The Marauder's Forays / Snape v James

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 168126

> > Magpie:
> > Maybe I'm not understanding, because it seems like you're 
wanting 
> > it both ways. You're explaining their behavior through RW ideas 
> > (they're a certain calibre of guy), but drawing the line at 
> > assuming that the consequences of their behavior are the same as 
in 
> > the RW. 
> 
> Mike:
> Sorry to confuse y'all. ;) I'm not really *wanting* anything. I'm 
> endeavoring to explain the *psyche* of these teenage wizards, and 
> sorry, but I don't have anything other than the RW to base my 
> interpretation upon. At the same time, their *actions* are so far 
> removed from the RW that it is hard to draw a parallel to the RW 
and 
> still keep them in context of the WW. Does that make sense?

Magpie:
Sorry about that. I do think your description of their psyche is 
correct. We're told and we see that James and Sirius at least seem 
to feel pretty all-powerful and immortal and that they chase after 
excitement, which they find in their monthly jaunts with Remus. 
Nothing bad happens, which just validates the impression that 
nothing bad will happen.


> Mike:
> Yes, but at the same time the WW has obviously come up with a way 
to 
> deal with the werewolves or they would all be werewolves 
themselves 
> by now, wouldn't they? Werewolves may be terrifying to the 
Muggles, 
> but in the WW Dumbledore has invited one to attend his school. 
Then 
> for good measure, he invited one back to teach. 
> 
> All I'm suggesting is that werewolves are not as terrifying as a 
> group to wizards as people in the RW would naturally assume them 
to 
> be. Sure, we have a few rogue werewolves like Greyback. But I 
> speculate that Death Eaters scare your average wizard more than 
> werewolves do.

Magpie:
Actually, I think werewolves clearly are terrifying to wizards--
probably far more than they are to Muggles, because to Muggles 
they're fictional. I think they're more terrifying than Death Eaters 
to Wizards too. But of course when I say "werewolf" here I mean a 
transformed, non-Wolfsbaned werewolf. Dumbledore and other pro-
werewolf compassion people are not telling anybody that a 
transformed werewolf in his natural state isn't just as dangerous as 
they think it is. They're saying their human selves ought to be 
treated with dignity and compassion. Everyone seems equally afraid 
of a werewolf in wolf form (unless he's taken Wolfsbane) to me, and 
that's what the Marauders are running with. They are not in 
dangerous of the werewolf because they're Animagi. What's unfair is 
that Remus would be kept from having an education as a normal boy 
because he also had this affliction. Not that he's not allowed to 
roam around in his werewolf form.

 
> Mike:
> Let me quote some of Remus from PoA:
> 
> "Before the Wolfsbane Potion was invented, however, I became a 
fully 
> fledged monster once a month."   (p.353)
> 
> "My transformation in those days were - were terrible. It is very 
> painful to turn into a werewolf. I was seperated from humans to 
bite, 
> so I bit and scratched myself instead. The villagers heard the 
noise 
> and the screaming..."     (p.353)
> 
> Can you imagine Remus having to go through that month after month 
for 
> five years (not counting the time before Hogwarts), before his 
> friends became Animagi and changed his life? 
> 
> "Under their [Marauders] influence, I became less dangerous. My 
body 
> was still wolfish, but my mind seemed to become less so while was 
> with them."   (p.355)
> 
> Glorious reprieve! He doesn't have to scratch and bite himself to 
the 
> point of screaming out in so much pain that the villagers think 
there 
> are particularly nasty spirits in the Shack. Is it any wonder that 
he 
> chose this life, including the marauding, over the previous? It 
kind 
> of makes calling their marauding "bad" a little more subjective, 
> doesn't it?

Magpie:
No, I don't think it does at all. Nobody's ever said it was bad of 
the Marauders to offer Remus companionship. What's "bad" about the 
situation isn't changed with this information. Of course there's a 
benefit for Remus and I understand why he did it, but that doesn't 
make the risk for other people any less, or Remus' awareness of the 
danger any less. He still knows he's taking a risk of hurting 
someone, and taking a risk of being caught and probably proving to 
others that a werewolf going to school in his human form means a 
werewolf on the lose in his wolf form.

Mike:
> 
> And I would like to add one more quote that we seem to forget:
> 
> "Sirius and James transformed into such large animals, they were 
able 
> to keep a werewolf in check."    (p. 355)
> 
> And it did work, didn't it? Sirius alone, in a weakened condition 
> after 12 years of Azkaban, stopped and drove off the Werewolf!
Lupin, 
> didn't he? In hindsight, even Lupin admits their actions were 
foolish 
> and dangerous, but as teenagers they still had some contingencies 
in 
> place. They weren't *completely* reckless.

Magpie:
Not completely reckless, but reckless and old enough to know it. To 
the point where Remus in his thirties still doesn't want Dumbledore 
to know about what he did. The point, as I think you laid out, is 
that they're taking a level of risk that they are comfortable with. 
They're unfortunately then imposing it on people who probably 
wouldn't be comfortable with it--I can't imagine Molly Weasley, for 
instance, saying, "Oh yeah, I don't mind the transformed werewolf 
running around as long as James and Sirius are with him."

Alla:

I did not say anything about actively working against Dumbledore, I
did not even say that Remus was actively thinking that Sirius was
innocent, lol. Because if he was actively thinking that, he is
rather rotten friend, if you ask me. He should have done something
to try and free Sirius, if he actively believed in his innocence. I
believe that Remus may have thought deep inside that Sirius is
innocent, that's all. Sort of on subsconscious level. But to me it
is enough to consider the possibility that Remus may have had
another reason to conceal information besides what he says.

