Deconstructing the Marauders V.9

Lupin gives information in the books that is not personal--he'll explain dementors and Patronus Charms, etc., etc.--but he'll slam the door on information about himself. I think this is a major insight into his character: a nearly life-long habit, bred of the werewolf bite and, also, vital to his making his way through wizarding society. Side benefit: he's really good with Order secrets, too.

By the way...just to clarify: I don't for a minute believe all this makes him evil. In case you were wondering. : ) !!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes I agree with this. A lot of people keep saying that he seems like hes hiding something...or that hes James :nc:
I just think hes not use of geting close to people because he's a warewolf.

The difference between the kind of evil of Tom Riddle, Uncle Vernon, etc. and the potential for "evil" in a person like Lupin are very different. Riddle and Uncle Vernon choose to do the things they do, and they don't feel remorse. We don't see the good ol' non-transformed Lupin going out and torturing and killing, do we? And if he were so unfortunate as to harm someone as a werewolf, would we blame his conscious, human mind the way we do Riddle and Vernon? Would it be fair?:tu: Excellent analysis (as always).

We saw him after Sirius fell, and he wasn't a helpless heap. Is it so unreasonable to believe that what he saw then was also similiar to his reaction when he heard the widely circulated version of the night of the Potter's deaths?Not only was Lupin not a "helpless heap", but he was able to keep his head in an incredibly emotional and tragic situation. That he was able to recognize the danger and act so quickly reflects the fact that Lupin had, for the time being, shunted his own feeling aside so that he could take care of Harry and be strong for him. Lupin’s putting aside his own feelings to hold Harry back exhibits his selflessness and strength at a moment of deep personal loss. I really admire him for thinking of Harry despite the intense pain he was going through at that moment. So I agree that it is certainly not a large stretch to say that Lupin likely was able to deal with the deaths of the Potters without going to pieces.

:rotfl: :rotfl:

Subtle science, with all those quotes, Lupin was trying to hide the fact that he knew James, which I think is perfectly understandable, even after Harry knew. Lupin was trying to maintain a teacher/student relationship with one of his students and, under the circumstances, I think he felt it was best. Many years before, he had a bond with Harry and it must have been very difficult to act as though he were Harry's DADA teacher and not Harry's father's best friend.

By talking to Harry about James and they're time at Hogwarts, Lupin would have crossed from being Harry's favorite teacher to being someone who knew Harry's dad. Dumbledore didn't bring Lupin into Hogwarts to be Harry's connection to his parents, he brought Lupin in to teach and help the students prepare themselves. Lupin understood that.

All Lupin was doing was trying not to force himself into Harry's life while still being there for him as a teacher. Also, not giving Harry full details of his time at Hogwarts is not misdirection. Lupin was completely honest, even if he didn't volunteer to have a question and answer session with Harry.

Eveyone seems to think just because Remus was one of James's bestfriends means that Harry and him should be close as well. Actrually I think they where pretty close for a student and teacher.

Also,I dont think Remus should just open himself up to Harry Also he just meant him..and Harry is younger then he is, why would he want to confind in him?
He probably doesnt even get close to people his age.

HermioneLuna, first, all those quotes were not of Lupin hiding he knew James. Two of those quotes came from OoTP, although only one involved apparent verbal subterfuge.

Second, in order to be skilled at the kind of (verbal) misdirection and subterfuge that Lupin employs with Harry, one has to have practiced the skill. I'm sure he has had to. He is, after all, a werewolf. While I don't think that he should be "ashamed" of that, neccessarily, it would be in his own best interest to avoid the subject in order to protect himself.

I think the difference in how you see it and how I see it, is they didn't think. You see Lupin as concerned about injuring someone, but thinking the marauders could handle it. I see it as lack of concern, because the marauders could handle it, without considering the possibility that they couldn't, and showing little concern after their close calls, as they continued the behavior. It just points in Lupin's favor that he could see how wrong it was as an adult, something that I'm not sure Sirius could do.I agree, clkginny. They were reckless and unconcerned about the consequences because they never really believed that anything bad would happen. That’s the only explanation for why they could laugh about a close call afterward—if they had realized that there had been a real danger of a disastrous outcome, they could not have blown it off so easily, repeating their behavior every month. This is very common for teens and young adults—that’s why people this age are the ones to fight wars for everyone else. They have no sense of their own danger or mortality in the same way as a mature person. As you say, that Lupin is able to look back on their behavior with regret, realizing what might have happened, shows his maturity 20 years later. And I don't think it was like that. They might have known that their actions might have lead to some dangerous situation or they might have not seen it ( this is why I said that Lupin's actions enter into category 3 or 4) but I don't think that they saw the danger as fun and they searched for some more dangerous situations. They just hoped and thought that the danger will not come. I don't think that they searched for it, nor do i think that they thought the danger made things more fun!That’s not true, according to Sirius. In my least favorite Sirius moment, he berates Harry for not meeting him in Hogsmeade, telling Harry that the risk is what would have made it fun for James and Harry is less like his father than he thought. (OotP, when Harry is talking to Sirius in the fireplace.)

I’m not sure why the discussion began to focus on Lupin-as-evil, just because he must have a dark side. As I said in a post yesterday, having a dark side doesn’t imply someone is evil. I think the Shrieking Shack scene shows Lupin’s dark side. He is prepared to murder Peter. Are there reasons for this? Of course, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t acting from the dark side of his personality.

Bear with me for a second. I’ve been on the boards less over the past week because I’ve been completely addicted to watching the first season of the TV program 24 on DVD. :rolleyes: For those who haven’t seen it, it’s a gritty spy-versus-spy kind of drama. Of course, Harry Potter is never far from my mind, so I related some of things in the series to Harry Potter as I was watching it. The main thing was Snape’s comment about “fools who wear their emotions proudly on their sleeves” being easily manipulated by Voldemort. We’ve talked about this before in terms of emotion itself being a weakness. Many of the plot points in this series came from such manipulation and it seemed very realistic. One of the characters is drawn into illegal activity because her husband left her with nothing and she feels she needs more money to help raise her son—as the plot progresses, she becomes more entangled. She otherwise seemed like a good person, but it was a dark side of her personality that allowed her to engage in the illegal activity (essentially treason), even though her ultimate purpose was good (making sure her son was provided for).

My point is that everyone has the capacity to be led to their dark side. James is led there out of (?) rivalry with Snape—the result is SWM. Harry is led there out of grief for Sirius—the result is that he tries to Crucio Bella. Lupin is led there out of loyalty for his friend, James, and his friend’s son—the result is him agreeing to kill Peter with Sirius. Sirius is led there by Snape annoyingly trying to get him into trouble—the result is the Whomping Willow Incident. Snape is led there for reasons yet unknown—the result is that he becomes a Death Eater. All of them have the capacity to turn their backs on their dark sides, though. That makes none of them evil. Those who have let their dark sides run rampant—Voldemort, Peter, Lucius, Crouch Jr—they are the ones who are evil.

I can see Lupin’s werewolf nature as symbolic of his dark side without actually being his dark side. He has no control while he is a werewolf—there is not dark side or light side, since there is no consciousness of his actions.

I can see Lupin’s werewolf nature as symbolic of his dark side without actually being his dark side. He has no control while he is a werewolf—there is not dark side or light side, since there is no consciousness of his actions.

Beautifully put. I tried to say something like this earlier during this discussion (was it yesterday?), but you put it so much better than I can. I also think that he has faced it as a dark part of him, a dark side, with the whole SS incident, because Lupin was aware, afterwards (in a way I don't think Sirius ever was), that he could have killed Snape. It wouldn't have been his fault, but it would have been him. And he would have felt guilty for that, even though he had no control over it. I think Lupin sees the werewolf as his dark side, whether we do or not. I also think it hurts him deeply. It doesn't make Lupin a bad person, but it is a bad thing, and it is part of him.

ETA: Welcome to the Warring Opinions-oops, I mean, Deconstructing Thread, Moon Star.

HermioneLuna, first, all those quotes were not of Lupin hiding he knew James. Two of those quotes came from OoTP, although only one involved apparent verbal subterfuge.

Second, in order to be skilled at the kind of (verbal) misdirection and subterfuge that Lupin employs with Harry, one has to have practiced the skill. I'm sure he has had to. He is, after all, a werewolf. While I don't think that he should be "ashamed" of that, neccessarily, it would be in his own best interest to avoid the subject in order to protect himself.

I understand that not all of those quotes were about Lupin hiding his relationship with James, but some were. My point was that Lupin was honest is all of his dealings with Harry, even if it wasn't as honest as you may feel he should have been. I don't see how not answering a question is misdirection. It seems more like not answering a question to me.

Lupin never told Harry anything that would cause him to believe anything other than the truth. That means he wasn't misdirecting him.

Also, Lupin is forced to hide part of who he is from the Wizarding World at large, because of their bias and prejudices. Being a werewolf and being co-creator of the Marauders Map do not necessarily go hand in hand. After all, none of the other Marauders were werewolves. I'm not saying you said that, I'm just making a point. And yes, Lupin has had to cover up his condition before, but that has no bearing on the quotes you've listed.

I understand that not all of those quotes were about Lupin hiding his relationship with James, but some were. My point was that Lupin was honest is all of his dealings with Harry, even if it wasn't as honest as you may feel he should have been. I don't see how not answering a question is misdirection. It seems more like not answering a question to me.

Lupin never told Harry anything that would cause him to believe anything other than the truth. That means he wasn't misdirecting him.

Also, Lupin is forced to hide part of who he is from the Wizarding World at large, because of their bias and prejudices. Being a werewolf and being co-creator of the Marauders Map do not necessarily go hand in hand. After all, none of the other Marauders were werewolves. I'm not saying you said that, I'm just making a point. And yes, Lupin has had to cover up his condition before, but that has no bearing on the quotes you've listed.
Actually, I didn't list them, Subtle did. It is something that Subtle and I have talked about before.

I meant misdirection as in a magic trick. You get their attention some where other than the subject, in other words, where you want it, ie Lupin changing the subject.

It does seem part and parcel with his condition. That doesn't mean it isn't dishonest. It isn't as bad as lying to him directly, but it is a form of dishonest. Like lying by omission. I didn't mean (and I don't think Subtle did, either) that he didn't have good reason, for at least some of those "lies" but it doesn't change the fact that he did, and very skillfully, too.

Look, I'm not saying that Lupin is a bad person. I tend to feel that he is one of the most positive influences in the book. But the fact that he isn't perfect makes me enjoy reading about him all the more.

Where and when did anybody start a discussion of Lupin's hidden side (aka dark side, aka negative qualities, aka less positive side.........) as being evidence of his being evil? Wasn't that precisely what we all were not doing when this conversation started?

"Now my three friends could hardly fail to notice that I disappeared once a month. I made up all sorts of stories. I told them my mother was ill, and that I had to go home to see her....I was terrified they would desert me the moment they found out what I was. But of course, they, like you, Hermione, worked out the truth....
And they didn't desert me at all" (p. 354, PoA, US paper).
There's a way to look at light/dark other than good/evil. How about hope/despair?

Remus' first hope that he might have somewhat of a normal life is when he becomes friends with Sirius, James and Peter. Until then, he despaired of any kind of normalcy as evidenced by the fact that he thought they would desert him when they found out the truth. As a matter of fact, he was terrified. That's about as deep into despair as he could get.

So, he wandered around with the other marauders when he tranformed and hoped that he wouldn't hurt anybody. As long as he didn't hurt anybody, everything was okay and he could believe he would be able to live a normal life.

Actually, I didn't list them, Subtle did. It is something that Subtle and I have talked about before.

I meant misdirection as in a magic trick. You get their attention some where other than the subject, in other words, where you want it, ie Lupin changing the subject.

It does seem part and parcel with his condition. That doesn't mean it isn't dishonest. It isn't as bad as lying to him directly, but it is a form of dishonest. Like lying by omission. I didn't mean (and I don't think Subtle did, either) that he didn't have good reason, for at least some of those "lies" but it doesn't change the fact that he did, and very skillfully, too.

Look, I'm not saying that Lupin is a bad person. I tend to feel that he is one of the most positive influences in the book. But the fact that he isn't perfect makes me enjoy reading about him all the more.

First, I didn't say that you listed the quotes, but that isn't really the point. You see it as lying by omission and misdirection. I don't. I see it has keeping something to himself, which isn't lying. Just because Lupin didn't spill his guts to Harry does not make him a liar. And simply because Lupin does not answer a question does not make him a liar. It's possible to refuse to answer a question or change the subject and not be a liar by omission or otherwise.

The bottom line is we see this differently and I doubr that either of our opinions is likely to change on this subject right now. So instead of creating another Snape's Worst Memory where we talk about this and nothing but this, let's just agree to disagree on this.

HermioneLuna--I don't understand your point about Lupin's being a werewolf and the Marauders' Map: sorry--can you run it past me again?

Lupin avoids letting Harry know the extent of his relationship with either Sirius or James. He changes topics adeptly to divert Harry. He clearly is not going to discuss them. There's nothing worng with Lupin's being a teacher and revealing the fact that he was best friends with either Sirius or James: that crosses no line whatsoever in his relationship with Harry as a his student.

However--it would require Lupin to discuss what has to be a highly emotional issue, even if he never ventured into verbalizing those emotions. He may also be following orders as he would later, in OotP: it seems logical that Dumbledore would give him the word not to discuss his connections with Sirius Black.

My relating all of this to Lupin's lycanthropy was to point out how he has had to live his life since being infected: he cannot be truthful and open about his condition. He has, obviously, over the years gotten rather good at steering people away from topics that he cannot or will not discuss--it is a defense/skill that he has had to develop for his own protection. He talks about it himself at the end of PoA when he speaks about having felt he had to lie to his new friends, for fear of what their reaction would be--what most other people would've responded with.

What we see in the ensuing years is how he has incorporated this. Not only must he continue to keep his lycanthropy secret, but there's the sense that he can use that ability to misdirect and keep his mouth shut in his work for the Order. We don't know what it is he does, exactly, but he's working for a secret organization that seems to be heavily emphasizing intelligence gathering in OotP. Here's someone who can turn people aside from what he doesn't want them to know and do it quite neatly, so as not to arouse suspicion (unlike Sirius' endearingly obvious "stuff"), who can just not say what needs not to be said, and can hold himself under very tight emotional control. Sounds like a spy to me.

I'm not saying he's some sort of immoral, mendacious person who can't be trusted. I'm trying to look at who he is and what he does and see if the pieces fit together. I hope I'm misreading the tone of some recent posts and this analysis really hasn't offended people. For myself, I'm seeing a pattern of behavior that's making sense, especially since information on Lupin is so limited, in terms of guessing what Lupin does and who he is.

This is very common for teens and young adults—that’s why people this age are the ones to fight wars for everyone else. They have no sense of their own danger or mortality in the same way as a mature person. As you say, that Lupin is able to look back on their behavior with regret, realizing what might have happened, shows his maturity 20 years later.Yes, that is very true. Teenagers tend to see themselves as indestructable. This was probably particularly true of the Marauders - clever, talented and popular, able to complete the most complex and difficult of magical transformations unaided and in secret; they probably believed they could do anything, because they had never failed to do anything before. (I think subtle has made a similar point before about Sirius, albeit with rather more eloquence I'm sure).
Originally posted by Chiev
My point is that everyone has the capacity to be led to their dark side. James is led there out of (?) rivalry with Snape—the result is SWM. Harry is led there out of grief for Sirius—the result is that he tries to Crucio Bella. Lupin is led there out of loyalty for his friend, James, and his friend’s son—the result is him agreeing to kill Peter with Sirius. Sirius is led there by Snape annoyingly trying to get him into trouble—the result is the Whomping Willow Incident. Snape is led there for reasons yet unknown—the result is that he becomes a Death Eater. All of them have the capacity to turn their backs on their dark sides, though. That makes none of them evil. Those who have let their dark sides run rampant—Voldemort, Peter, Lucius, Crouch Jr—they are the ones who are evil.I suppose this is the choice theme again. If everyone has a Dark side and, therefore, the capacity for evil they must make a choice to follow it, or turn away from it. Even if it can't be left behind completely, there is a fundamental difference from those who do bad things in extreme circumstances (like Harry using and Unforgiveable Curse) and allowing yourself to be consumed by darkness.
Originally posted by Chiev
I can see Lupin’s werewolf nature as symbolic of his dark side without actually being his dark side. He has no control while he is a werewolf—there is not dark side or light side, since there is no consciousness of his actions.I think I know what you mean. A werewolf might be capable of committing violent acts during their transformations, but is that really evil if they cannot control themselves? I think that evil must be defined not only in terms of actions, but also intentions. An act is only evil if there is a malevolent intent behind it. As Credo says, this isn't a simple matter.
Originally Posted by silver ink pot
We don't know what Lupin did when James died. We don't really know what he did when Sirius was arrested. And there is certainly no information about his feelings toward Peter, except that he doesn't speak to him in SWM, and he is very cold towards him in the Shrieking Shack, and then tries to kill him.This has been answered very well, but I will use it as an opportunity to make a shameless plug for my fic Telling Remus (link in sig ;) ) which addresses this very question. I've just posted Chapter Two in which Remus does more or less go to pieces briefly (I mean, who wouldn't? Grief isn't weakness after all) but as it goes on I'll be exploring how I think he might have come to terms with it. *Commercial ends* :eyebrows:
Originally posted by SIP
I continue to feel that we are supposed to notice a parallel between Dudley's gang and the Marauders. None of them are necessarily "evil," but they are choosing to break all the rules, putting people in danger, bullying others, acting arrogant, and lying about their activities. I think there is a much stronger parallel between the teenage James and Crouch Snr. James and Sirius justify their attitude towards Snape to themselves on the grounds of Snape's interest in the Dark Arts. This was during he early years of Voldemort's reign of terror and it is easy to see how a heartfelt opposition to the Dark Arts could mutate into dislike of anyone who might be at all connected with them. James' opposition to the Dark Arts is a good thing, but in his teenage arrogance he allows it to be perverted into treating Snape, a fellow schoolboy, very badly. Similarily Crouch's opposition to Death Eaters is clearly good, but he allows it to drive him to such extremes that he commits acts of injustice and even tyranny - I doubt Sirius was his only innocent victim.

I think JKR included both of these storylines partly to show how easy it is for those who believe they are fighting wrongdoing to become wrongdoers themselves. It is a very timely message, though an old one. Just a few weeks ago the British Home Secretary announced that evidence extracted under torture could, under some circumstances, be used as evidence in the prosecution of terror suspects. A determination to fight terrorism is a good thing, but those good intentions are poisoned when one is willing to permit the evil of torture to be used as a weapon against the evil of terrorism.

HermioneLuna--I don't understand your point about Lupin's being a werewolf and the Marauders' Map: sorry--can you run it past me again?

