Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve)

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 175834

> In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175641
>
> Mim:
> And there is trust and there's mind-boggling stupidity. Now, unless
> it's canon that when James' friends came over for a visit they'd
> blast his door open I just don't see why James would sprint to the
> hall wandless to see what the hell just happened. It sucks that the
> ended up in this situation and it sucks that he died but I just
> don't see WTF he was thinking.

Mike:
I'm not sure how you equate James' "blind trust" in his friends to 
his running to meet Voldemort without his wand. How does one have 
anything to do with the other? And I don't get James not having his 
wand either, makes no sense. I agree, it is a stupid thing for this 
character in this situation to do.

> Mim:
> <snip>
> 
> No, he probably didn't stand a chance. But his death could have been
> a little less ridiculous, is all. And they definitely needed a
> backup plan as to getting out of there besides the whole Secret
> Keeper crap. Ever heard of portkeys? Apparition? Oh, well... JKR
> needed her sacrifice and all but there are more holes in that plot
> than swiss cheese.

Mike:
Dumbledore explained to Harry in HBP that most wizards have anti-
disapparition charms on their homes so other wizards (and 
unfortunately, themselves) can't apperate in or out of the house. In 
DH, the Weasley's house had to be approached on foot from quite a 
distance due to the apparition protections. I have no problem 
believing the Potters had one, too.

And Portkeys need to be set up in advance, activate at a certain time 
and are controlled by the MoM. It's not something you can put in a 
closet and pull out when you need one in an emergency. I equate it to 
calling a very persnickity taxi cab, one that will leave to it's 
destination when you told him you were leaving whether you are ready 
or not.



> > Mike previous: 
> > Sirius - suicide mission? Going after Peter? Could you explain 
> > that reasoning?
> > 
> 
> Mim:
> He tells Hagrid he won't be needing his motorcycle anymore. It 
> doesn't sound to me like a man who sees any future ahead.He does 
> not alert the authorities about Peter thinking that he can take 
> him. And big surprise, he couldn't.

Mike:
OK, but it doesn't sound like a suicide mission. He gives his 
pleasure vehicle to Hagrid because he thinks he'll have to move 
around unencumbered. That makes sense to me, he's not gonna be an 
effective tracker of Peter when his approach is heard from a long way 
off and by someone who knows of his unique method of transport. 

And I don't buy reckless for Sirius to think he could have caught 
Peter. From everything I know of the Marauders, it seems to be a 
reasonable assumption. Besides, Peter didn't beat Sirius, he pulled a 
fast one that allowed him to escape. Had Peter been forced to duel 
Sirius, I'm confident Sirius would have won.

Many have questioned why Sirius didn't run to Dumbledore. But Sirius 
was distraught and thought he could catch Peter himself. It my have 
been a rash decision, but was it really that unreasonable thing for 
him to do? Besides, these people didn't seem to be that dependent on 
Dumbledore, didn't feel they needed his protection.


> Mim:
> 
> Again, James didn't trust Remus.

Mike:
So how do you square this with your "blind faith" comment?


> Mim:
> 
> I think that fandom gives them [Marauders] a hell of a lot of
> slack, myself. But I guess it depends also on where you place 
> yourself in regards to them, a bully or a victim? A cool animagus 
> or some random guy in the street getting attacked and barely 
> escaping with his life because they are out having their fun?

Mike:
Hmm, fandom gives them a hell of a lot of slack, unless you count 
calling them a bunch of bullies based on Snape's worst memory and 
Snape's selection of detention files. Or unless you take Snape's view 
of the Prank, that Sirius tried to get Snape killed. Or if you accept 
that their arrogant, teenage, full-moon escapades mean they are 
callous, uncaring, privledged brats - exploiting their talents while 
putting others in mortal danger.

Did I miss some of the ways fandom cuts them slack? 

I could refute those readings, I have done so in the past. And with 
the relevations from DH regarding the Prank, there is new reason to 
refute that one. But it takes a different reading and/or 
understanding of teenage boys that many don't share.

