Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?)
a_svirn
a_svirn at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 20 17:14:26 UTC 2007
No: HPFGUIDX 179240
> > Dana:
> > I think your are missing the point of the argument. The argument
> was
> > about if Sirius' reckless decision of going after Peter was the
> > primary cause that he lost his guardianship over Harry and it
> wasn't.
>
> zgirnius:
> You seem to me missing the criteria I have laid out for how I judge
> the characters. You are free to disagree with those criteria, but
you
> can hardly expect me to use yours instead. My objection to Sirius's
> action is that not it *did* lose him guardianship (results-based),
> but that the consequences Sirius should expect it to have it
> included lost guardianship, getting killed needlessly, and leaving
> Peter free and unsuspected.
a_svirn:
I don't see what it has to do with any criteria for judging
characters. All Dana said (as far as I understand)is that Sirius
*had* already lost his guardianship by the time he went after
Pettigrew. Because Dumbledore *had* already decided to deny him the
said guardianship, and Dumbledore's word was final for the members of
the Order (for some reason not at all clear for me). So the cause and
effect chain in this case is quite the opposite to the one you
proposed. Sirius did not lost his guardianship through his
recklessness, on the contrary, he decided on this reckless course
because he had already lost his friends and the guardianship of his
godson and had virtually nothing else left to loose.
More information about the HPforGrownups
archive