Lupin avoids letting Harry know the extent of his relationship with either Sirius or James. He changes topics adeptly to divert Harry. He clearly is not going to discuss them. There's nothing worng with Lupin's being a teacher and revealing the fact that he was best friends with either Sirius or James: that crosses no line whatsoever in his relationship with Harry as a his student.

However--it would require Lupin to discuss what has to be a highly emotional issue, even if he never ventured into verbalizing those emotions. He may also be following orders as he would later, in OotP: it seems logical that Dumbledore would give him the word not to discuss his connections with Sirius Black.

My relating all of this to Lupin's lycanthropy was to point out how he has had to live his life since being infected: he cannot be truthful and open about his condition. He has, obviously, over the years gotten rather good at steering people away from topics that he cannot or will not discuss--it is a defense/skill that he has had to develop for his own protection. He talks about it himself at the end of PoA when he speaks about having felt he had to lie to his new friends, for fear of what their reaction would be--what most other people would've responded with.

What we see in the ensuing years is how he has incorporated this. Not only must he continue to keep his lycanthropy secret, but there's the sense that he can use that ability to misdirect and keep his mouth shut in his work for the Order. We don't know what it is he does, exactly, but he's working for a secret organization that seems to be heavily emphasizing intelligence gathering in OotP. Here's someone who can turn people aside from what he doesn't want them to know and do it quite neatly, so as not to arouse suspicion (unlike Sirius' endearingly obvious "stuff"), who can just not say what needs not to be said, and can hold himself under very tight emotional control. Sounds like a spy to me.

I'm not saying he's some sort of immoral, mendacious person who can't be trusted. I'm trying to look at who he is and what he does and see if the pieces fit together. I hope I'm misreading the tone of some recent posts and this analysis really hasn't offended people. For myself, I'm seeing a pattern of behavior that's making sense, especially since information on Lupin is so limited, in terms of guessing what Lupin does and who he is.

Telling Harry full details of his parents and their connection does cross a line. It changes their relationship from only teacher/student to one of James and Sirius' former best friends and connection to Harry's parents/ and the son of that person. This is the way I see it. You don't have to agree.

Lupin is forced to keep his condition a secret, as we have discussed on this thread already, so I will not rehash it. And yes, Lupin will have to keep certain things secret because he is an Order member following Dumbledore's orders, but I don't think we ever see him doing so in his capacity as an Order member.

I don't think Lupin has his own welfare at heart and I don't think he is soley trying to protect his own welfare by being secretive. He is the type who has and will likely continue to put others before himself. Again, I don't think what Lupin did was lying in any form. That is just my opinion.

I don't think they are supposed to be pets! They are wild, beautiful, intelligent animals who should run free. what happened to your wolf?

Someone stole him. They took his dish his chain and everything. I think they thought he was a beautiful animal as well :(

HermioneLuna--Good thing I don't have to agree--otherwise--there go 21 years of teaching down the drain! : ) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shaggydogstail--That's an interesting parallel between James and Crouch Senior. Both see themselves as completely justified--even though third-party outsiders can easily see where and how they're going wrong. [and *blush* thanks for the compliment--I can't believe you remembered that Sirius comment-- : ) ]

As for the teenage risk-taking--I've mentioned this before, but I'll drag it back in, as we've some back to the topic from yet another angle. Recent studies have shown that there is a difference in the brains of teenagers--it confirms what every parent and teacher ever said about and to teenagers who do apparently suicidally risky things: "What were you thinking?!?" In its stage of development, the brain does not process risk/consequence as an adult's brain does. Teenagers are not being mindlessly reckless; they're not making stupid decisions without thinking--it's brain wiring. JKR shows it beautifully in the difference between what Lupin says the Marauders did as teenagers and their attitudes towards it and how he judges it as an adult 20 years later. Teenage Lupin et al think it's all romping good fun; adult Lupin can't believe how careless they were!

clkginny--I really like your take on how Lupin may view his being a werewolf. There is an element of relief, I think, for him to know that, first, he had the other Marauders to keep him in check and then, later, he could use the Wolfsbane Potion. Anyway--well put; I agree! : )

Beautifully put.Thank you. :blush: I also think that he has faced it as a dark part of him, a dark side, with the whole SS incident, because Lupin was aware, afterwards (in a way I don't think Sirius ever was), that he could have killed Snape. It wouldn't have been his fault, but it would have been him. And he would have felt guilty for that, even though he had no control over it. I think Lupin sees the werewolf as his dark side, whether we do or not. I also think it hurts him deeply. It doesn't make Lupin a bad person, but it is a bad thing, and it is part of him.Yes, this is a very nice observation. Lupin would have felt the consequences of having killed or hurt Snape, even though he had no control over it. His conscience is what makes him a good guy—even with negative aspects. There's a way to look at light/dark other than good/evil. How about hope/despair?

Remus' first hope that he might have somewhat of a normal life is when he becomes friends with Sirius, James and Peter. Until then, he despaired of any kind of normalcy as evidenced by the fact that he thought they would desert him when they found out the truth. As a matter of fact, he was terrified. That's about as deep into despair as he could get.This is an interesting perspective. I often think that LotR is as much about the difference between hope and despair as it is about good and evil, so why not Harry Potter? Despair leads people to make the wrong choices—often to follow a darker path. Perhaps Sirius was led to his confrontation with Peter out of despair? Harry was led to try the Cruciatus Curse against Bella out of despair? I’m not sure about hope though. . .does Harry overcome his despair with hope? He hasn’t, but perhaps he will. . . What we see in the ensuing years is how he has incorporated this. Not only must he continue to keep his lycanthropy secret, but there's the sense that he can use that ability to misdirect and keep his mouth shut in his work for the Order. We don't know what it is he does, exactly, but he's working for a secret organization that seems to be heavily emphasizing intelligence gathering in OotP. Here's someone who can turn people aside from what he doesn't want them to know and do it quite neatly, so as not to arouse suspicion (unlike Sirius' endearingly obvious "stuff"), who can just not say what needs not to be said, and can hold himself under very tight emotional control. Sounds like a spy to me.

I'm not saying he's some sort of immoral, mendacious person who can't be trusted. I'm trying to look at who he is and what he does and see if the pieces fit together.I completely agree. I think I know what you mean. A werewolf might be capable of committing violent acts during their transformations, but is that really evil if they cannot control themselves? I think that evil must be defined not only in terms of actions, but also intentions. An act is only evil if there is a malevolent intent behind it.Yes. I think conscience dictates what is evil or not evil. A transformed werewolf wouldn't have a conscience, so how could it be evil? A wizard who doesn't have a conscience, but should (ie. Voldemort) is evil. Since your comment also reminds me of what I said over on the “Dev of Sev” thread today, I think I’ll quote myself! :rolleyes: ;) I was thinking about character parallels, the Dark Arts, and intent. It’s true that some spells can be manipulated for evil purposes, such as “scourgify” in SWM; however, there are others that clearly have no purpose other than for evil purposes, such as “Crucio.” The commonality in each of these spells is the intent to cause harm in the way in which they are used. Perhaps there are degrees of dark spells, ranging from a household spell used for a dark purpose to the darkest spells, Avada Kedavra and Crucio. The darker spells probably require more intent than lighter spells used for a dark purpose or some medium dark spells (such as the hex Snape uses to slash James’s face). Perhaps Snape couldn’t have used a darker spell against James—after all, an interest in the Dark Arts doesn’t mean that Snape had the necessary intent for such magic in him—regardless of his hatred for James. Bellatrix notes that Harry can’t use Crucio against her because he doesn’t really mean it, but Harry is enraged and must hate Bella for her part in Sirius’s death. It’s hard for me to believe that Snape hated James more than Harry hated Bellatrix at that moment. Harry and Snape are the same age in those scenes.

I think there is a much stronger parallel between the teenage James and Crouch Snr. James and Sirius justify their attitude towards Snape to themselves on the grounds of Snape's interest in the Dark Arts. This was during he early years of Voldemort's reign of terror and it is easy to see how a heartfelt opposition to the Dark Arts could mutate into dislike of anyone who might be at all connected with them. James' opposition to the Dark Arts is a good thing, but in his teenage arrogance he allows it to be perverted into treating Snape, a fellow schoolboy, very badly. Similarily Crouch's opposition to Death Eaters is clearly good, but he allows it to drive him to such extremes that he commits acts of injustice and even tyranny - I doubt Sirius was his only innocent victim.I think this is a good parallel. :tu:

Telling Harry full details of his parents and their connection does cross a line. It changes their relationship from only teacher/student to one of James and Sirius' former best friends and connection to Harry's parents/ and the son of that person. This is the way I see it. You don't have to agree.Well, I agree at least. :) I believe that telling Harry about his connection with James, the relationship would have become a bit awkward. In short, it would have become a tad too personal too soon- both Harry and Lupin are very private people. Given Harry's desire for information about his parents, I do think that if Lupin had told Harry about his friendship with James, (aside from plot reasons) it would have made Harry see Lupin in a whole different light. I agree that it might have shifted Lupin's role in the relationship from his teacher to friend of the family who is also his teacher, and that probably would have been quite awkward.

Subtle- I find what you posted about teenager's brains being wired differently to be very interesting. :tu: That would certainly explain (at least to some degree) why the Marauders had trouble fully seeing the potential consequences of their actions. But by no means is this the whole story (though I know that's not what you were implying). I believe this is an important factor, but I also believe that they also realized that what they were doing was risky, and I do believe they reveled in this risk (some more than others though- I can see Peter being a little bit of a scardy-cat and Remus having fleeting misgivings, but these feelings were far outweighed by the fun they had during their outings).

I think I know what you mean. A werewolf might be capable of committing violent acts during their transformations, but is that really evil if they cannot control themselves? I think that evil must be defined not only in terms of actions, but also intentions. An act is only evil if there is a malevolent intent behind it. As Credo says, this isn't a simple matter.

Yes, there are certain things where the act itself is undoubtedly evil. But let me propose you this question:

The tsunami in southeast Asia killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. But was the tsunami evil? The tsunami wasn't conscious. . . it couldn't make the conscious decision to land somewhere that would cause ultimate death and destruction. The tsunami was a result of a natural occurrence--an earthquake--and without earthquakes, the nature of our planet would be completely different. Are earthquakes evil?

Now, let's look at a werewolf. A werewolf, when transformed, has no conscious choice to attack or not attack humans. Is he or she, then, evil? Is a cat who kills an innocent mouse because it is in his nature evil? Yes, the death of an innocent creature is tragic. . . perhaps even evil. . . but is the creature who initiated it evil if he cannot control that behavior?

The difference between the kind of evil of Tom Riddle, Uncle Vernon, etc. and the potential for "evil" in a person like Lupin are very different. Riddle and Uncle Vernon choose to do the things they do, and they don't feel remorse. We don't see the good ol' non-transformed Lupin going out and torturing and killing, do we? And if he were so unfortunate as to harm someone as a werewolf, would we blame his conscious, human mind the way we do Riddle and Vernon? Would it be fair?

So, you see, the question of evil is NEVER as simple as it may appear. There is always another way of looking at it.

First of all, I never did say that Lupin or any of the Marauders were "evil," but that everyone is capable of evil. And I truly, truly believe that JKR believes that, too, which is why she shows Harry's behavior with Bella and the Cruciatus curse that he tries on her, and why she shows us Lupin and Sirius trying to kill Peter, and why she lets McGonagall tell Dumbledore that he is capable of the same sort of magic as Voldemort only he is too noble to use it, and why we see James and Lily fighting it out over Snape. There are just too many examples.

I don't believe these books divide the good guys and bad guys evenly down the middle, and I don't believe anyone is perfect. I'm sorry if that offends people, but that is the way I think about human beings in general.

And I believe the canon is much simpler than the "Lupin/tsunami" analogy, I think. Lupin isn't just some passive victim of nature, nor is he a force of nature that cannot be controlled. He has had restrictions that, for one reason or another, he has refused to go along with - the Whomping Willow and the potion he doesn't take in PoA.

Lupin is a rational human being most of the time. He had a longing for friendship when he was young. At the same time, the whomping willow was planted just so Lupin would be safe from "committing" any sort of violence on people and so that people wouldn't wander his way.

As long as Lupin stayed under the tree, he was safe, the school was safe, and Lupin could go to school in peace. No problem. The "forces of nature" within him were as controlled as they've ever been.

Enter James, Sirius, and Peter.

They found out about Lupin and the tree. They didn't want him to be alone when he transformed, so they took the drastic (not to mention, illegal) step of turning into animagi so he wouldn't be alone under the tree.

It took them YEARS to learn to do this. They knew it was illegal. Dumbledore was their transformation teacher, and he didn't know they were doing it. They were very sneaky. There is a choice there - the animagi had a choice and Lupin had a choice. Maybe Lupin didn't think they would ever master transformation, so he never told them "No." At any rate - they all had years to figure out the right and wrong of this.

Then . . . time passed and it wasn't long before they saw the "possibilities" as Lupin put it - they went out into the countryside and became "Marauders." They had close calls. Lupin never, to our knowledge, told them to keep him in the tree.

Lupin chose to leave the tunnel, and that isn't just an out of control force of nature like a tsunami, but a human being making a decision. If the Marauders and Lupin hadn't roamed around, by CHOICE, then there would have been no danger!

So Lupin is at the mercy of nature once a month, but the tree kept him under control. Then the friends - all four of them - made a conscious decision to take risk after risk. So I refuse to see Lupin as innocent in that process, since he could have protested anytime during the years the friends were learning to transform. But he didn't. And that is his weakness or his "failing" as JKR has talked about - "he cuts his friends too much slack."

So, just for the record, I don't think a cat catching a mouse is evil, but neither is a human killing a fly, and that has actually been debated here concerning Snape's memory of sitting in his bedroom shooting down flies.

Pulling pranks as a teenager isn't evil, but knowing that you are a werewolf capable of killing and roaming the countryside anyway is very, very risky. It certainly isn't "good."

First of all, I never did say that Lupin or any of the Marauders were "evil," but that everyone is capable of evil.
I don't believe these books divide the good guys and bad guys evenly down the middle, and I don't believe anyone is perfect. I'm sorry if that offends people, but that is the way I think about human beings in general.You are absolutely right- on both accounts. :agree: This is where the theme of choices comes in. As others have eloquently discussed before, it is the pattern of bad choices over a long period of time without regret or remorse that makes a person evil. No human is perfect as you said because everyone makes at least one bad choice in their life. This certainly doesn't make them evil- it makes them human.
Maybe Lupin didn't think they would ever master transformation, so he never told them "No." Maybe Lupin didn't know until Sirius, James and Peter surprised him in their fifth year with their transformations.So I refuse to see Lupin as innocent in that process, since he could have protested anytime during the years the friends were learning to transform. But he didn't. And that is his weakness or his "failing" as JKR has talked about - "he cuts his friends too much slack."Certainly- Lupin did indeed know that these were risky ventures that they were embarking on. Any misgivings he might have had were washed away with them being "carried away with their own cleverness", or something to that nature. Also, as I've said before, I really think Lupin trusted that James and Sirius would be able to keep him in line and that nothing would happen (though I agree he probably should have thought about this a little more). But despite these risks, Lupin does realize and admit later on that 1) their behavior was extremely risky, 2) that they didn't fully think about the consequences of their actions, and 3) that something could have happened, despite their precautions. This certainly doesn't make him evil, but it is an example of his mistakes as someone who wasn't yet fully mature.

And the Marauders flat out enjoyed the risks. It's part of the whole brain research--it isn't that nobody has told teenagers that driving too fast is dangerous, or that smoking is bad for their health, etc., etc.; they know perfectly well. What they're not doing is processing that information. The thrill of the moment overrides what appear to be obvious pitfalls and dangers. An adult can look at a flight of stairs and think immediately--wow: those are steep; you could easily slip and kill yourself on those; better be careful. Teenager looks at stairs and plunges down them on skateboard.

It's all the shades of choices and mistakes and reparations in the novels that make the characters so believable. Even better is that no two characters make the same degree of mistake, or reparation, or anything else; there's an infinite variety of repsonses and actions, depending upon the individual character's background and circumstances...it makes them feel quite real. I agree, silver ink pot: it's what makes them interesting to read about. Lupin, because he is such a nice person, can be too easily dismissed as simply saintly--and there just is so much more to his character that makes him fallible--but more interesting and believable than a saint. And, as with all of the other characters, the series of experiences he goes through, his choices, his errors, everything makes him more fascinating.

Lupin chose to leave the tunnel, and that isn't just an out of control force of nature like a tsunami, but a human being making a decision. If the Marauders and Lupin hadn't roamed around, by CHOICE, then there would have been no danger!

So Lupin is at the mercy of nature once a month, but the tree kept him under control. Then the friends - all four of them - made a conscious decision to take risk after risk. So I refuse to see Lupin as innocent in that process, since he could have protested anytime during the years the friends were learning to transform. But he didn't. And that is his weakness or his "failing" as JKR has talked about - "he cuts his friends too much slack."I agree. Lupin's desire for friendship led him to a bad choice--to ignore his better judgement. Think of what a dark place it would have led him to, if something had gone wrong. . .

You are absolutely right- on both accounts. :agree: This is where the theme of choices comes in. As others have eloquently discussed before, it is the pattern of bad choices over a long period of time without regret or remorse that makes a person evil. No human is perfect as you said because everyone makes at least one bad choice in their life. This certainly doesn't make them evil- it makes them human.

Exactly! I hear echoes of Dumbledore!


Maybe Lupin didn't know until Sirius, James and Peter surprised him in their fifth year with their transformations.

I am wondering the same thing, myself! I mean, if we put ourselves in Lupin's place, he would be totally amazed that his friends wanted to go to that trouble for him, right? So it would be truly difficult to say, "No thanks, don't bother on my account," when he really wishes not to be alone in the Shrieking Shack.

Certainly- Lupin did indeed know that these were risky ventures that they were embarking on. Any misgivings he might have had were washed away with them being "carried away with their own cleverness", or something to that nature. Also, as I've said before, I really think Lupin trusted that James and Sirius would be able to keep him in line and that nothing would happen (though I agree he probably should have thought about this a little more). But despite these risks, Lupin does realize and admit later on that 1) their behavior was extremely risky, 2) that they didn't fully think about the consequences of their actions, and 3) that something could have happened, despite their precautions. This certainly doesn't make him evil, but it is an example of his mistakes as someone who wasn't yet fully mature.

I can certainly understand the "not fully mature" mind, being the mother of two teenagers who think they know everything! :p That's exactly what subtle science deals with so eloquently in her post here:

And the Marauders flat out enjoyed the risks. It's part of the whole brain research--it isn't that nobody has told teenagers that driving too fast is dangerous, or that smoking is bad for their health, etc., etc.; they know perfectly well. What they're not doing is processing that information. The thrill of the moment overrides what appear to be obvious pitfalls and dangers. An adult can look at a flight of stairs and think immediately--wow: those are steep; you could easily slip and kill yourself on those; better be careful. Teenager looks at stairs and plunges down them on skateboard.

