Likeable Regulus.

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 178067

> Magpie:
> So, wait. Regulus was another one of those DEs who actually wasn't 
> being racist by joining the DEs even though that seems to be the 
> most obvious belief they espouse? Does this apply to Draco too? 
> Because they seem exactly the same to me. Being attracted to the 
> DEs is being attracted to evil even if the primary attraction isn't 
> wiping out Muggle-borns--although through Pureblood superiority 
> seems to be exactly the beliefs that Draco and Regulus got from 
> their parents that sent them to the DEs to be "right little 
> heroes." That's how they're special. Espousing bigoted pulchitrude 
> is a way of thinking youself special.

Mike:
The problem with equating Regulus with Draco, or to some degree 
Snape, is that we have nothing on stage of Reggie's to draw from. All 
we have is Sirius' bitter remarks about Regulus being "soft" enough 
to believe his parents. But with those same remarks, but seperate, he 
brings in the whole royalty motif, complete with the 700-year 
Tapestry of Lineage. Based on Ma Black's portrait, I don't doubt that 
purebloodism was taught in the Black household. But when you add in 
the Tapestry and the royalist posturing, I see their purebloodism 
taking a different form than the brand Voldemort was pushing. And, in 
the end, the Blacks distanced themselves from LV's position, after 
Voldemort "showed his true colors".

Therefore, my impression was that Reg went along with his parents by 
parroting their pureblood line because he thought himself not just an 
elite pureblood, but styled himself as the ruling class among the 
elite class. Like many kings and queens through the ages, Reggie 
would spout the party line expected of him, whether he believed it or 
not. (BTW, minus the royalty part, I think this applies to Severus 
also.) So he joined up with the DEs and lived the lie of 
purebloodism, making his parents proud (if Sirius is to be believed). 
That certainly doesn't make him good. But we were speaking about 
motivations here, and I see Reggie's motivation in a different light 
than those of Bellatrix or Lucius or even Severus. Regulus wanted to 
be the king that his parents made him believe was his rightful 
calling in the WW. In the end, it's obvious to me that he didn't 
really believe the Voldemort version of the pureblood party line.



> Magpie:
> I think Regulus is pretty much absolved in the end too--he made the 
> greatest sacrifice he could to bring Voldemort down. But I still 
> agree with Adam's point as I understand it. I still consider him a 
> DE who did something brave when something he loved was threatened--
> whether this led to a change of heart and seeing that his other 
> beliefs had been truly wrong and that he had *therefore been evil 
> for espousing them to begin with* I don't feel confident in saying 
> at all. I think Regulus was always brave--he joined the DE to help 
> the holy cause of putting Purebloods in charge of everyone else and 
> getting rid of Muggle-borns. It's possible he rejected those 
> beliefs along with Voldemort. It's also possible he didn't.

Mike:
Or, in my postulation, Regulus never really held to those same 
pureblood beliefs that Voldemort was espousing. I'm not trying to 
exonerate him from joining the DEs. Nor do I think holding purebloods 
up as elites, in any form, makes him something other than bigoted. 
But, to me, his brand of purebloodism is less offensive than 
Voldemort's. And by heading off to the cave to die, to thwart 
Voldemort, he seems to give up on his previous belief that he was 
some kind of royalty, destined to rule the WW. My conjecture for 
sure, but I see all the elements needed to make this leap.


> Prep0strus:
> I think I've pretty much reached an impasse on this discussion, but
> Magpie has summed up my opinion pretty nicely. 
> 
> Everyone who commented that I was looking for the worst possible
> explanations of Regulus' behavior was absolutely right - not 
> because I necessarily believe it to be so, but because I was 
> throwing ideas out there that could exist.

Mike:
I do think I understood that. The reason I debated your explanations 
was to show that they seemed implausible at best. The NEW dark lord 
possibilty was as close to an impossibilty as you could get, imo. By 
including the extreme and/or implausible possibilities for Regulus, 
you make your more reasonable and entirely plausible explanations 
look more palatable. A very effective method of debate.


> Prep0strus:
> My personal belief, based on the story? Regulus died a racist.  I
> think he always was one, and died one.  I think he always cared for
> Kreacher, but believed Voldemort cares for him, and shared his
> beliefs.  When Voldemort [left] Kreacher [to] die, Regulus realized 
> that Voldemort did not care about anything but himself.  He 
> discovered he was into some VERY dangerous magic and was perhaps 
> becoming something less than human - something dangerous, scary, 
> and not supported by Regulus' ideology.

Mike:
I agree in part with this position. I agree that somehow Regulus came 
to understand what Voldemort was about and what he was prepared to 
do. I also agree that Regulus thought more of Kreacher than as just a 
slave, a non-entity. Which, in part, seperates him from the 
prevailing opinion in his part of the WW. That also makes it 
incongruous for him to hold himself up as the type of pureblood 
elitist that even his parents believe, let alone Voldemort, and still 
adhere to his regard for his House Elf, imo.



> Prep0strus:
> I don't think Regulus was ever quite prepared for the group he had
> joined - he was a hate-filled little brat, but not necessarily a
> murderer.  I think, when he died, he realized it was a mistake, and 
> he was, indeed, trying to stop Voldemort, and he was also laying 
> his life on the line for Kreacher.  

Mike:
I also agree that Regulus became, even more quickly than Snape, 
disillusioned with being a DE. Though we agree that Regulus was most 
likely inundated with his parents' elitism, we have zero knowledge of 
how much Regulus bought into it. You bet, you are entitled to your 
opinion. I do agree, we are at an impasse on the Regulus question.



> Prep0strus:
> Someone said I didn't believe there was enough information, so the
> musings were strange.  That's true. 

Mike:
That was me, and I actually called them "curious". It was your 
extreme postulations for which I used that phrase. Because I agree, 
your above stated belief are both entirely plausible and not 
contradicted by canon. I just think I have a teeny bit more canon to 
base my belief on. And canon in support is better than lack of canon 
in opposition to, in my way of thinking.


> Prep0strus:
> And I still believe motivations and beliefs are very important in
> regards to action.  I think in literature we can know them, and they
> are more interesting and give more information about a character 
> than the action itself.
>  <snip>
> But even if someone has no choice but to become a bigoted murdering
> monster, that doesn't change what they are... and it doesn't change
> their beliefs or motivations, just the reasons for them.  

Mike:
I was with you on the motivations and beliefs. More interesting to 
explore and knowable in Literature (though not in Regulus' case, 
imo). 

But you lost me with your "what they are" statement. Well, not lost, 
more like that statement seems contradictory. It sounds like the 
stance Eggplant takes that their actions are all that really counts. 
Because their actions, and especially Reg's actions, are how we tell 
what they are in the vast majority of characters, is it not?

Mike, still liking Sirius best, but thinking Reg wasn't as bad as all 
that; hey, he was a seeker too ;)