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