It's all the shades of choices and mistakes and reparations in the novels that make the characters so believable. Even better is that no two characters make the same degree of mistake, or reparation, or anything else; there's an infinite variety of repsonses and actions, depending upon the individual character's background and circumstances...it makes them feel quite real. I agree, silver ink pot: it's what makes them interesting to read about. Lupin, because he is such a nice person, can be too easily dismissed as simply saintly--and there just is so much more to his character that makes him fallible--but more interesting and believable than a saint. And, as with all of the other characters, the series of experiences he goes through, his choices, his errors, everything makes him more fascinating.

Exactly. Not even Dumbledore is perfect, thank goodness, or he would be too boring - just another storybook wizard.

It took them YEARS to learn to do this. They knew it was illegal. Dumbledore was their transformation teacher, and he didn't know they were doing it. They were very sneaky. There is a choice there - the animagi had a choice and Lupin had a choice. Maybe Lupin didn't think they would ever master transformation, so he never told them "No." At any rate - they all had years to figure out the right and wrong of this.

But is it truly "wrong"? It's been said on this thread many times that intention has to be considered when looking at one's actions. The Marauders didn't become animagi to go out and do anything bad or wrong. That was not their intention. Their intention was to be there for a friend and to help him. They obviously couldn't help him in human form, so they helped him in another way. Also, Dumbledore was never their teacher. He was their Headmaster, thus making him a bit more distant from the foursome, though he evidently knew them very well.

Pulling pranks as a teenager isn't evil, but knowing that you are a werewolf capable of killing and roaming the countryside anyway is very, very risky. It certainly isn't "good."

I think it's better if Lupin were out roaming with a dog and a stag to help control him than if he escaped on his own. With his friends there, he was able to keep casualties down to nothing. If he had left the Shrieking Shack without him, I don't think things would have turned out so well.

I think it's better if Lupin were out roaming with a dog and a stag to help control him than if he escaped on his own. With his friends there, he was able to keep casualties down to nothing. If he had left the Shrieking Shack without him, I don't think things would have turned out so well.
I think the point was that it would have been very unlikely Lupin would have been roaming about without them. Dumbledore set up the Shrieking Shack and Whomping Willow to keep Lupin in and others out--he wouldn't have allowed Lupin at school if he didn't think Lupin could be contained.

But is it truly "wrong"? It's been said on this thread many times that intention has to be considered when looking at one's actions. The Marauders didn't become animagi to go out and do anything bad or wrong. That was not their intention. Their intention was to be there for a friend and to help him. They obviously couldn't help him in human form, so they helped him in another way. Also, Dumbledore was never their teacher. He was their Headmaster, thus making him a bit more distant from the foursome, though he evidently knew them very well.

You are right about Dumbledore - I was confusing the books. Dumbledore was Tom Riddle's transfiguration professor back in the 1940s. He was headmaster during the Marauder's time. Sorry about that.

I have thought about the Marauders' intentions. They may have started out with the best of intentions, just trying to help a friend be less lonely. The problem is, one thing led to another, and instead of keeping Lupin company, they took it one step further than they should have. They couldn't resist the temptation to leave the shack and roam.


I think it's better if Lupin were out roaming with a dog and a stag to help control him than if he escaped on his own. With his friends there, he was able to keep casualties down to nothing. If he had left the Shrieking Shack without him, I don't think things would have turned out so well.

But Lupin wasn't capable of leaving the Shack without the help of his friends. Peter was able to touch the knot and stop the willow branches. Otherwise, Lupin couldn't have left the Shack, as far as we know. So it is sort of a circular argument.

Lupin couldn't leave the Shack without his friend's help, and once he was out, he couldn't control himself without his friends' help. However, he wouldn't have needed help if he had never gotten out, and he couldn't have gotten out without his friends' help . . . see what I mean?

Well, I agree at least. :) I believe that telling Harry about his connection with James, the relationship would have become a bit awkward. In short, it would have become a tad too personal too soon- both Harry and Lupin are very private people. Given Harry's desire for information about his parents, I do think that if Lupin had told Harry about his friendship with James, (aside from plot reasons) it would have made Harry see Lupin in a whole different light. I agree that it might have shifted Lupin's role in the relationship from his teacher to friend of the family who is also his teacher, and that probably would have been quite awkward.
I agree as well. Lupin did well to keep his relationship with Harry's parents in the background for as long as he could. It would have compromised their student/teacher relationship. Harry would have been like one of those kids whose mom or dad was a teacher at their school. . . not only is it sort of awkward for those kids, but there's always the question of maintaining that necessary distance and respect of the student for the teacher. There's the danger of special treatment, or at least the illusion of it. Lupin especially is the kind of teacher who wants to put everyone on an equal level, and I'm sure he wanted to establish that relationship with Harry before diving into deeper issues. Lupin revealed the connection when he felt it would be the best for Harry, and I think he was right to do so.

And I believe the canon is much simpler than the "Lupin/tsunami" analogy, I think. Lupin isn't just some passive victim of nature, nor is he a force of nature that cannot be controlled. He has had restrictions that, for one reason or another, he has refused to go along with - the Whomping Willow and the potion he doesn't take in PoA.

Lupin is a rational human being most of the time. He had a longing for friendship when he was young. At the same time, the whomping willow was planted just so Lupin would be safe from "committing" any sort of violence on people and so that people wouldn't wander his way.

As long as Lupin stayed under the tree, he was safe, the school was safe, and Lupin could go to school in peace. No problem. The "forces of nature" within him were as controlled as they've ever been.

Enter James, Sirius, and Peter.
This is simpler than the tsunami analogy? Looks much more complicated to me.

So now we're not talking about Lupin as a werewolf, when he obviously has no control over himself, but talking about Lupin as a person who happens to be a werewolf. You're right, he does have some measure of control over that, but let's again look at how complicated this situation really is:

Even as a human, Lupin isn't normal. He's lived most of his life knowing that most people consider him a monster. He never got to have a normal childhood like James and Sirius and Peter did. It's perfectly rational to believe that a teenage boy living as restricted a life as he's had to live is going to, at some point, feel like he's in a cage (in Lupin's case, almost literally), and he's going to want to break out of that cage.

Was it safe? No, we all know that, and he should be punished for it, along with the rest of the Marauders for facilitating it. But I wouldn't consider that an evil act, as conscious as it was. Personally, I think that the things which influence young people the most are the things where they really went over the edge and could really have done something dangerous. Teenagers feel invincible so much of the time until they have that "brush with death," whether it be themselves or someone they know. The Marauders had that one experience and never did it again. They learned their lesson. They went over the edge once and took a great lesson away from it, and it continued to run through their minds into adulthood.

Yes, they were irresponsible. Yes, they could have caused someone extreme harm or even death. . . even though that was never their intent. They were naive, and they came out of that situation much more mature and with a better understanding of what was really at stake. Had it not happened then, they might have gone many more years before really realizing it. Lupin could have had many more close calls than he did.

I guess my point is that people learn from mistakes. If we don't make mistakes, if we don't go over the edge a few times in our lives, we'll never really know what our limits are. Growing up with any kind of disease or illness is hard, not to mention simply growing up at all, and you have to make mistakes--hurt yourself and, unfortunately, maybe even others sometimes--in order to learn how to live the rest of your life with that kind of condition. You have to break out of the cage and run free a few times in your life before you really understand why that cage is there in the first place.

Lupin is a werewolf, and he could have seriously hurt Snape. My brother was driving too fast one time and smashed into the car in front of him. Lupin the teenage werewolf. . . my brother the teenage driver. Are they really that much different? Does my brother have this hidden dark side because he messed up, paid the price, and learned his lesson?

It's so much easier to just condemn people for the irresponsibilities and near misses in their lives, but if we do it to Lupin, I think we all have to turn around and do it to our best friends, our parents, our kids, and ourselves. If anything, JKR is teaching us to challenge ourselves to not be that person who looks at the surface and forgets the person underneath. . . and mistakes are on the surface. It's what the person learns from it and how he or she goes on to live the rest of life that really matters.

First of all, I never did say that Lupin or any of the Marauders were "evil," but that everyone is capable of evil. I know you didn't. You quoted a bit of my post at the post of this, and I'm not sure if you were rebuffing my argument or agreeing with it. I think we agree as I said that everyone is capable of doing evil and that is why choices are so important. I'm sure no-one is offended by you saying that no-one is perfect - well, I'm not anyway.
Originally posted by SIP
They found out about Lupin and the tree. They didn't want him to be alone when he transformed, so they took the drastic (not to mention, illegal) step of turning into animagi so he wouldn't be alone under the tree.

It took them YEARS to learn to do this. They knew it was illegal. Dumbledore was their transformation teacher, and he didn't know they were doing it. They were very sneaky. There is a choice there - the animagi had a choice and Lupin had a choice. Maybe Lupin didn't think they would ever master transformation, so he never told them "No." At any rate - they all had years to figure out the right and wrong of this.I don't deny that they did some stupid, dangerous and reckless things during transformations, but I think they made the right choice in learning to become Animagi. As you say, they didn't want Lupin to be alone. What friend would? Lupin's transformations were terrible, terrifying. Every bone in his body broken and reformed, sinews ripped, muscles torn and, worst of all, he loses his mind. I couldn't bear to think of someone I cared for going through that and that they have to have to go through it alone is heartbreaking.

There was only one way they could help him through his transformations, be there for him, support him through the very worst. And they did it, regardless of the fact that it was difficult, dangerous and illegal. None of that mattered as much as helping their friend. It wasn't just a whim, or a joke - it took three years of hard work for them to become Animagi. It made all the difference in the world to Lupin and it helped him, really helped him through his hardest times. Were they wrong to get carried away and go rampaging around the grounds? For sure. But it wasn't wrong for them to become Animagi, however risky it might have been. It was an incredible display of love and commitment for their friend and, as such, a very good thing to do.

I don't deny that they did some stupid, dangerous and reckless things during transformations, but I think they made the right choice in learning to become Animagi. As you say, they didn't want Lupin to be alone. What friend would? Lupin's transformations were terrible, terrifying. Every bone in his body broken and reformed, sinews ripped, muscles torn and, worst of all, he loses his mind. I couldn't bear to think of someone I cared for going through that and that they have to have to go through it alone is heartbreaking.

There was only one way they could help him through his transformations, be there for him, support him through the very worst. And they did it, regardless of the fact that it was difficult, dangerous and illegal. None of that mattered as much as helping their friend. It wasn't just a whim, or a joke - it took three years of hard work for them to become Animagi. It made all the difference in the world to Lupin and it helped him, really helped him through his hardest times. Were they wrong to get carried away and go rampaging around the grounds? For sure. But it wasn't wrong for them to become Animagi, however risky it might have been. It was an incredible display of love and commitment for their friend and, as such, a very good thing to do.
Very beautifully said. If only we could all call ourselves such good friends to put ourselves through something like that to make life better for someone we care about.

It's like the age-old story of the man who needs to steal bread to feed his family. He might break the baker's window, hurt himself, and even beat up a police officer to get it, but he'd rather take that risk than watch his family starve.

But Lupin wasn't capable of leaving the Shack without the help of his friends. Peter was able to touch the knot and stop the willow branches. Otherwise, Lupin couldn't have left the Shack, as far as we know. So it is sort of a circular argument.

Lupin couldn't leave the Shack without his friend's help, and once he was out, he couldn't control himself without his friends' help. However, he wouldn't have needed help if he had never gotten out, and he couldn't have gotten out without his friends' help . . . see what I mean?

It was possible for Lupin to escape on his own. I draw this conclusion from the fact that Lupin was able to enter the Shrieking Shack without Peter's help in the past. Before the Marauders became animagi, Lupin and Madam Pompfrey made it to the Shrieking Shack just fine on their own. I also think it's possible to get into and out of the underground tunnel without stopping the branches. One can and probably will be hit and it's obviously dangerous, but I still think it's possible.

I guess my point is that people learn from mistakes. If we don't make mistakes, if we don't go over the edge a few times in our lives, we'll never really know what our limits are. Growing up with any kind of disease or illness is hard, not to mention simply growing up at all, and you have to make mistakes--hurt yourself and, unfortunately, maybe even others sometimes--in order to learn how to live the rest of your life with that kind of condition. You have to break out of the cage and run free a few times in your life before you really understand why that cage is there in the first place.

:tu: I agree. If Lupin and the other Marauders had never gone on their moonlight excursions, they never would have learned they were wrong. They would never have had the chance to grow up and mature from that irresponsibility and they would never have the thoughts of their recklessness in the back of their minds to prevent them from doing it again. Yes, they continued to as students, but they didn't continue in their adulthood. This shows they learned from their mistakes.

It took them YEARS to learn to do this. They knew it was illegal. Dumbledore was their transformation teacher, and he didn't know they were doing it. They were very sneaky. There is a choice there - the animagi had a choice and Lupin had a choice. Maybe Lupin didn't think they would ever master transformation, so he never told them "No." At any rate - they all had years to figure out the right and wrong of this.Yeah, the boys knew it was wrong, and did it anyway...but DD was the Headmaster, McGonagall has been the transfiguration teacher for the past 39 years, according to OoP.

Lupin is a werewolf, and he could have seriously hurt Snape. My brother was driving too fast one time and smashed into the car in front of him. Lupin the teenage werewolf. . . my brother the teenage driver. Are they really that much different? Does my brother have this hidden dark side because he messed up, paid the price, and learned his lesson?

But your brother didn't have years to think about slowing down before his accident happened. As teenage drivers, we all make mistakes and have accidents, usually.

What the Marauders did was deception on a grand scale. It would be more like sneaking out before you had a driver's license and taking a car you weren't supposed to drive, and then letting your friends take turns driving it too fast around Dead Man's Curve, and then sneaking back in and high-fiving eachother because you escaped death, didn't kill anyone else, out-ran the cops, and didn't get caught by your parents.

The other problem is that the Marauders didn't get caught except for Snape and the Werewolf, had no consequences, and never had to face anything until 20 years later when circumstances forced Lupin to explain it to Harry. Notice, he still didn't want to tell Dumbledore - Lupin went straight to the Shack on his own.

Also, you are totally ignoring the fact that Lupin kept all this a secret, even though it was thought that Sirius was a crazed killer out to get Harry. Lupin knows about secret passageways that Sirius could use to get into the castle but he doesn't warn anyone.

Lupin is so overwhelmed by ancient peer-pressure that he can't bring himself to face Dumbledore, even if it means that everyone in the castle was at risk. Even that isn't evil, but it is definitely bad judgement, which usually catches up with people eventually. Just ask anyone who has ever charged too much on their credit card because they've gotten away with it up to a point. Or ask anyone who has hidden a drug or alcohol habit, or anyone who has ever lied on their income tax. What goes around comes around.

But your brother didn't have years to think about slowing down before his accident happened. As teenage drivers, we all make mistakes and have accidents, usually.
But he had it hammered into him for years that speeding is illegal and dangerous, and he did it anyway. And I'm pretty sure he sped many, many times without getting caught before it finally bit him in the butt. It happens every day. He may not have been sneaking out at night and high-fiving his friends, but just like the Marauders, he knew it was illegal, he did it anyway lots of times without getting caught, without feeling he was really doing anything dangerous, and then finally had a close enough call where there was damage and a price to pay--but no injuries--and he learned his lesson. I think this is a very accurate analogy.

The other problem is that the Marauders didn't get caught except for Snape and the Werewolf, had no consequences, and never had to face anything until 20 years later when circumstances forced Lupin to explain it to Harry. Notice, he still didn't want to tell Dumbledore - Lupin went straight to the Shack on his own.
Never had to face anything? Do you think the Marauders just forgot about that incident for 20 years and then decided to feel remorse for it when they had to explain it to Harry? We KNOW that after that event they realize they'd crossed the line, and you don't have a close call like that without losing many, many nights of sleep over it. They couldn't have received any greater punishment than learning that for themselves and having to face that in their own minds.

And I don't see what good telling Dumbledore after 20 years would do anyway. "Oh, well Lupin, I guess I'm going to have to fire you because you messed up when you were a student here." He would have known that Lupin learned his lesson.

Also, you are totally ignoring the fact that Lupin kept all this a secret, even though it was thought that Sirius was a crazed killer out to get Harry. Lupin knows about secret passageways that Sirius could use to get into the castle but he doesn't warn anyone.
I'm not ignoring it, I just realized that he had his reasons. They might not have been great ones, but if he really felt like he was endangering Harry, he wouldn't have let it go the way he did. He's not perfect, but he's not stupid either. He obviously felt that things would be OK.

Lupin is so overwhelmed by ancient peer-pressure that he can't bring himself to face Dumbledore, even if it means that everyone in the castle was at risk. Even that isn't evil, but it is definitely bad judgement, which usually catches up with people eventually. Just ask anyone who has ever charged too much on their credit card because they've gotten away with it up to a point. Or ask anyone who has hidden a drug or alcohol habit, or anyone who has ever lied on their income tax. What goes around comes around.
And hasn't it already? Lupin is a remorseful person. He doesn't need punishment from the outside. If he makes a mistake, bad judgement, whatever, he realizes it in time. If anything, the self-punishment he puts on himself is worse than anything Dumbledore or anyone else could give him. He lives in guilt for things that are his fault and even things that aren't. Why must we punish him more?

Remember when you were a kid and the first time you felt that just seeing the disappointment on your parents' faces was so much worse than being grounded or anything else they could do to you? That's the kind of person Lupin is. He's lived his whole life feeling guilty. He doesn't need anything worse than that. Cut him some slack.

What goes around comes around.I'm baffled by this statement. Lupin is an example of the fact that what goes around doesn't always come around. He doesn't get what he deserves. Whatever his faults they are massively outweighted by his good qualities and he is essentially a good, kind, gentle and decent person. Yet the Wizarding World doesn't treat him with goodness or kindness, it treats him with cold, brutal prejudice and unreasonable dislike.

Lupin doesn't bring his trials on himself. Good things don't always happen to good people and bad things don't always happend to bad people. If what went around came around Lily and James wouldn't have been murdered by Voldemort, Harry wouldn't be an orphan, Sirius wouldn't have spent 12 years in Azkaban, Cedric wouldn't have been killed by Wormtail and Lupin wouldn't be treated like some sort of social pariah. They didn't deserve it, but it happened anyway.

I'm not ignoring it, I just realized that he had his reasons.

Not to interrupt the debate, but what reasons would those be?

