency but he was wrong. So he's saying that Snape let him down 
there, but he's also not angry at him. Dumbledore may not always be 
successful but he tries to deal with people as individuals with flaws rather 
than robots.

> Alla:
>
> Oh, I have no doubts that Remus was absolutely considering himself
> putting kids lifes at risk. It is just I am not buying that at least
> not completely.
>
> Just as I have no doubts that Snape believes that Sirius Black tried
> to kill him. I more often than not believe in Snape sincerity here,
> I just do not buy that as fact.

Magpie:
I don't think it matters if it's a fact that Remus was putting kids at risk 
in this context if Remus was, as far as he knew, faced with a situation 
where witholding information because it was better for himself was dangerous 
to the students (or at least one student) and going against what Dumbledore 
was trying to do. It turned out he wasn't putting anyone at risk by not 
telling on Sirius at all, but he was willing to do so. As far as everyone 
knew, they were looking for a murderer out to kill again, and Remus had 
information but witheld it because he didn't want to incriminate himself in 
other ways.

> Alla:
>
> See, we differ here. If Remus believed in Sirius innocence, which of
> course is not a fact, just I believe that there is a hint of support
> for it, I think he would have been doing a good deed. No, he never
> claims it of course, I believe he would rather take a blame than not.

Magpie:
But Remus not doing the right thing because it makes things smoother for him 
is given to us as a fundamental aspect of his character while Remus 
believing Sirius is innocent is not given as a motivation for the character. 
Remus has no reason I can see to want Sirius to be guilty at all, and I can 
imagine part of him rooting for Sirius in his own way. But it still seems 
like what Remus says he's doing (and has no reason to lie about that I can 
see) is an important part of the character. If he thought Sirius was 
innocent and was motivated by that I think we could track it in the text.

 > Alla:
>
> Sure she does.But how does wanting to be liked translates in Lupin
> being the killer, you know?
>
> Because that is what I was ultimately arguing about and still find
> it rather mind boggling how from this quote it can be inferred that
> Lupin is Evil ( but that is of course in relation to Pippin's
> argument, not yours)

Magpie:
I'm not touching that one.:-)  That is, I don't think wanting to be liked 
makes him a murderer--though I think it could be done, of course.  I don't 
think anything I've said here makes Remus any more or less likely to turn 
out to be evil. It just says if he was evil he'd probably be an interesting 
kind of evil.:-)

-m