Teenage boys down through the ages have felt a need to prove 
themselves. There are still many 'rights-of-passage' used by cultures 
and tribes that give the boy his chance to prove he is worthy of 
being called a man. Modern society has no structure for this kind of 
transitional acknowledgement, this test of fortitude for boys. So 
they have invented trials for themselves. And many of them seem 
foolhardy and they are. But that's not the point, the actual trial is 
secondary to the need to have one. 

Lately, modern society seems to think that boys are not *civilized* 
enough. They see things that boys do and remark that girls don't feel 
the need to do foolhardy things like that. So they try to medicate 
away these impulses to make boys act more like the girls, because 
that's the way *civilized* people act. It is one of the most 
abominable things being done to boys, imo, especially how casually 
this medication is being prescribed.

We read or hear about some teenagers getting killed for doing stupid 
things and wonder "What were they thinking?" And we try to keep our 
own children from attempting the most foolhardy of those *trials*. 
But for every death due to stupid pranks we hear about, there are 
probably ten times as many attempts happening out there they we don't 
hear about because the kids got away with it. And there are twenty 
times as many other kids that hear about these guys that got away 
with it that are now wondering if they could do the same. And some 
are going to try, others are going to be emboldened to try something 
more 'death defying'. Condemn it all you want, it's going to happen.

So the Marauders found an outlet for their desire to prove 
themselves. Remus can look back on it and shake his head, say how 
stupid it was.  At the same time admit how they didn't stop, how they 
thought it was all good fun despite the close calls. Adults can find 
perspective where teens won't even look for it.

Teens all over are looking to prove themselves. We heard about a 
couple of Slytherins that try out some "Dark Magic" on a girl, 
probably to see if they can do it. Secondarily to see if they can get 
away with it. But they probably would've tried even if they never had 
an inkling that they could get away with it unpunished, just to see 
if they could do it. I'll bet there were some Hufflepuff boys trying 
to dig a tunnel from their dorm room to the kitchens. And some 
Ravenclaw boys were busy trying to defeat those slides that prevented 
them from getting into the girl's dorm rooms. (Not that they would 
know what to do once they got in there <g>)

Yes, the last bits were all non-canonical speculation. But I'll eat 
the Sorting Hat if there wasn't some shenanigans going on in all the 
houses.

Lastly, everyone thinks this running with the werewolf is especially 
egregious. I attribute part of that to our non-magical fear of this 
mythical being and our prejudice from reading other's stories. But 
there are many werewolves in the Potterverse and they are not locked 
up during the full moon nights. Lupin said he was out among 
his "fellows", so we know they are out there and they are not all 
like Fenrir. (In fact, I submit that very few if any are like Fenrir) 

The wizarding world has figured out how to cope with loose 
werewolves, they must have or they would have overrun the wizarding 
population by now. Nobody is cataloguing the locations of all the 
other werewolves to be sure that none of them are in Hogsmeade during 
full moon nights. So, despite what we may perceive as a very 
dangerous game, imo is not so unfathomable of a situation that the WW 
cannot cope with it.



In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175653
> 
> va32h:
> 
> I think it's pretty lame myself, and just another piece of evidence 
> that JKR really didn't give two figs about whether this book was 
> any good or not. 
> 
> And I know I'll get accused of being an ungrateful nit-picker, so 
> let me just add my usual disclaimer.

Mike:
Well, I won't call you ungrateful, and I think your nit-picking is 
justified - I do it myself.

But I do wonder where you've been, because this book isn't so 
different than the previous six. There have been plot holes galore 
and uncharacteristic (yeah, some downright stupid) actions by 
characters. I suppose you can choose to overlook them or try to 
explain them. Or you can stew over them and allow them to ruin the 
story for you. 

I guess I don't understand why these failings, that have been there 
all along, are suddenly reason to condemn this last installment.
 
Mike