I'm baffled by this statement. Lupin is an example of the fact that what goes around doesn't always come around. He doesn't get what he deserves. Whatever his faults they are massively outweighted by his good qualities and he is essentially a good, kind, gentle and decent person. Yet the Wizarding World doesn't treat him with goodness or kindness, it treats him with cold, brutal prejudice and unreasonable dislike.
OMG, shaggy. . . *gives you the biggest hug ever* So, so, so, so true!

Becoming Animagi was, apparently, not wrong...but remaining unregistered Animagi was.

By OotP, Lupin seems to have learned something from PoA. He should have told Dumbledore the whole story (albeit that would make for a much shorter novel!), but he didn't. It illuminates his character to explore why he didn't do it--including pointing up the subtle change by OotP, when he leads the rescue team and chastises Sirius. By the end of PoA, Lupin fully admits what he did wrong as a teenager and what he did wrong in PoA by not notifying Dumbledore. Looking at what he says and analyzing why he did it helps fill in his character...

It's interesting, by the way, to read the comments about Lupin's hiding his friendship with James. I, of course, disagree entirely, as I deal with the situation pretty much on a daily basis at my small school--each year, I'm virtually guaranteed to be teaching the child of a faculty or staff member or of a family I know rather well. Only if you call into question the teacher's very professionalism is there a problem with 'crossing the line.' Naturally, there are teachers who cross it and are quite unprofessional--showing favor and whatnot simply because they are friends with the students' parents. That sort's probably got more problems than just that issue...

Lupin seems well able to distinguish between Harry and James and to have a pretty fair sense of what is appropriate as a teacher, but maybe his feelings about James are so strong that he wouldn't be able to manage his responsibilities as a teacher because of them. However, I find it more consistent to see his avoidance of the topic as a plot device that utilizes and illustrates an aspect of his character as well--his ability to keep secrets. Again--not necessarily a negative trait, unless you want to see it that way. Seems logical, considering his background/history, and useful, considering his actual position as a member of the Order.

Not to interrupt the debate, but what reasons would those be?
I can only speculate, as we have no canon evidence either way, but here are some possibilities:

1) In his heart of hearts, he didn't believe Sirius was the vicious killer everyone else did.

2) He'd taken precautions himself to check the secret entrances. What they might be, I don't know.

3) The castle was already being patrolled by dementors. Even with secret entrances, he may have felt that there was no way, with them looking for him so intently, that he could get past them.

4) He was afraid of frightening Harry even more than he already was.

Those are just a few, and there are probably lots of others I can't think of. But we've seen plenty of evidence of Lupin's good character and how he would not knowingly do anything to harm anyone, and I see no reason to believe otherwise in this case. He cares about Harry, and no amount of pride or desire to defend the memory of an old friend (both the dead James and Sirius as the bright young student at Hogwarts) would be enough to let him risk Harry's life.

I'm baffled by this statement. Lupin is an example of the fact that what goes around doesn't always come around. He doesn't get what he deserves. Whatever his faults they are massively outweighted by his good qualities and he is essentially a good, kind, gentle and decent person. Yet the Wizarding World doesn't treat him with goodness or kindness, it treats him with cold, brutal prejudice and unreasonable dislike.

Lupin doesn't bring his trials on himself. Good things don't always happen to good people and bad things don't always happend to bad people. If what went around came around Lily and James wouldn't have been murdered by Voldemort, Harry wouldn't be an orphan, Sirius wouldn't have spent 12 years in Azkaban, Cedric wouldn't have been killed by Wormtail and Lupin wouldn't be treated like some sort of social pariah. They didn't deserve it, but it happened anyway.

Well I totally disagree with most of this. Lupin is a grown man whom everyone agrees is of above average intelligence. He knows what he's doing when he withholds information, whether from Dumbledore or anyone else. He wasn't a teenager in PoA, he was nearly 40 years old and certainly knew the risks he was taking.

Yes, Lupin deserves a fair chance to make a living and have a quality of life. No one here can say that Lupin doesn't suffer.

By saying "what goes around comes around," I was talking about the amount of time that went by before the truth with a capital "T" came out. Keeping so many secrets is a risky business, and keeping secrets for years is no insurance that the truth won't come out.

The reason it is fitting that Lupin finally tells the story of the Marauders to Harry is that he is the one who has been keeping it a secret. He hasn't been locked up like Sirius, hidden as a rat like Peter, and hasn't died like James. He has been conscious of keeping a secret, and it is his own choice and bad judgement. So, although he never wanted any of it to come to light, he eventually had to tell Dumbledore the truth and "face the consequences."

Not to interrupt the debate, but what reasons would those be?

:p Thanks for interrupting the debate, of which I am now bowing out for the night, as I have made my position on Lupin as plain as I know how without repeating myself. I would enjoy reading those "reasons" too, CredoBuffa! Why would Lupin feel that Harry wouldn't be in any danger? He doesn't know about Peter, supposedly, so when Sirius broke into Gryffindor by tearing up the Fat Lady, wouldn't Lupin have indeed thought that Harry was in danger?

On a side note: I can't remember if it was on this thread or another one that we talked about Sirius Black and the way he ripped up the Fat Lady. Dumbledore mentioned it as one of the reasons why Sirius hadn't acted like an innocent man. And because of the Fat Lady, in OotP, Phineas Nigellus expresses fear that his great-great-grandson is going to rip up his painting as well, and Dumbledore reassures him that "Sirius knows not to destroy any paintings." It is pretty interesting when even paintings are afraid of someone's temper. :evil:

I can only speculate, as we have no canon evidence either way, but here are some possibilities:

1) In his heart of hearts, he didn't believe Sirius was the vicious killer everyone else did. I agree that it is quite possible he had doubts about Sirius' guilt. However, he could have shared those doubts with Dumbledore, and he may have actually done so. I would think that Lupin would trust Dumbledore with the idea, but then, (we've discussed this before on this thread) possibly he felt that Dumbledore wasn't as wise as Harry (and we) think he is.

2) He'd taken precautions himself to check the secret entrances. What they might be, I don't know. After the incident in the Gryffindor common room, he should have known it that it wasn't enough. This was still a considerable risk to take, without any valid reason to take such a risk.

3) The castle was already being patrolled by dementors. Even with secret entrances, he may have felt that there was no way, with them looking for him so intently, that he could get past them.
See above.

4) He was afraid of frightening Harry even more than he already was.
I agree that he shouldn't have told Harry, but this isn't a reason as to why he shouldn't have told Dumbledore.

Those are just a few, and there are probably lots of others I can't think of. But we've seen plenty of evidence of Lupin's good character and how he would not knowingly do anything to harm anyone, and I see no reason to believe otherwise in this case. He cares about Harry, and no amount of pride or desire to defend the memory of an old friend (both the dead James and Sirius as the bright young student at Hogwarts) would be enough to let him risk Harry's life.
I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of Lupin, as far as he has a good character. I too, doubt that Lupin would want Harry to be hurt. However, he does make mistakes, and I think that not telling Dumbledore what was going on was one of them. He denied Dumbledore the opportunity to ensure Harry's safety by denying him the information that he needed to fully ensure Harry's safety.

The reason it is fitting that Lupin finally tells the story of the Marauders to Harry is that he is the one who has been keeping it a secret. He hasn't been locked up like Sirius, hidden as a rat like Peter, and hasn't died like James. He has been conscious of keeping a secret, and it is his own choice and bad judgement. So, although he never wanted any of it to come to light, he eventually had to tell Dumbledore the truth and "face the consequences."

Lupin was under no obligation to tell Harry anything. Sirius was anxious to get to the heart of the matter, Peter was trying to escape and James wasn't around. If Lupin wasn't willing for Harry to know the entire story, he could have just let Sirius attack Peter and been done with it.

Lupin told Harry the entire story because he wanted to. He wanted Harry to understand and to make up his own mind about who or what to believe. Lupin could have left Harry in the dark. He chose not to.

I'm not ignoring it, I just realized that he had his reasons. They might not have been great ones, but if he really felt like he was endangering Harry, he wouldn't have let it go the way he did. He's not perfect, but he's not stupid either. He obviously felt that things would be OK.Isn't this the same train of thought that led him to romp around with the rest of the Marauders on full moons? Something that Lupin now realizes was stupid and that he regrets. What if Sirius had been guilty and Harry had been hurt? Would he be alright in not telling Dumbledore about his secrets, just because he "felt things would be OK?" Would Hermione or Ron accept that as a reason? You're right--Lupin wouldn't forgive himself for it, but neither would a lot of other people. Would that be good enough punishment for such a monumental mistake? I think not. Lupin should not have acted on how he felt, but on what he should have been able to predict as a possibility. He should have been able to predict that Sirius might use their old secret passages and his animagus form to enter Hogwarts. He should have told Dumbledore about these things. Even Lupin admits in the Shrieking Shack that his reason for not doing so was not good enough.

OK, you’ll just have to bear with me here. . . but I’m trying to understand all of you who seem so quick to condemn Lupin, and the rest of the Marauders for that matter, based on solely the flaws in their characters.

I want you to tell me what you think of this (and just for the record, I’m not making this up, it’s 100% true): I ran a red light today in the middle of downtown Minneapolis. I didn’t hit any other cars or pedestrians, but solely for the lucky fact that the light had just turned a few moments before and none of those other cars had any chance to accelerate yet, and there happened to be no pedestrians on that street corner (though there were plenty on other blocks elsewhere in the city. . . it was, after all, a busy work week afternoon). Plenty of other drivers saw my offence, but there were no police, so I wasn’t in any way reprimanded by the law. I continued to drive through the city, through many other intersections with lots of other cars and people walking about.

Now, based on that, and the fact that I’m a 22 year old student who has been driving for six years, what kind of a person am I? I want you to be completely honest with me. What kind of person drives through a red light in a busy city and gets away with it? Don't try to rationalize what the heck this has to do, or doesn't have to do, with Lupin. Just answer, plain and simple. I want to know how you respond to this kind of situation in the real world. Lay the smack down on me, do whatever you want. . . I won't be offended.

And because of the Fat Lady, in OotP, Phineas Nigellus expresses fear that his great-great-grandson is going to rip up his painting as well, and Dumbledore reassures him that "Sirius knows not to destroy any paintings." It is pretty interesting when even paintings are afraid of someone's temper. No, not because of the Fat Lady, but because Sirius would have torn up his mother's painting in a heartbeat.

Below is the exchange which takes place in OotP when Arthur has been attacked by Nagini"Oh, very well," said the wizard called Phineas, eyeing the wand with mild apprehension, "though he may well have destroyed my picture by now, he's done away with most of the family -"

"Sirius knows not to destroy your portrait," said Dumbledore

OK, you’ll just have to bear with me here. . . but I’m trying to understand all of you who seem so quick to condemn Lupin, and the rest of the Marauders for that matter, based on solely the flaws in their characters.I certainly don't condemn Lupin and I haven't seen anyone else doing this either. If I don't condemn Snape, why would I condemn Lupin? But, that's what you and some others seem to have assumed, apparently without really seeing the meaning of our posts. I don't know why HermioneLuna felt compelled to have you come from the Lupin thread to defend him--no one was attacking him. Having a dark side isn't a bad thing. Everyone has one that comes out from time to time. Having made mistakes and done things he regrets is normal. But, can we not discuss these issues here just because a few people want to see him as a saint on a pedestal? I don't understand that.

I certainly don't condemn Lupin and I haven't seen anyone else doing this either. If I don't condemn Snape, why would I condemn Lupin? But, that's what you and some others seem to have assumed, apparently without really seeing the meaning of our posts. I don't know why HermioneLuna felt compelled to have you come from the Lupin thread to defend him--no one was attacking him. Having a dark side isn't a bad thing. Everyone has one that comes out from time to time. Having made mistakes and done things he regrets is normal. But, can we not discuss these issues here just because a few people want to see him as a saint on a pedestal? I don't understand that.
What it looks like is that you're taking his "dark side" and making him who he is. We never said he was a saint, but we are realizing that he has proven himself a million times greater a good person than anything negative he might have done in his life. We wouldn't even be having this discussion in the first place if there wasn't someone here who really thought there was something to that dark side, that it gets in the way of Lupin's goodness in a way that makes him less of a good person. There looks to be a lot of "glass half empty" thinking going on with regard to him, and all the Marauders on this thread, and we're trying to encourage you to maybe consider that they are characters with good qualities before they are characters with bad qualities.

I'm with chievrefueil--I've yet to see anyone condemning Lupin. It's not what the point of this particular discussion was, when it was initiated a few pages ago...in fact, by me. At the time, I said I was interested in looking closely at Lupin's character, to see what he actually says and does in the books and figure out the how/why/completeness of his adjustment to lycanthropy; to analyze key aspects of his character to understand some of his choices. Ironically, at the time, I also mentioned being hesitant about bringing it up, for fear of stirring up acrimony.

Saying Lupin made mistakes is not condemning him. His failings have causes and reveal key pieces of information about his thought processes--and that means in the past and the present, and gives us some groundwork for speculation--as well as underscoring key factors/events in his life.

Lupin's speech (well, soliloquy, for all intents and purposes) in PoA is a great confession. It's a moment of wrenching self-examination, done publicly. While the actions he confesses to aren't admirable, I like the strength of character he demonstrates by doing this in front of the group; I think it's the turning point in his character that leads to that other level of self possession that's seen later in OotP:

"I sometimes felt guilty about betraying Dumbledore's trust, of course...he had admitted me to Hogwarts when no other headmaster would have done so, and he had no idea I was breaking the rules he had set down for my own and others' safety. He never knew I had led three fellow students into becoming Animagi illegally. But I always managed to forget my guilty feelings every time we sat down to plan our next month's adventure. And I haven't changed...."
Lupin's face had hardened, and there was self-disgust in his voice. "All this year, I have been battling with myself, wondering whether I should tell Dumbledore that Sirius was an Animagus. But I didn't do it. Why? Because I was too cowardly. It would have meant admitting that I'd betrayed his trust while I was at school, admitting that I'd led others along with me...and Dumbledore's trust has meant everything to me. He let me into Hogwarts as a boy, and he gave me a job when I have been shunned all my adult life, unable to find paid work because of what I am. And so I convinced myself that Sirius was getting into the school using dark arts he learned rom Voldemort, that being an Animagus had nothing to do with it...so, in a way, Snape's been right about me all along" (pp. 356-357, US paper).

Whew. Long speech (all the ellipses, by the way, are JKR's--I didn't cut anything). Fascinating. I really like the way Lupin looks at himself--even what he just did this current school year--as if he's an outsider and evaluates himself. It's a point of view that allows him to admit to himself his own motivations and there's the "self-disgust" at what he's done. And I think the slef-disgust arises in part from realizing he's done the same thing to Dumbledore twice. Since he's able to see that so clearly here in this speech, I think we can safely assume that he'll not ever do such a thing again. In fact, I think one of the unspoken (yes--even in a speech that's this long, I think he didn't say something that runs underneath what he is saying) realizations is that he needs to trust Dumbledore.

Lupin criticizes himself for betraying Dumbeldore's trust, but, particularly in the current situation, he knows he should've gone to Dumbledore and revealed everything he knew. He calls himself "cowardly" for not doing it, because he feared having to tell Dumbledore all that they had done as teenagers: he couldn't face up to that. Now Lupin knows he should have; he knows they shouldn't have done what they did as Marauders, but that's over and done with, the acts of thoughtless teenagers--but he, as an adult, should've stood up and confessed earlier. To me, it's the fear of Dumbledore's reaction--the fear that Dumbledore will be hurt and/or angered by this.

However, Lupin realizes...Dumbledore forgives. I think that's at the root of why Lupin is so fed up with himself in this confession: in a way, he committed a third offense against Dumbledore by underestimating Dumbledore's capacity for understanding, compassion, and forgiveness (those of you looking for Biblical symbolism will know I've managed to rack up three betrayals resulting in a total, rock-solid loyalty...by the way, 'rock' pun intended). By the end of the novel, when Lupin is leaving, there's no evidence whatsoever that Dumbledore is in anyway angry at Lupin--just a quiet shaking of hands. Lupin leaves; he's got a whole next book to absorb the earthquake of revelations that just rocked his world, and he comes back in OotP slightly different--the lesson uncovered by that dramatic soliloquy has sunk in. He's understood his own mistakes and his own character that led to those mistakes; that kind of self-insight makes for a very strong person--which is how I see him in OotP. He still has his moments--ie, the reaction to SWM--but they're far milder than what he did in PoA, and the really key in understanding his reaction to hearing of Harry's Pensieve dive is to include the fact that he was taken completely off guard at that moment--he cerrtainly didn't expect to hear that blast from the past!

JKR's realism of character extends to the point that he reacts a bit like the old Lupin, defending his friends and evading, but we also see him speaking up more definitely...including a sharp smack-down of Sirius. That's fallout from PoA: that's the changed Lupin reacting. Even after a major change/revelation of self, people still contain the basics of the original blueprint of personality: they have to incorporate the old and the new in order to make it all work without a complete implosion. In "Career Advice," JKR nicely illustrates Lupin's incorporating.

What it looks like is that you're taking his "dark side" and making him who he is.I don't understand what you mean.We never said he was a saint, but we are realizing that he has proven himself a million times greater a good person than anything negative he might have done in his life.I agree with the part in bold. We wouldn't even be having this discussion in the first place if there wasn't someone here who really thought there was something to that dark side, that it gets in the way of Lupin's goodness in a way that makes him less of a good person.No, that's not true. This is how the ball got rolling:Actually, there's a whole psycho-sexual analysis that can be done of werewolves (as well as any of the other traditional monsters, such as vampires); it's really quite fascinating, but...I'm not sure I have the courage to venture into the psychology debate again..... : )

I'll reference Buffy again (I got hooked on the show in reruns last year; in some ways, it's similar to HP in the use of legendary beasts/monsters/etc. with its own twists and takes on the mythology): there's a whole story arc dedicated to Oz the werewolf, who gets caught up in enjoying his transformations, escaping his cage to run free and wreak havoc, coming to in odd places and not really knowing what it was that he did overnight--hearing later that people were attacked and killed....

The werewolves quote from PS/SS is interesting, whether or not there are really werewolves roaming the forest--albeit, why not? There are plenty of other creatures ranging from completely harmless to murderous in there. But even if there aren't, assuming that was just a bogeyman type of story to frighten the kids away from the Forest (like there isn't enough real stuff in there to keep them out...spiders? giant spiders? I'm with Ron on that one)--note that both Draco and Filch perpetuate the wizarding world's fear of werewolves in that little exchange.