Magpie:
Ah--I agree, then. If Remus were motivated by thinking Sirius is 
innocent his actions, if he's the man we think he is, would be 
different. That's not his motivation. I think that his memories of 
the Marauders can effect him in important ways as well. But Remus 
wanting Sirius to escape at least fits into his behavior while 
thinking Sirius is innocent. I guess I feel like, if his thought 
that Sirius might be innocent is subconscious, it might as well not 
be there (and it's not there in the text). I don't quite see what it 
adds to the story to think that in some way Remus was not aware of, 
he thought Sirius was innocent--except to sort of retroactively put 
Remus above everyone else by saying that even though the story 
relies on everyone thinking Sirius is guilty, Remus unconsciously 
knew he was innocent all along but didn't realize it.
 
> 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.


Alla:

Let's agree to disagree on whether Remus only motivation was to keep
his personal secret, ok? Let's pretend that I am agreeing with it.
So, here we have exactly what you described here, agreed.

Magpie:
I know I'm being difficult in quite agreeing to disagree :-), but 
whether or not we imagine a more flattering motivation that's not 
included in the text at all, choosing to keep his personal secret 
sems to be what Remus is doing any way you look at it. He knows this 
stuff about Remus because of their personal connection, and is not 
sharing it. 

Magpie:
> 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.

Alla:

Let me make sure I understand. When you are talking about betraying
DD trust, do you just mean these characters not doing what
Dumbledore expected them to do? Or are you also including those
characters willingness to endanger other people? Because if you are
stopping short on my first sentence, then I can sorta agree, if I
forget about my doubts of Remus and Sirius innocence, but if you are
including second sentence and then we are back to Remus willingly
putting hundreds of kids at risk, then I just do not see it.

Magpie:
I think that yes, it does have to include Remus putting people at 
risk because he is doing that. Concealing information that helps the 
person who as far as he knows is guilty of mass murder already get 
into and out of the castle is putting people at risk. I don't quite 
understand how you're saying that it isn't. Of course it doesn't 
turn out to be a risk, but based on the information Remus has how 
could it not be? He just has to hope that Sirius doesn't do what 
he "knows" he's already done once. Even your suggestion that he 
thinks Sirius is innocent is too unconscious to be an active 
motivation, and even if he has it it's just a niggling hunch. (Ahem. 
Not that Dumbledore's never risked having a murderer in the school 
himself--but he was okay with that because it was his murderer and 
his plan!)

Alla:

But but when we are talking about Snape being a good guy,
Dumbledore's unwavering trust in him is given as iron clad reason
for Snape to be such a guy, but when I am bring Dumbledore talking
about piece of info what Remus concealed and not being upset and
telling Fudge that Remus saved lives, isn't it supposed to mean the
same thing?

Magpie:
I do think it means the same thing--at least to me, it does. I don't 
think Remus is ESE or that Dumbledore is trusting him too much. 
Dumbledore doesn't seem to trust Remus as much as he trusts Snape 
Snape--Snape seems much closer to the inner circle than Remus. But 
with both men Dumbledore seems aware of their intentions and 
limitations. He seems to assume that people who work for him are 
going to have their own agendas as people that sometimes conflicts 
with his. Even Harry, who is DDM definitely, sometimes is more 
interested in his own stuff than Dumbledore. Dumbledore is 
disappointed when Harry doesn't seem to be stepping up--Harry feels 
like he's let him down--but it doesn't make Harry a traitor. Not all 
betrayals of trust are created equal. But I also think--and this is 
something I like about Remus--that Remus' position curiously 
reflects the priorities and leave-taking he hadin PoA.  

Alla:
That Remus really did not betray DD trust, since DD does not think
so.

Magpie:
I don't agree that DD didn't think so. I think it's logical that DD 
sees Remus as betraying his trust in much the same way Remus sees 
it. I just don't think it's all or nothing. I don't think Remus' 
failing to come forth about the information about Sirius is a 
reason, in DD's eyes, to think he's an untrustworthy spy on the 
werewolves. 

Alla:
To me Peter is the traytor, not Remus who did not tell Dumbledore
about them being animagi, which did not lead to anybody's death, you
know?

Magpie:
I agree. Peter was the traitor and not Remus. I don't consider Remus 
a traitor. But I do think he did something significant in concealing 
what he knew about Sirius, and given what I've seen of Dumbledore 
and the way he susses everybody out, I can't believe he doesn't have 
a clear mental note of Remus doing that. 

Alla:

Where did he admit that his trust was betrayed? I thought he said
nothing like that.

Magpie:
He said he'd now learned that for years Remus was sneaking out of 
the shack with the Marauders, iow, breaking the rules in place for 
protection. He's not angry over this, but it's not like he's unaware 
of how this applies to his precautions for having a werewolf student 
in school.  If, for instance, Hermione was given the Time Turner 
with strict rules to only use it for classes, and she was really 
using it to play personal pranks, that would be betraying the trust 
placed in her when she was given the Time Turner. (Dumbledore gives 
the go-ahead for Buckbeak beforehand....err...as much as anything 
can be beforehand in that situation.)

Alla:

He is not just not **angry**. He seemed awfully pleased to me with
that "extraordinary achievement". 

Magpie:
Sirius' acheivement, I think. And it's Sirius who tells Dumbledore, 
is it? Sirius is far more forthcoming.

-m