I'd love to examine the idea of Lupin's adjustment to his condition, silver ink pot...but that does tend to arouse rather strong feelings from people; it could set off some acrimony. But the idea that he is well adjusted is one of those that are said frequently, but not analyzed often. I'd love to look closely at the books and see the degrees of his adjustment and the possibilities of how strong/weak it is and how it is reinforced/undermined, how it was developed, how it is under attack... I'm personally up for discussing it :tu: . There's nothing wrong with discussing a less-positive side of Remus J. Lupin (I imagine he's not always sunshine and daisies); the acrimony only seems to creep in when the arguments and discussion surrounding this negative side are flimsy at best, so if the discussion has legitimate basis in canon rather than exists for the sole reason of casting doubt on him for the sake of doing so, I imagine that even the Lupinintes would be able to take it in stride and discuss the issue.

Because (don't laugh too loudly), the person Lupin reminds me most of is Jackie Robinson--the African-American who broke the color barrier in US baseball. Robinson was a spectacularly talented athlete; he was also one of the most gracious, kind-hearted people in society (never mind just the sports arena). He withstood incredible pressure: he was endlessly abused by racists--in the stands, in management, on opposing teams...even on his own team--and yet he just played the game, every day, to the utmost of his considerable abilities and never responded to the vileness spewed at him by the bigots...in public. His courage was stunning. What was not known, until much later, was the physical toll this fortitude took on him: among his personal problems were ulcers and high blood pressure. He maintained a surface calm, but the stress of supressing his anger at the constant barrage of racism affected him tremendously.There looks to be a lot of "glass half empty" thinking going on with regard to him, and all the Marauders on this thread, and we're trying to encourage you to maybe consider that they are characters with good qualities before they are characters with bad qualities.This is rather patronizing. I don't need to be encouraged to do anything. Was subtle seeing Lupin only in the negative, when she said he reminded her of Jackie Robinson? :huh: How ironic that grrliz thought that we could have a meaningful discussion of the negative aspects of Lupin's character with the "Lupinites taking it in stride." It seems that such intelligent discussion is impossible because people jump to conclusions instead of really thinking about what other people have said. As Snape might say, some people don't bother to understand subtle differences. :sigh:

I'm with chievrefueil--I've yet to see anyone condemning Lupin. It's not what the point of this particular discussion was, when it was initiated a few pages ago...in fact, by me. At the time, I said I was interested in looking closely at Lupin's character, to see what he actually says and does in the books and figure out the how/why/completeness of his adjustment to lycanthropy; to analyze key aspects of his character to understand some of his choices. Ironically, at the time, I also mentioned being hesitant about bringing it up, for fear of stirring up acrimony.

Saying Lupin made mistakes is not condemning him. His failings have causes and reveal key pieces of information about his thought processes--and that means in the past and the present, and gives us some groundwork for speculation--as well as underscoring key factors/events in his life.


I completely agree with you. To truly examine a character, you have to look at the bad, and the good. Jo doesn't write her characters as one dimensional characters. They are deeper, they have faults. I think to really understand her characters they have to be broken down into their parts, and each part discussed until the character is built back up into the whole.
I like Lupin. He's a fascinating character, very well written. I like him because he's done good things for Harry. He's honest about things he's done in his life, and he's honest about himself.
Look at OotP, when he gives Harry an honest assessment of the behavior of the Marauders in the SWM scene. He admits that he should have told his friends to lay off Snape, but he didn't. Lupin is honest with Harry in those few pages, giving Harry answers and truth when Harry needs it most. (OotP US edition, pp 670-671) I think that scene is one that shows Lupin at his best.
But, there are some not so nice things about Lupin as well. He is living with lycanthropy, living with a knowledge that during every full moon he becomes the antithesis of who he really is. That has to be hard. The calm, honest man becomes a full blown out of control werewolf. It can't be easy to deal with, yet from all I've seen of him, Lupin deals with it pretty well. How he deals with it as a man does not change what happens, nor does it change the fact that if Lupin does not take the Wolfsbane potion he could endanger any number of people. The werewolf is the dark part. Lupin the man is not.

I think that's at the root of why Lupin is so fed up with himself in this confession: in a way, he committed a third offense against Dumbledore by underestimating Dumbledore's capacity for understanding, compassion, and forgiveness (those of you looking for Biblical symbolism will know I've managed to rack up three betrayals resulting in a total, rock-solid loyalty...by the way, 'rock' pun intended).I'm not really educated in this. Three betrayals somehow proves a person loyal in the Bible?

BTW, I didn't read your post before I responded. Great analysis, subtle! :tu:

I'm going to jump in for a minute here.

NO ONE, as far as I can tell, is condemning Lupin and labelling him to be an evil, or horrible man. What I see, for the most part, is people who wish to engage in intelligent conversation that discusses some of the less than positive aspects of Lupin's character. The title of the thread is "Deconstructing the Maruaders". I think people are trying to deconstruct Lupin. It is quite possible to believe that Lupin has done things in his life that are less than perfect, yet still find him to be overall a good person.

I realize that there are many, many devoted Lupin fans here. However, no one is stepping over any lines in this discussion. We are all mature people and trying to hold mature conversations. Let's try to keep everything in perspective. These are all fictional characters, albeit characters with a lot of depth that many people relate to. That doesn't mean that we can't discuss sides of people that are less than sunshine and daisies. No one is attacking Lupin, nor is anyone attacking anyone else personally. The people who wish to discuss these less than perfect aspects of Lupin's personality have every right to do so. The people who do not agree have every right to disagree. It is not all right though to make inflammatory comments just because someone does not agree with a different opinion on Lupin.

Let's remember that we all have a right to our own thoughts and opinions. And we all have a right to be treated with respect for whatever opinion we hold. This thread is for discussion of the marauders, not simply for proclaiming our love for them. If that is the discussion that is being sought, there are threads for that. :)

What I am mostly responding to is that it seems that people are expecting some kind of punishment for Lupin, or thinking that he should have got what he deserved ("what goes around comes around," as silver ink pot said) sooner in life. . . that he hasn't been reprimanded at a degree fitting the mistakes he's made in the past. We all agree that Lupin has made bad choices, but we disagree on the degree to which he has felt the pains of those mistakes.

Whether or not anyone is actually coming right out and saying it, I'm seeing a lot of beating around the bush. . . people thinking that Lupin and the other Marauders should have had Dumbledore stick it to them in their time, and if not that, that they should confess their wrongs and receive some wrath from the outside for what they've done. THAT is condemnation. As shaggydogstail so aptly said, Lupin is probably the best person to have suffered the worst life for things he didn't deserve. . . and for silver ink pot to spin right around and say that she disagreed with most of that statement--to say that yes, he has suffered, but. . . -- I mean, what else do we want from the poor guy? He knows that he makes mistakes and he brings himself mental anguish because of that, but that doesn't seem good enough.

Does Lupin have a dark side, maybe. But exploring that potential dark side shouldn't overshadow his goodness and how he overcomes that. By what I'm reading, I don't see that compromise or triumph, and it's making it look like, regardless of what you really mean by bringing up his less-than-savory past, that it's now only the dark side that matters.

I apologize if I've offended anyone. I'm going away now.

Look at OotP, when he gives Harry an honest assessment of the behavior of the Marauders in the SWM scene. He admits that he should have told his friends to lay off Snape, but he didn't. Lupin is honest with Harry in those few pages, giving Harry answers and truth when Harry needs it most. (OotP US edition, pp 670-671) I think that scene is one that shows Lupin at his best.In that scene, I think Lupin is definitely spinning what he says to save face (for James and Sirius) with Harry. Maybe he does it because he realizes how important a role model James is for Harry, but I don't think he's speaking frankly. We've speculated about whether he would have had a different conversation with Harry had Sirius not been there. I'm not sure, but I still think he'd try to portray James in as positive a light as possible. It's interesting that he doesn't feel compelled to cast that light upon himself. He admits his failings in not trying harder to keep James and Sirius in check.The werewolf is the dark part. Lupin the man is not.I still think that being a werewolf is only symbolically dark. It wouldn't make sense to me if he had no dark side as a person. The lycanthropy probably contributes to his dark side as a person. It requires him to be secretive, to feel guilty about things he may have unknowingly done, etc. All of those feelings make one more susceptible to darkness at times.

Does Lupin have a dark side, maybe. But exploring that potential dark side shouldn't overshadow his goodness and how he overcomes that. By what I'm reading, I don't see that compromise or triumph, and it's making it look like, regardless of what you really mean by bringing up his less-than-savory past, that it's now only the dark side that matters.

I apologize if I've offended anyone. I'm going away now.

Hi Credo :)

I understand your frustration, really I do. However, given the nature of this thread, discussing someone's "dark side" is quite normal. I can't speak for everyone, but given what I've read, I'd say that we are discussing these aspects of Lupin in order to better understand him. We're deconstructing. And remember, I think everyone pretty much agreed that we all have a "dark side", obviously to varying degrees.

And, it isn't only Lupin that has undergone this process. We've also "ripped apart" James and Sirius as well. (Pettigrew too, but he's a different story. :D ) No one is specifically picking on Lupin, it's just his turn to be deconstructed.

I also want to say that in the previous 8 version of this threads, there has been MANY, MANY positive discussions about Lupin. I don't think anyone here sees him as the next Dark Lord. It just so happens that the discussion we are partaking in now has to do with the less than positive side of Lupin. That doesn't take away at all from the good he has done, it just isn't part of what we are discussing now.

We all agree that Lupin has made bad choices, but we disagree on the degree to which he has felt the pains of those mistakes.

And that's ok though that we don't all agree. There wouldn't be much of a discussion if we were all mutual. That's why we're here isn't it, to discuss our different opinions and interpretations of the characters? :)

I'm baffled by this statement. Lupin is an example of the fact that what goes around doesn't always come around. He doesn't get what he deserves. Whatever his faults they are massively outweighted by his good qualities and he is essentially a good, kind, gentle and decent person. Yet the Wizarding World doesn't treat him with goodness or kindness, it treats him with cold, brutal prejudice and unreasonable dislike.:tu: All I can say is, beautifully said. I can’t really add much to this debate because you’ve all articulated this extremely well, but I will add that JKR says of Lupin that he is “a damaged person, literally and metaphorically. I think it’s important for children to know that adults, too, have their problems, that they struggle. His being a werewolf is a metaphor for people’s reactions to illness and disability.” In light of how Lupin is treated by society, this quote is important because it shows some insight into how Lupin is viewed, and how he should be viewed.

Lupin was under no obligation to tell Harry anything. Sirius was anxious to get to the heart of the matter, Peter was trying to escape and James wasn't around. If Lupin wasn't willing for Harry to know the entire story, he could have just let Sirius attack Peter and been done with it.

Lupin told Harry the entire story because he wanted to. He wanted Harry to understand and to make up his own mind about who or what to believe. Lupin could have left Harry in the dark. He chose not to.This is one of Lupin’s defining characteristics: he urges that Harry be told the truth because 1) he realizes he has been wrong to keep it a secret, 2) he respects Harry and doesn’t treat him like a child who doesn’t deserve to hear this information, 3) he is thoughtful rather than impulsive, and 4) when it comes down to it, he would rather the truth be out in the open after keeping it bottled up inside for so long.

He should have told Dumbledore about these things. Even Lupin admits in the Shrieking Shack that his reason for not doing so was not good enough.This is the truth, plain and simple. This is an example of Lupin’s flaw of cutting his friends too much slack and being afraid he wouldn’t be liked. Whatever Lupin’s reasons were (I agree with the reasons Credo Buffa gave), we have to keep in mind Lupin was trying to justify not telling Dumbledore about Sirius being an animagus, and I have to believe that he felt that Harry would be safe. Objectively, I do believe this was a lapse of judgment on Lupin’s part that was related to his flaw. I agree we definitely shouldn’t condemn him for this (though from reading everyone’s posts, I don’t believe anybody was condemning him- you were just questioning his motives, I believe). But Credo Buffa does have a point- the Marauders (with the exception of Peter) are characters who are essentially good, but who do have some bad traits and who do make some bad decisions- there’s no denying that.

I'd like to offer all of you some chocolate truffles. :)

I really like the way Lupin looks at himself--even what he just did this current school year--as if he's an outsider and evaluates himself. It's a point of view that allows him to admit to himself his own motivations and there's the "self-disgust" at what he's done. And I think the slef-disgust arises in part from realizing he's done the same thing to Dumbledore twice. Since he's able to see that so clearly here in this speech, I think we can safely assume that he'll not ever do such a thing again. In fact, I think one of the unspoken (yes--even in a speech that's this long, I think he didn't say something that runs underneath what he is saying) realizations is that he needs to trust Dumbledore.The capacity that Lupin has for looking at himself objectively after certain events have happened and being able to assess his faults and admit to them are what really make Lupin a strong person in my eyes. He not only admitted his faults to himself, but in this scene, he admits them to everyone- most importantly, to Harry. You’re right that fearing Dumbledore’s reaction was what Lupin was ashamed of, but as I said earlier, this is related to his flaw of wanting to be liked. Dumbledore is someone who has placed a lot of trust in Lupin, and someone who has made a lot of effort to allow Lupin to come to Hogwarts despite his condition. Dumbledore is someone who thinks very highly of Lupin, and he is someone who Lupin also thinks very highly of and cares about a great deal. This is why betraying Dumbledore's trust is so hard for Lupin to own up to, and I can understand how Lupin would have been afraid to see Dumbledore's disappointment if he told him about his betrayal of trust. But you're also right in saying that however disappointed Dumbledore would have been, he would have also forgiven Lupin and he wouldn't have thought less of Lupin either. I agree that once Lupin stopped and realized this, he felt even more guilty and bad about not telling Dumbledore.

I agree that Lupin is not likely to make the same mistake again, because of the fact that he's able to look at his actions from an objective point of view, assess them as being wrong, and admit to them in front of many people. Admitting one's flaws in public is something that takes a lot of courage to do, and I think it helps to hammer home the lesson that should be learned from these mistakes. Indeed, I do think we see much evidence that Lupin has learned from his mistakes. That doesn't mean he is perfect all the time, but he is certainly much better and I believe we can see that he has overcome his flaw significantly. As was mentioned, we see him being forceful with Sirius on several occasions- when he tells him to sit down, when he physically wrenches him back down in the scene where they are discussing SWM with Harry. But the biggest clue that Lupin is overcoming his flaw is what he tells Harry:“If anyone’s going to tell Snape it will be me!” he said firmly. “But Harry, first of all, you’re to go back to Snape and tell him that on no account is he to stop giving you lessons—when Dumbledore hears—“

“I can’t tell him that, he’d kill me!” said Harry, outraged. “You didn’t see him when we got out of the Pensieve—“

“Harry, there is nothing so important as you learning Occlumency!” said Lupin sternly. “Do you understand me? Nothing!”

“Okay, okay,” said Harry, thoroughly discomposed, not to mention annoyed. “I’ll…I’ll try and say something to him….But it won’t be…”It's obvious from Harry's reaction that he does not want to hear this at all. He doesn't want to be told to go to Snape when he feels that half of this is Snape's fault for throwing him out and not wanting to speak to him again. But despite Harry's obvious outrage at being told by Lupin that he must go speak to Snape, Lupin continues to insist that Harry really must do this. Even though Lupin can see that Harry is upset and doesn't want to hear what he has to say, Lupin persists, despite the risk that Harry could have become quite angry with Lupin for telling him to go see Snape. Harry's opinion of him obviously matters a great deal to Lupin, but here he is not allowing his fear that Harry may become angry with him or think less of him because he is telling Harry what to do (against what Harry may think is best) to get in the way of telling Harry what he feels is extremely important to Harry's safety. And in this way, I believe we can see that Lupin has learned from his mistakes.

atherella--Thank you. Beautifully and gracefully put. Twice. *Offers bow*

RemusLupinFan--Exactly the passges in OotP that I was thinking of: thanks for adding them on. You do realize you're doing it again today--I really have to leave the computer and go work out and go shopping. Stop saying interesting things!!!!!! : )

Chievrefueil--The three betrayals leading to loyalty reference I was making was to Peter's denying Jesus three times in the courtyard, as Jesus was on trial. When Peter realizes that he fulfilled exactly what Jesus had predicted he would do, at the Last Supper (and Peter had vehemently refused to believe he would ever do such a thing), he broke down. However, the consequence was that he became stronger as a result of his failure, and he eventually fulfills another of Jesus' prophecies about him: he becomes the rock upon which Jesus' church is built. I rather like this parallel to Lupin, so I was inordinately pleased to find a third betrayal that could make it work! : ) (Not to mention the terribly appropriate timing of drawing this parallel!)

On a side note: I can't remember if it was on this thread or another one that we talked about Sirius Black and the way he ripped up the Fat Lady. Dumbledore mentioned it as one of the reasons why Sirius hadn't acted like an innocent man. And because of the Fat Lady, in OotP, Phineas Nigellus expresses fear that his great-great-grandson is going to rip up his painting as well, and Dumbledore reassures him that "Sirius knows not to destroy any paintings." It is pretty interesting when even paintings are afraid of someone's temper. :evil:In making Grimmauld Place liveable, everyone involved in the clean-up is removing the last vestiages of the Black family -- photographs, clothing, personal items -- and this includes painted portraits. Why does Sirius know not to destroy Phineas Nigellus' portrait? Because he is a quick connection between Grimmauld Place and Hogwarts. It has nothing to do with the incident with the Fat Lady (I suspect Phineas Nigellus doesn't even know about that) or the apparent propensity for mutilating portraits for fun that you seem to be suggesting Sirius has. :huh:

In making Grimmauld Place liveable, everyone involved in the clean-up is removing the last vestiages of the Black family -- photographs, clothing, personal items -- and this includes painted portraits. Why does Sirius know not to destroy Phineas Nigellus' portrait? Because he is a quick connection between Grimmauld Place and Hogwarts. It has nothing to do with the incident with the Fat Lady (I suspect Phineas Nigellus doesn't even know about that) or the apparent propensity for mutilating portraits for fun that you seem to be suggesting Sirius has. :huh:

I agree with grrliz that this is the reason Sirius knew not to destroy Phineas's portrait.

Since the topic is brought up though, I am curious as to what people think of Sirius destroying the Fat Lady's portrait? (Am I the only one who feels slightly bad calling her the fat lady? Just seems like such a derrogatory name. Couldn't she have been the lady in the pink dress? :p) Was shredding her portrait the only way in which Sirius was able to enter the Gryffindor Common Room, or was there a less "destructive" way that he could have gotten in?

And I don't see what good telling Dumbledore after 20 years would do anyway. "Oh, well Lupin, I guess I'm going to have to fire you because you messed up when you were a student here." He would have known that Lupin learned his lesson.
Agreed. When my daughter was in her twenties, she decided to tell me about all the stuff she had pulled as a teen that I had missed. She said that since she was over 18, I couldn't punish her. I stopped her from doing so as it was obvious that her only motivation was to hurt me. That's why Lupin didn't tell Dumbledore. He didn't want to hurt the one person who trusted him and went out on a limb for him. Good for Remus.

Since the topic is brought up though, I am curious as to what people think of Sirius destroying the Fat Lady's portrait? (Am I the only one who feels slightly bad calling her the fat lady? Just seems like such a derrogatory name. Couldn't she have been the lady in the pink dress? :p) Was shredding her portrait the only way in which Sirius was able to enter the Gryffindor Common Room, or was there a less "destructive" way that he could have gotten in? I thought he didn't get in that time, so he slashed the portrait out of frustration?

I thought he didn't get in that time, so he slashed the portrait out of frustration?

Ah yes, you're right, of course. He didn't get in and then the entire school had to go sleep in the Great Hall.

I'm not quite sure what to make of the "slashing the portait out of frustration" though. Do portraits have feelings? We know the Fat Lady said she was terrified, but could she have been actually harmed in the slashing?

I'm not quite sure what to make of the "slashing the portait out of frustration" though. Do portraits have feelings? We know the Fat Lady said she was terrified, but could she have been actually harmed in the slashing?Evidently being called fat in the wizarding world isn't an insult? Although I'm pretty sure that Malfoy calls Mrs Weasley fat somewhere ... Maybe it's an indication that portraits, while seemingly human, are nothing more than charicatures and should not be confused with real people who have real feelings, and that the only real problem with slashing a portrait is that it creates more work for Filch, Hogwarts' resident Art Restoration Expert. ;)

Sirius' slashing the portrait out of frustration, I think, gives us an insight into his temper. It helps to explain why the wizarding society believed him capable of mass murder (including Lupin and Dumbledore, even if they had their doubts) and helps make it believable that he might just murder Peter out of hand. The scene established quite quickly and neatly that Sirius has a hot temper and he expresses it physically and outwardly. Rather like someone's kicking a hole in the wall, although this one's a bit more personal, even if she is only oil paint on canvas--but, again, I think that's to build the aura of Sirius as a murderer. Kicking a hole in the wall doesn't lead one to wonder necessarily what he'd do to another human. The Fat Lady is too close to being a real person, and so the attack on her raises the shivery question of whether or not Sirius would do the same to a human being. (At that point in the book, we all think he could/would--thanks, JKR.)

"Fat" tends to be quite pejorative in the novels. It's an interesting undercurrent to the novels...there's definitely a touch of 'fat prejudice' going on. It's underscored by Draco' insult about Molly. The narrator describes her as 'plump'--cozy, cuddly, and maternal, but Draco goes for 'fat' as the putdown. In the Dursley family, fat = overindulged, spoiled, undisciplined. Fat is definitely not a desirable trait in JKR's novels.

Sirius' slashing the portrait out of frustration, I think, gives us an insight into his temper. It helps to explain why the wizarding society believed him capable of mass murder (including Lupin and Dumbledore, even if they had their doubts) and helps make it believable that he might just murder Peter out of hand.Do you mean during the confrontation in the street or in the Shrieking Shack? (What I'm really asking is whether this peek at Sirius's temper is to make us believe that the wizarding world would believe that Sirius would have murdered Peter or to make us believe that Sirius will murder Peter.) Or both?

Sorry, that was a bit convoluted. :rolleyes:

Since the topic is brought up though, I am curious as to what people think of Sirius destroying the Fat Lady's portrait? ... Was shredding her portrait the only way in which Sirius was able to enter the Gryffindor Common Room, or was there a less "destructive" way that he could have gotten in?
I think when she wouldn't let him through, he probably tried to threaten her with the knife, and then lost his temper and slashed her canvas after she continued to resist. He might have been trying to shut her up too, since she recognized him and would have tried to alert Dumbledore that he was in the hall.

Well we know what Sirius' temper is like, and know we know where he got it from. I think the slashing of the fat lady was just to further our view of him as a bad guy.

But, as for character he was frustrated and didn't have much time. Add to that his temper and you get lets slash the fat lady.

The question should be where did he get a big knife from?

Well we know what Sirius' temper is like, and know we know where he got it from. I think the slashing of the fat lady was just to further our view of him as a bad guy.

But, as for character he was frustrated and didn't have much time. Add to that his temper and you get lets slash the fat lady.

The question should be where did he get a big knife from?Did he use a knife, or did he, in his rage---use his bare hands?

Did he use a knife, or did he, in his rage---use his bare hands?
I'm pretty sure the Fat Lady said he had a knife. If he was sneaking about the castle, he could have stolen it from the kitchens.

O yeah the Kitchens. The houseelfs prob gave him one. "O master needs a weapon here you are. Use this butcher knife".

O yeah the Kitchens. The houseelfs prob gave him one. "O master needs a weapon here you are. Use this butcher knife"."Here's a great big knife for you, and some sandwiches. Would you like these elves to come clean up the bodies when you're done, master?"
:rotfl:

Ok, did a quick check...
POA, The Flight of the Fat Lady: The fat lady had vanished from her portrait, which had been slashed so viciously that strips of canvas littered the floor; great chunks of it had been torn away completely...
-------------
POA, Grim Defeat: "Apparantly she refused to let Black in without the password, so he attacked."
----------------
POA, Gryffindor Versus Ravenclaw: "It Wasn't a NIghtmare!" Ron yelled. "Professor, I Woke Up, And Sirius Black Was Standing Over Me, Holding A Knife!"So, if Sirius had the knife when he made it into Gryffindor...stands to reason he had it when he made the first attempt to get into the Tower.

The question should be where did he get a big knife from?
Broke into a house in Hogsmeade, perhaps? Maybe the butcher left it in a cut of meat that Padfoot swiped? No idea, really. It could have been almost anywhere between the coast and Hogwarts. What I'm wondering is how he carries it around as Padfoot? Is it like clothes and just transfroms with him?

Broke into a house in Hogsmeade, perhaps? Maybe the butcher left it in a cut of meat that Padfoot swiped? No idea, really. It could have been almost anywhere between the coast and Hogwarts. What I'm wondering is how he carries it around as Padfoot? Is it like clothes and just transfroms with him?Like eyeglasses do for McGonagall & Rita Skeeter?

Like eyeglasses do for McGonagall & Rita Skeeter?
I consider glasses to be clothing, more or less. Especially for those of us who have to wear them all the time. But a large knife? Ron described it as 12 inches, although that was probably an exageration. However, it doesn't sound like a pocket knife, which I wouldn't wonder about transforming along with clothing.

by Chevrefueil How ironic that grrliz thought that we could have a meaningful discussion of the negative aspects of Lupin's character with the "Lupinites taking it in stride." It seems that such intelligent discussion is impossible because people jump to conclusions instead of really thinking about what other people have said. As Snape might say, some people don't bother to understand subtle differences.

This comment was not directed to me, but to Credo Buffa. I am sorry for interfering! But precisely because I am not a part of it, I think I can analyze the comment more objectively and say that for me it is a rude, patronizing comment. Not something that honors you. You basically are saying, even if you meant it or not, that some people , Credo Buufa, are not intelligent enough to understand such an intelligent conversation and are pretty ignorant too and not quite worthy of this thread as they do not bother to understand such subtle differences, which only a person as smart as you can understand and only a person as superior as you can have the patience to read and analyze.

This is what results from your comment. I am sure that you didn't mean it like that, but this is how it sounds!

this is just my opinion, of course and please don't get mad with me, because I didn't say it with bad intensions! I just want harmony on this thread!


Now before I back read everything- I can't keep up with this thread- may I suggest something?

Subtle your idea to analyze different aspects of Lupin's personality was great! The problem is that we didn't actually do that. We moved in circles, commenting on Lupin's dark side and entering into philosophical analisis.

So, I think it would be lovely if we really analyze canon and Lupin's character.

May I suggest two topics:

1. How powerful is Lupin as a wizard?
I quoted earlier on this thread the scene where Lupin conjures flames apparently without a wand. Nobody paid any attention to it, but I think it is quite important and very interesting.

2. Lupin's sense of humor!

Does he have a sense of humor? Is he a marauder from this point of view? Taking in consideration the canon, which do you think was Lupin's role in the marauders' pranks. I am not referring to bullying.

No, I don't imagine it was a pocket knife either, though we know wizards do have pocket knives, as Sirius gave one to Harry for Christmas.
When wizards apparate, all of their clothing, hat, glasses, wand, galleons, etc., appear to apparate with them (unless they splinch themselves).
So should it be the same for someone who transforms into an animagus? I seriously don't believe that McGonagall leaves her wand behind when she transforms...
Perhaps to transform/apparate, the magic simply extends to whatever is in physical contact with the witch/wizard at the time of transformation/apparation. What do ya think? :huh:

SitDown, Chiev was pointing out the difference between analyzing Lupin's less-positive traits and interpreting that analysis to mean that Lupin is Evil, which no one is suggesting. If you find a post offensive, please use the "report post" feature to deal with it rather than addressing it directly in the thread long after everyone else has already moved on.

No, I don't imagine it was a pocket knife either, though we know wizards do have pocket knives, as Sirius gave one to Harry for Christmas.
When wizards apparate, all of their clothing, hat, glasses, wand, galleons, etc., appear to apparate with them (unless they splinch themselves).
So should it be the same for someone who transforms into an animagus? I seriously don't believe that McGonagall leaves her wand behind when she transforms...
Perhaps to transform/apparate, the magic simply extends to whatever is in physical contact with the witch/wizard at the time of transformation/apparation. What do ya think? :huh:
There has to be a limit. Otherwise you would end up taking your car with you. :p That is our problem, trying to define what the limit is. Wands I'm not sure about; however, I would imagine you are correct. That knife should be within the limit of wand length. Isn't the longest one we know of (other than Hagrid's) 14 inches? I can't remember where that information is, though. However, what about potions, for example?

I'd better quit, I think I'm ranging to far off topic.

SitDown, Chiev was pointing out the difference between analyzing Lupin's less-positive traits and interpreting that analysis to mean that Lupin is Evil, which no one is suggesting. If you find a post offensive, please use the "report post" feature to deal with it rather than addressing it directly in the thread long after everyone else has already moved on.

i didn't want to report Chiev!

But as Chiev has the right to say that for her Credo's statements were patronizing, I think I had the right to say that her comments were patronizing too. You may be used to Chiev and see what she means even when she sounds like something else. I am telling you how it sounds from outside!

About moving along, well I am on a different time zone, I almost never can post comments in time. Should I refrain from posting at all?

If I am breaking rules then next time I will just report Chiev, does she prefer that?

You would not be reporting Chiev, you'd be reporting a post and a mod would be in charge of determining whether or not that post was offensive. In this case, I would have recieved the report and deemed that it was inoffensive and the thread would be on still be on topic and the matter would be dealt with outside of the thread, which is where it should be dealt with. If you have any further issues about this, feel free to owl me or any other staff member.

Thread: back on topic, please!

This comment was not directed to me, but to Credo Buffa. I am sorry for interfering! But precisely because I am not a part of it, I think I can analyze the comment more objectively and say that for me it is a rude, patronizing comment. Not something that honors you. You basically are saying, even if you meant it or not, that some people , Credo Buufa, are not intelligent enough to understand such an intelligent conversation and are pretty ignorant too and not quite worthy of this thread as they do not bother to understand such subtle differences, which only a person as smart as you can understand and only a person as superior as you can have the patience to read and analyze.Read into my comment what you will. I said nothing of Credo Buffa's intelligence, but lamented the fact that people in this thread have been jumping to conclusions about what other people think, rather than analyzing what's actually been said. My comment about intelligence was directed at the general quality of discussion, which you yourself imply is not the highest:Subtle your idea to analyze different aspects of Lupin's personality was great! The problem is that we didn't actually do that. We moved in circles. . .I'm happy to discuss the subjects you just proposed (although, I'm not prepared to delve into them at this moment while I'm at work). I'm happy to deconstruct Lupin's character with anyone who is willing to have an intellectual discussion--that includes you and Credo Buffa. However, I'm not prepared to qualify all of my comments about Lupin with "but he's really a great guy." I just don't see why that's necessary. I never said that Lupin was a bad guy. I've said there are things he shouldn't have done or things he should have done differently, which is quite different. This is not a fan thread. In fact, the thing I like best about this thread is that people from many different fan bases participate and each bring their own unique view to the discussion. I'm not here to participate in any character assassinations (sorry for the pun), but to discuss all aspects of the characters--that includes negative aspects. This should be something that can be discussed (as long as there is reasonable canon for the negative aspects) without other people getting all upset that their favorite character is being maligned.

Sorry, grrliz. I read your "Back on topic" order after I replied. :blush:

However, I'm not prepared to qualify all of my comments about Lupin with "but he's really a great guy." I just don't see why that's necessary. I never said that Lupin was a bad guy. I've said there are things he shouldn't have done or things he should have done differently, which is quite different. This is not a fan thread. In fact, the thing I like best about this thread is that people from many different fan bases participate and each bring their own unique view to the discussion. I'm not here to participate in any character assassinations (sorry for the pun), but to discuss all aspects of the characters--that includes negative aspects. This should be something that can be discussed (as long as there is reasonable canon for the negative aspects) without other people getting all upset that their favorite character is being maligned.

I have no problem with your previous posts. I find them and I found them pretty accurate!

Now before I back read everything- I can't keep up with this thread- may I suggest something?

Subtle your idea to analyze different aspects of Lupin's personality was great! The problem is that we didn't actually do that. We moved in circles, commenting on Lupin's dark side and entering into philosophical analisis.

So, I think it would be lovely if we really analyze canon and Lupin's character.

May I suggest two topics:

1. How powerful is Lupin as a wizard?
I quoted earlier on this thread the scene where Lupin conjures flames apparently without a wand. Nobody paid any attention to it, but I think it is quite important and very interesting.

2. Lupin's sense of humor!

Does he have a sense of humor? Is he a marauder from this point of view? Taking in consideration the canon, which do you think was Lupin's role in the marauders' pranks. I am not referring to bullying.

SitDown - While those are both definitely aspects of Lupin's character, I think many people in this thread had agreed that we wanted to discuss some of the "darker" aspects of Lupin. Doing so is not meant in any way to criticize Lupin, nor is it meant to suggest he is not a good person. To truly understand a person, we have to understand all aspects of them, not only the good. We are attempting to deconstruct Lupin here, and that includes looking at things that are less than flattering.

If you are only looking to discuss positive things about Lupin, the All About Remus John Lupin, v. X - The Lyceum (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=47993) thread is a fabulous thread wtih all sorts of discussions on the great things about Lupin. :)

You would not be reporting Chiev, you'd be reporting a post and a mod would be in charge of determining whether or not that post was offensive. In this case, I would have recieved the report and deemed that it was inoffensive and the thread would be on still be on topic and the matter would be dealt with outside of the thread, which is where it should be dealt with. If you have any further issues about this, feel free to owl me or any other staff member.

Just to support this statement... I'd have also received this post if it had been reported. And, like grrliz, I don't find anything offensive about it at all. Anyhow, I think we have covered the bases here. Back on topic. :)

Hi quick side question that I would love for any or all to answer.

In fanfiction (if you read fanfiction) bothers you the most on how the Marauders are written? Just a quick little sentence would be great. No long details or anything. Thanks, any responces would be great.

Hi quick side question that I would love for any or all to answer.

In fanfiction (if you read fanfiction) bothers you the most on how the Marauders are written? Just a quick little sentence would be great. No long details or anything. Thanks, any responces would be great.


Evita, like I mentioned in another thread you posted this comment in, this doesn't relate to the topic of the thread. Please post this question in the Fanfic Pet Peeves (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=40821) thread where it is appropriate to discuss. Thanks.

SitDown - While those are both definitely aspects of Lupin's character, I think many people in this thread had agreed that we wanted to discuss some of the "darker" aspects of Lupin. Doing so is not meant in any way to criticize Lupin, nor is it meant to suggest he is not a good person. To truly understand a person, we have to understand all aspects of them, not only the good. We are attempting to deconstruct Lupin here, and that includes looking at things that are less than flattering.

Actually I came here because I knew there will be people who disagree with me. If I go to Lupin's thread, everyone will agree with me!

What subtle said initially was not to talk about Lupins' darker side, but to analyze the way he deals with his condition and if he has acepted it or he keeps a lot of bitterness inside him.

Subtle, please correct me if I am wrong! Somehow the conversation jumped to Lupin's darker side, which I have no problems commenting on, and since then we have moved in circle.

And doesn't desconstructing means talking about all the character's aspects?

Anyway, I was not trying to start a " How wonderful Lupin is!" conversation! On the contrary! I wanted to talk to people who disagreed with me, so that I can look at things from another perspective.

If my topics weren't good, then maybe subtle can suggest some other topic! It was her idea!

I don't know why HermioneLuna felt compelled to have you come from the Lupin thread to defend him--no one was attacking him. Having a dark side isn't a bad thing. Everyone has one that comes out from time to time.

First, I asked her to enter this discussion because she is a regular in the Lyceum and has a different point of veiw to bring to this discussion. I thought she could provide us with arguments we hadn't previously considered and might not have considered without her input.

Second, if you're going to make an accusation in public, I'd appreciate it if you got your facts straight. Yes, I know what her first post in this thread said, but keep in mind you weren't there for that conversation.

Third, I think this all boils down to the definition of a dark side. To me, a dark side carries negative connotations. It isn't simply being dishonest from time or time, nor is it being reckless or making honest mistakes. It's something evil, dark, and sinister. Voldemort, Lucius Malfoy, Peter Pettigrew, Bellatrix Lestrange, the adult Crabbe, the adult Goyle - all have dark sides and all are evil. I don't view Lupin as being grouped with them. You don't have to agree, but it's my opinion.

The people who wish to discuss these less than perfect aspects of Lupin's personality have every right to do so. The people who do not agree have every right to disagree. It is not all right though to make inflammatory comments just because someone does not agree with a different opinion on Lupin.

I may be wrong, but it appears to me thats what's happening. No one is telling anyone not to discuss anything, only making their own arguments and counterarguments.

No one is specifically picking on Lupin, it's just his turn to be deconstructed.

I don't think anyone is saying we're bullying Lupin. If we're going to deconstruct and have an actual discussion, all sides have to be considered. If every one of us posted about how lying to Dumbledore is a sign of Lupin's dark side, there'd be no discussion. Only when there are different points of view can an effective discussion be had. Some are saying that certain of Lupin's traits represent his dark side. Others disagree. I see nothing wrong with that.

ubtle your idea to analyze different aspects of Lupin's personality was great! The problem is that we didn't actually do that. We moved in circles, commenting on Lupin's dark side and entering into philosophical analisis.

So, I think it would be lovely if we really analyze canon and Lupin's character.

May I suggest two topics:

1. How powerful is Lupin as a wizard?
I quoted earlier on this thread the scene where Lupin conjures flames apparently without a wand. Nobody paid any attention to it, but I think it is quite important and very interesting.

2. Lupin's sense of humor!

Does he have a sense of humor? Is he a marauder from this point of view? Taking in consideration the canon, which do you think was Lupin's role in the marauders' pranks. I am not referring to bullying.


:tu: Great post on all counts. In order to decontruct we have to look at all sides. I think it's a good idea to talk about how well adjusted Lupin is to his condition or if he's well adjusted at all. I also have no problem discussiing his less than positive qualities. As for discussing his "dark side", I've already given my opinion as to what a dark side is, and I don't think Lupin's negative qualities fit that definition.

About where Sirius got the knife from: Maybe it's the pocket knife he gave Harry. He obviously didn't need it in Grimmauld Place and it proved very useful for Harry until it melted in the Department of Mysteries. I think Sirius has had that for a while and he wouldn't have had to hunt to find it. Also, it's not a very large knife, so it might transform with him when he is Padfoot. Even if it didn't, it would probably be safe for him to carry something like that in his mouth.

Actually, I wonder if Sirius made a stop at Grimmauld Place at some point in his travels in PoA?

Also: chocolate to be handed out, and lots of counting to 100. ;)

Actually I came here because I knew there will be people who disagree with me. If I go to Lupin's thread, everyone will agree with me!

What subtle said initially was not to talk about Lupins' darker side, but to analyze the way he deals with his condition and if he has acepted it or he keeps a lot of bitterness inside him.

Subtle, please correct me if I am wrong! Somehow the conversation jumped to Lupin's darker side, which I have no problems commenting on, and since then we have moved in circle.

And doesn't desconstructing means talking about all the character's aspects?

Anyway, I was not trying to start a " How wonderful Lupin is!" conversation! On the contrary! I wanted to talk to people who disagreed with me, so that I can look at things from another perspective.

If my topics weren't good, then maybe subtle can suggest some other topic! It was her idea!
I don't know for sure what Subtle was refering to specifically, but I tend to feel that discussing Lupin's adjustment to his lycanthropy is part of discussing his dark side. Besides, this thread tends to range around within the context of discussions, because there are so many different opinions.

Yes, deconstructing concerns all aspects of the characters, but this is version 9 (I think). I've only been around since 7, and it has covered a myriad of specific aspects dealing with the marauders (and Snape). We were talking about taking the conversation in a general direction. As I said before, we will probably range around some within that direction.

As far as your reaction to Chiev's post, we've all read a post at some point and reacted on a personal, gut-level. Which is natural, I suppose. I've done it myself and felt awful, afterwards. Grrliz suggests counting before posting a response, which is good, but I augment that with wandering around and looking at other threads, then I come back and read it again, hopefully with a clearer head. :rotfl: (as clear as my head gets, anyway). I think I've managed to stop taking things the wrong way since I started doing that, but you would have to ask someone else, to be sure.

Second, if you're going to make an accusation in public, I'd appreciate it if you got your facts straight. Yes, I know what her first post in this thread said, but keep in mind you weren't there for that conversation.My response was reasonable considering what her first post in the thread said. Perhaps you should have previously commented on it, if you didn't find it accurate.Third, I think this all boils down to the definition of a dark side. To me, a dark side carries negative connotations. It isn't simply being dishonest from time or time, nor is it being reckless or making honest mistakes. It's something evil, dark, and sinister. Voldemort, Lucius Malfoy, Peter Pettigrew, Bellatrix Lestrange, the adult Crabbe, the adult Goyle - all have dark sides and all are evil. I don't view Lupin as being grouped with them. You don't have to agree, but it's my opinion.Yes, this argument all boils down to semantics. As I said in my post yesterday, I don't include Lupin in the group of evil people you listed, even though I believe he must have a negative or dark side. Since this term seems to cause so much derision, though, how about the term "angst?"

What causes Lupin angst and how is this manifested?

My response was reasonable considering what her first post in the thread said. Perhaps you should have previously commented on it, if you didn't find it accurate.

Again, you weren't there for that conversation, so you really don't fully know what you're talking about. I figured from the tone of her comment and the content and timing of her post most people would realize she wasn't here to cause some sort of Lupinite uprising over the unjust accusations made against him. No, I am not saying anyone was being unjust. Please don't take it that way.

The point is, you really shouldn't make public accusations at all. If you don't understand something I did, that's what owls are for. I really don't see a reason to argue this, though, since it is clearly off topic. I was only responding to something you said.


Yes, this argument all boils down to semantics. As I said in my post yesterday, I don't include Lupin in the group of evil people you listed, even though I believe he must have a negative or dark side. Since this term seems to cause so much derision, though, how about the term "angst?"

What causes Lupin angst and how is this manifested?

I think it's obvious his angst stems from his illness. I think that without it, he would be a different Lupin than we know. He is a halfblood and a werewolf. This means he grew up knowing what the wizarding world thought of "his kind" and he learned early on to keep it to himself. He didn't even admit it to his closest friends. They had to figure it out themselves. Then they became animagi to be there for him and it was another secret he had to keep. I think Lupin was probably shy and reserved from the start and his lycanthropy certainly contributed to him being quite introverted.

I think that since he has always had to be secretive for fear of being rejected or discriminated against, he continues this attitude in Prisoner of Azkaban. That's why he never tells Dumbledore what he and his friends did during their time at Hogwarts. He's afraid of admitting he betrayed Dumbledore's trust when he (Dumbledore) took a chance on him (Lupin). He's afraid of losing Dumbledore's trust again and he's afraid of being rejected.

Here's a tip for everyone: let's stop accusing everyone of things based on statements we're clearly misinterpreting, alright? :)

Subtle, please correct me if I am wrong! Somehow the conversation jumped to Lupin's darker side, which I have no problems commenting on, and since then we have moved in circle.

Often times when discussing a topic, it evolves to a totally different topic. I'd say it's natural. Generally in this thread, we just sort of go with the flow, since this thread doesn't deal with ONE specific topic like most threads do. :)

And doesn't desconstructing means talking about all the character's aspects?

Of course. Like I mentioned in my two rather long posts earlier in the day, we've gone through a lot of discussion concerning all the positive aspects of Lupin. I think the fact that we've reached a new area of consideration for him is natural. There should be links in the first page of each thread to the previous versions, if you ever want to browse through them.

In any event, it seems as if we've moved onto the "darker" side of Lupin. I don't think it is fair to all the other posters in the thread to just dump this discussion because some take offense to it. There appears to be an interest in this topic and information to discuss.

If my topics weren't good, then maybe subtle can suggest some other topic! It was her idea!

No one said your topics are bad, please don't think that. It's just that it seems as if people in the thread have chosen a topic right now. Trust me, discussions don't go on forever and we are often searching for things to discuss. Discussing the positive character traits you mentioned would probably make for a refreshing change once we've exhausted this topic. :)

Third, I think this all boils down to the definition of a dark side. To me, a dark side carries negative connotations. It isn't simply being dishonest from time or time, nor is it being reckless or making honest mistakes. It's something evil, dark, and sinister. Voldemort, Lucius Malfoy, Peter Pettigrew, Bellatrix Lestrange, the adult Crabbe, the adult Goyle - all have dark sides and all are evil. I don't view Lupin as being grouped with them. You don't have to agree, but it's my opinion.


Perhaps some people would be more comfortable calling this discussion "Discussing some of the less than perfect aspects of Lupin." I'm fairly certain no one is suggesting Lupin is evil when saying he has a dark side. Like has been mentioned numerous times, we aren't defining Dark side to = death eater. We can call it whatever people feel comfortable with really. I'd say it all equates to the same thing. No one is perfect, and everyone does things that are less than admirable at times.


The people who wish to discuss these less than perfect aspects of Lupin's personality have every right to do so. The people who do not agree have every right to disagree. It is not all right though to make inflammatory comments just because someone does not agree with a different opinion on Lupin.

I may be wrong, but it appears to me thats what's happening. No one is telling anyone not to discuss anything, only making their own arguments and counterarguments.

If you feel as if people are making personal inflammatory comments, by all means use the report post button so that the staff can analyze the situation. We're all trying to discuss topics which can arouse personal feelings, but we don't want people feeling personally attacked.

Of course. Like I mentioned in my two rather long posts earlier in the day, we've gone through a lot of discussion concerning all the positive aspects of Lupin. I think the fact that we've reached a new area of consideration for him is natural. There should be links in the first page of each thread to the previous versions, if you ever want to browse through them.

In any event, it seems as if we've moved onto the "darker" side of Lupin. I don't think it is fair to all the other posters in the thread to just dump this discussion because some take offense to it. There appears to be an interest in this topic and information to discuss.

I thought that the conversation had reached a dead point regarding Lupin's " dark side and people were starting to argue with each other, this is why I tried to change the topic. It seems that I did wrong! In this case, please continue with what was talked about!

About deconstructing, well, Ihaven't been on this thread much, so i don't know exactly what it has been discussed, but somehow I don't hink that positive aspects of Lupin's character have been discussed here!

But maybe it is not even supposed to comment on positive aspects of the marauders here. maybe the positive aspects are commenting only on the All about threads and here are discussed only the marauders's bad aspects!

Or maybe the good aspects have been discussed and I had the bad luck to miss those conversations!

Please continue!

Perhaps some people would be more comfortable calling this discussion "Discussing some of the less than perfect aspects of Lupin." I'm fairly certain no one is suggesting Lupin is evil when saying he has a dark side. Like has been mentioned numerous times, we aren't defining Dark side to = death eater. We can call it whatever people feel comfortable with really. I'd say it all equates to the same thing. No one is perfect, and everyone does things that are less than admirable at times.

I understand all of that. I'm only saying that when one says anything about a Dark Side, I think "evil" not simply "negative".

If you feel as if people are making personal inflammatory comments, by all means use the report post button so that the staff can analyze the situation. We're all trying to discuss topics which can arouse personal feelings, but we don't want people feeling personally attacked.

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. I was basically agreeing with your post and saying that's what was happening. In other words, people were discussing and forming arguments and counterarguments, which is the point of most threads on this forum.

About deconstructing, well, Ihaven't been on this thread much, so i don't know exactly what it has been discussed, but somehow I don't hink that positive aspects of Lupin's character have been discussed here!

But maybe it is not even supposed to comment on positive aspects of the marauders here. maybe the positive aspects are commenting only on the All about threads and here are discussed only the marauders's bad aspects!

Or maybe the good aspects have been discussed and I had the bad luck to miss those conversations!

Please continue!

I told you in a previous post where you can find the other 8 versions of this thread. You really are sounding very accusatory in that post. Why would I lie and say something was discussed if it hasn't been when you can go look for yourself? If you don't know, which you say you don't, it is best to avoid accusing someone of lying. I have NO reason to lie to you.

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. I was basically agreeing with your post and saying that's what was happening. In other words, people were discussing and forming arguments and counterarguments, which is the point of most threads on this forum.

My bad, I misunderstood. Blame it on the medication I am taking. :D

I think this thread needs to get back on topic. Things are deteriorating quickly and if we don't straighten out, we run the risk of having the thread temporarily closed, and/or warnings being given. Let's avoid that and do what we came to do and discuss HP. :)

I told you in a previous post where you can find the other 8 versions of this thread. You really are sounding very accusatory in that post. Why would I lie and say something was discussed if it hasn't been when you can go look for yourself? If you don't know, which you say you don't, it is best to avoid accusing someone of lying. I have NO reason to lie to you.



My bad, I misunderstood. Blame it on the medication I am taking. :D

I think this thread needs to get back on topic. Things are deteriorating quickly and if we don't straighten out, we run the risk of having the thread temporarily closed, and/or warnings being given. Let's avoid that and do what we came to do and discuss HP. :)

I was not acusing you of lying! I am sorry if it came out like this.

I should probably go to sleep, it seems that I keep " meter la pata" how the Spaniards say!

*Passing around a very large virtual chocolate bunny (which, being virtual, can have as many ears as people care to bite off)...And a hamantashen, too, since it's Purim and I could almost eat as much hamantashen as chocolate...Almost.*

I feel more than a tad guilty, as I did kick off this discussion...Yes, I did want to discuss the possibility of darker sides to Lupin. What I wanted to do was go back to the books and re-examine his character. What I find happening to my opinions, at this stage of the books, is that I assume information...and, upon going back to the books, discover that A. I forgot details, B. overlooked details, and/or C. allowed other people's interpretations to overlay what is actually stated in the books. So, even though 99% of the novels has been discussed and analyzed nearly to death--it's always worth it--to me--to go back and do it again, because one never knows what new scrap of material might be found lying around. Plus, new members join almost daily and can bring those new scraps with them. And...no, I do not believe it possible for me to tire of discussing HP...endlessly. The literary version of chocolate and hamantashen.

To be blunt, this discussion only seemed to go in a circle because there were posters who became upset by the idea that Lupin might have made mistakes and misjudgments that were flat out wrong. I hope everyone can calm down, let it go, and head off on new topics--because, as atherella observed, we do discuss everything here: positive and negative, dark and light, old and new.

{For my last coherent thoughts on topic, you'd have to check out #246}

Now--I'm going to see what happens if you put chocolate filling in hamantashen. I can't see how that could possibly go wrong--anybody care to try it with me? : )

I feel more than a tad guilty, as I did kick off this discussion...Yes, I did want to discuss the possibility of darker sides to Lupin. What I wanted to do was go back to the books and re-examine his character. What I find happening to my opinions, at this stage of the books, is that I assume information...and, upon going back to the books, discover that A. I forgot details, B. overlooked details, and/or C. allowed other people's interpretations to overlay what is actually stated in the books. So, even though 99% of the novels has been discussed and analyzed nearly to death--it's always worth it--to me--to go back and do it again, because one never knows what new scrap of material might be found lying around. Plus, new members join almost daily and can bring those new scraps with them. And...no, I do not believe it possible for me to tire of discussing HP...endlessly. The literary version of chocolate and hamantashen.

To be blunt, this discussion only seemed to go in a circle because there were posters who became upset by the idea that Lupin might have made mistakes and misjudgments that were flat out wrong. I hope everyone can calm down, let it go, and head off on new topics--because, as atherella observed, we do discuss everything here: positive and negative, dark and light, old and new.

I don't think you should feel guilty!

you want to go back to the books and discuss Lupin's character, bad and good. i think it's wonderful! Can you please start the conversation? With what scene, no commented before you would like to start with?

Subtle, you shouldn't feel guilty, we all thought that we would like to have that discussion. It isn't your fault that it desintigrated into a melee of people trying to defend themselves, POV's, or characters.

*clkginny munches chocolate and sighs*

Perhaps we should try to come back to this topic in a few days, after everyone settles down. In the mean time, someone pick a different discussion so we can get back to normal.

What I wanted to do was go back to the books and re-examine his character.

We could try what was done in the Lyceum and the All About Sirius threads. There, they go through passages referring specifically to the character they are discussing and dissect it. It may be boring for those who post on both or all three threads, but it would fit in with this discussion as well.

One question I have is how did Peter Pettigrew get up the nerve to approach Voldemort about becoming a Death Eater. Surely that would mean putting his life on the line as I doubt very much that Voldemort would let him walk away from that encounter unless Peter were in his service. We've seen how Peter behaves when his life is in danger. We know he thought that Voldemort's side would win, but what gave him the courage to actually seek out Voldemort and ask to be accepted by him?

We could try what was done in the Lyceum and the All About Sirius threads. There, they go through passages referring specifically to the character they are discussing and dissect it. It may be boring for those who post on both or all three threads, but it would fit in with this discussion as well.
I feel sorry for whomever is going to be quoting all those passages, although we do that here from time to time.
One question I have is how did Peter Pettigrew get up the nerve to approach Voldemort about becoming a Death Eater. Surely that would mean putting his life on the line as I doubt very much that Voldemort would let him walk away from that encounter unless Peter were in his service. We've seen how Peter behaves when his life is in danger. We know he thought that Voldemort's side would win, but what gave him the courage to actually seek out Voldemort and ask to be accepted by him?
I fall into the category of those who think that Pettigrew was felt out by a DE undercover, and was approached by them when it was felt that he was a possibility to turn. It probably did wonderful things for his ego.

Good Gravy! :scared: I don't know what to say, so I'm stuffing my mouth with chocolate.

Here, everybody ~ have one! And Happy Good Friday!

http://rainbowsbridge.com/images/toys/chocbunny.jpg

Subtle: You've taught me a new word, for which I am always grateful!
Now--I'm going to see what happens if you put chocolate filling in hamantashen. I can't see how that could possibly go wrong--anybody care to try it with me? : )

http://www.jewishglobe.com/Products/Other/hamentashen.jpg

HAMANTASHEN - A triangular filled pastry
Hamantashen are a triangular pastry, traditionally eaten
during the Jewish Holiday of Purim. Purim celebrates the
failure of the evil Haman in his attempt to exterminate the
Jews; Haman wore a three- cornered hat.

Sounds good to me! Thanks! :love:

(Fighting the urge to define just how "evil" Haman was - stuffing mouth instead.) :lol:

Sirius' slashing the portrait out of frustration, I think, gives us an insight into his temper. It helps to explain why the wizarding society believed him capable of mass murder (including Lupin and Dumbledore, even if they had their doubts) and helps make it believable that he might just murder Peter out of hand. The scene established quite quickly and neatly that Sirius has a hot temper and he expresses it physically and outwardly.Yes, I agree- if Sirius didn’t appear physically violent in some way, we wouldn’t really get the sense that he could have been a murderer. The scene where he’s standing over Ron’s bed with a knife furthers the image of Sirius as an unhinged mass-murderer. Sirius’ temper is one of his defining traits that seems to go along with his impulsiveness, and it seems to be something that might have been enhanced by his long stay in Azkaban. After all, he had many, many years to stew over what Peter did to him and to the Potters, and when he finally escaped, I get the feeling that revenge was probably one of the only things that kept him going. As he gets across in the Shrieking Shack, he wants to commit Peter’s murder now, without waiting, which illustrates both his temper and his impulsiveness.

One question I have is how did Peter Pettigrew get up the nerve to approach Voldemort about becoming a Death Eater. Surely that would mean putting his life on the line as I doubt very much that Voldemort would let him walk away from that encounter unless Peter were in his service. We've seen how Peter behaves when his life is in danger. We know he thought that Voldemort's side would win, but what gave him the courage to actually seek out Voldemort and ask to be accepted by him?:tu: Good questions. I can’t help but wonder if somehow Peter might have been approached about becoming one of Voldemort’s supporters, and that he might have half desired to join, and half too cowardly not to join. In the Shrieking Shack scene, Peter says, “He—he was taking over everywhere!” gasped Pettigrew. “Wh—what was there to be gained by refusing him?” From this quote, it seems like he might have been approached by somebody and “felt out”, as clkginny said. Peter may have said some things which pretty much “inducted” him into Voldemort’s ranks, and at this point, whomever was feeling him out probably gave him a choice: either join Voldemort and get all the power, revenge, wealth, whatever you want; or die (Voldemort’s mentality is ‘if you’re not with me, you’re against me, and anyone who’s against me will be destroyed’). There’s also this quote which indicates Peter probably had a choice to join or die: “You don’t understand!” whined Pettigrew. “He would have killed me, Sirius!” Thus, I see this as being how Peter became a Death Eater. Somehow, I don’t see him as having all that much courage in general. Even though he does seem to show a twisted sense of courage when he willingly cuts off his own limbs, I don’t feel that he had the courage to seek Voldemort out. Also we know that he didn’t have the courage to stand up to Voldemort, as evidenced by his quote above.

As for the reasons why Peter wanted to become a Death Eater, I see them as including the following:

1) I think Peter was a bit disenchanted with the way the Marauders (mainly Sirius and James) treated him when they were friends at school. They did kind of mock him and put him down, and they didn't really treat him like an equal, as seen in SWM. So I feel that Peter may have wanted to get back at them a bit for treating him the way they did.

2) Given Peter's role in the Marauders' friendship, I believe power and acceptance would have been alluring to him. The fact that Voldemort could potentially offer him a powerful and important position within an organization that operated on the basis of fear was appealing to Peter.

3) Voldemort was the "biggest bully on the playground", the one who could offer him the most protection and supposedly treat him the way he wanted to be treated. As is said in the Shrieking Shack scene, Peter always liked important, powerful friends to take care of him.

4) Peter is very selfish and only does things when there is something in it for him, as Sirius points out. It seems Peter wanted to join Voldemort because "He—he was taking over everywhere!", as Peter says. He wanted to join Voldemort because he was sure Voldemort was going to win.

5) As I mentioned earlier, I think he joined because he was too cowardly to refuse and stand up to Voldemort. Peter says, I was never brave like you and Remus and James. Therefore he wasn't brave enough to die rather than betray his friends, as Sirius says. So when given the choice to join or die, Peter chose to join.

I know i haven't posted in quite some time, but I went on vacation, and when I came back a new thread had started!

Okay, this is from page 9, where Subtle posted that Lupin reminded her of Peter betraying Jesus three times after He was crucified. First of all, I do not want to start any more heated conversations, that is not my intentions at all. I think you brought up a really good point Subtle, and I got to thinking more about what you wrote. When Jesus is ressurected, He asks Peter, do you love me three times, over riding the 3 times Peter denied knowing Jesus. Jesus then says something along the lines of, take care of my sheep. I realize that sounds sort of sacreligious, and I don't mean it to be, especially since today (oops it's 1 in the morning!) er yesterday was Good Friday. Back on point, since Lupin obviously felt guilty enough to feel the need to confess to Dumbledore, do you think that he might try to redeem himself in Dumbledore's eyes, and then maybe become the new leader of the Order? The only problem I have with this is that Lupin hasn't betrayed Dumbledore as much as someone like Pettigrew. However I always saw him as Judas Iscariot, not Peter. This is pure speculation, and I hope no one is offended, because I don't mean to be. Lately this thread has seemed a bit scary, and I just wanted to see what other peoples opinions were, since I think all the posters in here are brilliant!

Lately? :rotfl: Ahem...

Just from my very Roman Catholic upbringing perspective, I don't see it. I think you're casting Lupin as Peter and Peter as Judas ... But Pettigrew betrayed the Potters, not Dumbledore, who just doesn't strike me as Jesus.....

It's a good thought, but I can't make it fit....

I think it's obvious his angst stems from his illness. I think that without it, he would be a different Lupin than we know. He is a halfblood and a werewolf. This means he grew up knowing what the wizarding world thought of "his kind" and he learned early on to keep it to himself. He didn't even admit it to his closest friends. . .I think that since he has always had to be secretive for fear of being rejected or discriminated against, he continues this attitude in Prisoner of Azkaban. That's why he never tells Dumbledore what he and his friends did during their time at Hogwarts. He's afraid of admitting he betrayed Dumbledore's trust when he (Dumbledore) took a chance on him (Lupin). He's afraid of losing Dumbledore's trust again and he's afraid of being rejected.I'm sure his lycanthropy caused him a lot of angst growing up. He was afraid he wouldn't have friends. Possibly, he was afraid he wouldn't have a future. His friendship with James, Sirius, and Peter should have helped him overcome that angst, though. If he has really accepted his condition, as several people said a few pages ago, he shouldn't continue to feel angst over it.

So far, the most angst we've seen Lupin display is in the Shrieking Shack scene. He describes being torn between doing what he should and doing what he wants. This should be a source of angst for him throughout PoA because his ongoing choice is wrong (not to tell Dumbledore about Sirius being an animagus) and he knows it. Or phrased another way, he has yet to make the decision to do the right thing. Perhaps this is why he's so accepting of Snape's disclosure about his lycanthropy at the end of PoA--he no longer feels the angst of choosing between his friend's trust (in this case Dumbledore's) and doing the right thing. Until the Shrieking Shack scene, though, Lupin never really betrays any of this angst he must be feeling, does he? About deconstructing, well, Ihaven't been on this thread much, so i don't know exactly what it has been discussed, but somehow I don't hink that positive aspects of Lupin's character have been discussed here!

But maybe it is not even supposed to comment on positive aspects of the marauders here. maybe the positive aspects are commenting only on the All about threads and here are discussed only the marauders's bad aspects!

Or maybe the good aspects have been discussed and I had the bad luck to miss those conversations!Here (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?p=1858170#post1858170) is a link to one of my posts (as well as those before and after) from version 8 that dealt with Lupin, if you're interested. Other topics were discussed as well and are mixed in, but I believe Lupin specifically is commented on until at least post 681. My post dealt with Lupin's personality type being Introverted/Intuitive/Feeling/Perceiving based on the Myer-Briggs personality test. This is the last time I remember Lupin being specifically discussed--he isn't discussed as much here because he tends to be the least controversial of the Marauders and Snape (usually ;) ).

I think there is also discussion somewhere around that point of why Peter may have betrayed the Order and his friends.As I mentioned earlier, I think he joined because he was too cowardly to refuse and stand up to Voldemort. Peter says, I was never brave like you and Remus and James. Therefore he wasn't brave enough to die rather than betray his friends, as Sirius says. So when given the choice to join or die, Peter chose to join.I always thought Peter was trying to play them with that comment, rather than being sincere. Doesn't it seem like a ploy to make them feel sorry for him so that they won't hurt/kill him? I realize that doesn't mean that it can't be true, but I view it with suspicion.

I'm not sure if, for Peter, it's a matter of being brave enough to die for his friends or selfless enough to die for them. Peter is able to be brave in facing Voldemort, though not brave enough to defy Voldemort. Is Peter ever selfless? He cuts off his hand for Voldemort. . .I'm not sure what I think of that. :huh:

Christian Mythology isn't my strong point, but I thought that Judas betrayed Jesus with the hope that Jesus would prove himself? Jesus also knew that Judas would betray him, right? I'm not sure what you're getting at FunnyHoney. Could you explain what and why your seeing that a little clearer?

*Perhaps we should rename the thread the DMZ? Then it could stand for Deconstructing the Marauders Zone and the Demilitarized Zone.

But, can we not discuss these issues here just because a few people want to see him as a saint on a pedestal? I don't understand that.
Unfortunately, that's the message I usually get about Snape where ever I go. Sadly, there are those who can't stand to see their favorite characters in any light but the halos they put them under.....

But it's necessary to examine a character's flaws and actions objectively to determine exactly what role they play in the tale.
And making mistakes doesn't make a character evil any more than showing up in church every sunday makes them good. It makes them human ... esque. It gives dimension to the characters, makes them believable.

Back on point, since Lupin obviously felt guilty enough to feel the need to confess to Dumbledore, do you think that he might try to redeem himself in Dumbledore's eyes, and then maybe become the new leader of the Order? The only problem I have with this is that Lupin hasn't betrayed Dumbledore as much as someone like Pettigrew. However I always saw him as Judas Iscariot, not Peter.This is an interesting speculation. I'm obviously no expert on this subject (religion), but does Lupin need to do anything to redeem himself in Dumbledore's eyes? Dumbledore is a very understanding guy and I don't know that he would require anything of Lupin. (Come to think of it, when did Lupin confess to Dumbledore? Dumbledore heard Sirius's story from Sirius himself while Lupin was roaming the Forbidden Forest in werewolf form.)

I also read whizbang's comment on it. In general, though, I don't think all the aspects need to be a perfect match in order to make a reference or parallel. For example, the LotR trilogy has at least 2 Christ figures. (I use that as an example because they're easy enough for me to pick out. I'm not sure about Christian symbolism in Harry Potter.)

Chiev, I read your post, and realized that Lupin dosen't confess, it is Sirius Dumbledore hears the story from. Sorry! I'll have to do some re-reading. However, Lupin may feel a bit less guilty without that secret hanging over him. Also, I don't think Dumbledore is expecting something from Lupin, I think it's Lupin who wants to make it up to Dumbledore.

Whiz, I'm a Roman Catholic too, so I always felt that by betraying Jesus, Judas betrayed God too, since God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are 3 in 1. Some people I know see Dumbledore as the God figure, but I don't really like that idea too much. However, Pettigrew did betray Dumbledore, in my opinion he betrayed the entire Order, considering his plot involved getting Harry killed and therefore allowing Voldemort to take control of the wizarding world. The Potter's obviously got the worst of it, since they died, that sounded really harsh lol.

I do see Pettigrew as a figurative Judas, but that's just me, and in the end it's really not important to the story line. Judas sold Jesus out for money, Pettigrew sold out the Potter's for power and fame, two reasons that sort of go hand in hand. Judas ends up haning himself, but I'm not sure if Pettigrew feels that guilty about selling out the Potter's, he has lived with himself for 15 years, and has not done anything paticularly drastic.

I'm not sure if I see Lupin as Peter, however Lupin does feel that he betrayed Dumbledore, whom Lupin obviously looks up to. I just thought that Subtle brought up an interesting point, hehe maybe I was the only one who found it so compelling. I think it will be interesting to see some Lupin-Dumbledore interaction again, since (I don't think) we've seen any of it outside of PoA.

Christian Mythology isn't my strong point, but I thought that Judas betrayed Jesus with the hope that Jesus would prove himself? Jesus also knew that Judas would betray him, right? I'm not sure what you're getting at FunnyHoney. Could you explain what and why your seeing that a little clearer?

*Perhaps we should rename the thread the DMZ? Then it could stand for Deconstructing the Marauders Zone and the Demilitarized Zone.
Judas wanted Jesus to take his place on David's throne, in other words, a worldly throne. He wanted Jesus to lead an army that would overthrow the Romans. But Jesus' insisted that his kingdom was not "of this world."
Judas was also a thief. He was the banker and bookkeeper for the merry band, and he was embezzling. Clearly, he didn't get the message.

Messiahs, surrounded by bands of insurgents were as common then as now, and to many people of the day, Jesus and Co were just another anti Roman club.

Unfortunately, that's the message I usually get about Snape where ever I go. Sadly, there are those who can't stand to see their favorite characters in any light but the halos they put them under..... You're free to discuss the negative aspects of Snape as long as it's not based in wild speculation. I won't speak for everyone, but I have no interest in such speculation. I thought that's what your "Pureblood Supremacist" thread was for?

Whiz, I'm a Roman Catholic too, so I always felt that by betraying Jesus, Judas betrayed God too, since God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are 3 in 1. Some people I know see Dumbledore as the God figure, but I don't really like that idea too much. However, Pettigrew did betray Dumbledore, in my opinion he betrayed the entire Order, considering his plot involved getting Harry killed and therefore allowing Voldemort to take control of the wizarding world. The Potter's obviously got the worst of it, since they died, that sounded really harsh lol. I have a somewhat unpopular theory that Snape arranged for Pettigrew to become a DE and sent him to betray the Potters in the hopes that baby Harry would kill Voldemort and Snape would be free of his enslavement to the Dark Lord. In that context, if we think of Judas' betrayal as trying to force Jesus to take a temporal throne, we may see Pettigrew as trying to force the one to destroy Voldemort. That I can see.

I do see Pettigrew as a figurative Judas, but that's just me, and in the end it's really not important to the story line. Judas sold Jesus out for money, Pettigrew sold out the Potter's for power and fame, or safety. Pettigrew didn't get much in the way of power or fame, but he did get a very safe home. two reasons that sort of go hand in hand. Judas ends up haning himself, but I'm not sure if Pettigrew feels that guilty about selling out the Potter's, he has lived with himself for 15 years, and has not done anything paticularly drastic. Still, he owes Harry a life debt. :eyebrows:

You're free to discuss the negative aspects of Snape as long as it's not based in wild speculation. I won't speak for everyone, but I have no interest in such speculation. I thought that's what your "Pureblood Supremacist" thread was for?Hmmmmm...... should I report this obvious attack? :huh:

If this thread didn't indulge in wild speculation, we'd still be in V2.

Judas wanted Jesus to take his place on David's throne, in other words, a worldly throne. He wanted Jesus to lead an army that would overthrow the Romans. But Jesus' insisted that his kingdom was not "of this world."
Judas was also a thief. He was the banker and bookkeeper for the merry band, and he was embezzling. Clearly, he didn't get the message.

Messiahs, surrounded by bands of insurgents were as common then as now, and to many people of the day, Jesus and Co were just another anti Roman club.

Thanks, Whiz.

So, we're seeing Dumbledore/Jesus, Pettigrew/Judas, and Lupin/Peter?

Not sure about that, technically all the Marauders betrayed Dumbledore, not just Lupin. Pettigrew's largest betrayal was to the Potter's, not Dumbledore.

Okay, I still need more information on how you see this, Funnyhoney.

I have a somewhat unpopular theory that Snape arranged for Pettigrew to become a DE and sent him to betray the Potters in the hopes that baby Harry would kill Voldemort and Snape would be free of his enslavement to the Dark Lord. In that context, if we think of Judas' betrayal as trying to force Jesus to take a temporal throne, we may see Pettigrew as trying to force the one to destroy Voldemort. That I can see.Wouldn't that really put Snape in the Judas role, not Peter? That wouldn't carry the same weight, since Snape was not close to the Potters.Hmmmmm...... should I report this obvious attack? :huh:My comment was no more inflammatory than yours.

Whiz-Yes, I definetly agree with Pettigrew wanting safety from Voldemort, hehe I actually meant to add that point in. However, I think he thought he would get more out of his deal with Voldemort than he did. Though, Voldemort being turned to vapor didn't really help things along.

clkginny- I hope I'm not getting you angry or anything! I wouldn't like to think of this thread as a war zone! Yes, Jesus knew that Judas was going to betray Him, Jesus said it at the Last Supper, and while He was praying the the Garden of Gethesemene(woah! spelling I know!) before the Romans come to take Jesus to be judeged, Jesus knew He was going to die. But, Jesus didn't want to die, He asks God to let this cup pass, if it is possible, and is afraid. I realize I'm getting a bit too religious, and I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm sorry clkginny, I don't think I'm answering your question! I did try though! I see Judas and Pettigrew because both were traitors, and in both cases something was suspected of them. Jesus knew flat out that Judas would betray Him. Dumbledore also suspected that someone in the Order was working both sides, at least that's what Fudge or McGonagall says while they're in Three Broomsticks in PoA. I'm still not sure if that is what you wanted though?

Okay, I still need more information on how you see this, Funnyhoney.I'm not sure, but I think the piece your missing comes from subtle's post yesterday. Peter betrayed Jesus 3 times (which apparently Jesus predicted), but went on the become the "rock" of the Christian Church, in a leadership sort of way. Subtle noted that Lupin betrayed Dumbledore 3 times (when he romped around with the Marauders in school, when he failed to inform Dumbledore that Sirius was an animagus, and when he failed to understand that Dumbledore would forgive him). I think funnyhoney was proposing that this may mean Lupin will take over the leadership role in the Order from Dumbledore, if Lupin really is a parallel to Peter from the Bible. I hope I got that right. . .

clkginny- I hope I'm not getting you angry or anything! I wouldn't like to think of this thread as a war zone! Yes, Jesus knew that Judas was going to betray Him, Jesus said it at the Last Supper, and while He was praying the the Garden of Gethesemene(woah! spelling I know!) before the Romans come to take Jesus to be judeged, Jesus knew He was going to die. But, Jesus didn't want to die, He asks God to let this cup pass, if it is possible, and is afraid. I realize I'm getting a bit too religious, and I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm sorry clkginny, I don't think I'm answering your question! I did try though!

Actually, my DMZ comment was about the tone of this thread over the last two days, and meant as a joke. Oh well, everyone tells me that my sense of humor is akin to the Sahara Desert.

I was trying to understand how you see similarities in the Jesus/Peter/Judas and Dumbledore/Pettigrew/Lupin thing. I missed it and was hoping you could be a little clearer.

I have absolutely no problem with anybody's religion, and would never think I had the right to comment on thier beliefs. :cool: Besides, if I didn't want to hear something, I shouldn't have asked. :p

ETA: Chiev, that could be it, but I'm still having a little trouble. Like I said, Christian Mythology isn't my strong point.

Wouldn't that really put Snape in the Judas role, not Peter? That wouldn't carry the same weight, since Snape was not close to the Potters.[True, but if Peter was already a DE, and as he had been spying for some time already, it seems reasonable to assume that he was, then he had a stake in it, too. My comment was no more inflammatory than yours.My comment concerned a situation, not an individual.

Judas wanted Jesus to take his place on David's throne, in other words, a worldly throne. He wanted Jesus to lead an army that would overthrow the Romans. But Jesus' insisted that his kingdom was not "of this world."
Judas was also a thief. He was the banker and bookkeeper for the merry band, and he was embezzling. Clearly, he didn't get the message.

Messiahs, surrounded by bands of insurgents were as common then as now, and to many people of the day, Jesus and Co were just another anti Roman club.

That's certainly a colorful spin on Judas Iscariot. In years of Sunday School, I don't think I ever heard his relationship to the apostles described quite that way! :angel:

A more, um, traditional view:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08539a.htm

Judas Iscariot
The Apostle who betrayed his Divine Master. The name Judas (Ioudas) is the Greek form of Judah (Hebrew "praised"), a proper name frequently found both in the Old and the New Testament. Even among the Twelve there were two that bore the name, and for this reason it is usually associated with the surname Iscariot [Heb. "a man of Kerioth" or Carioth, which is a city of Judah (cf. Joshua 15:25)]. There can be no doubt that this is the right interpretation of the name, though the true origin is obscured in the Greek spelling, and, as might be expected, other derivations have been suggested (e.g. from Issachar).

Very little is told us in the Sacred Text concerning the history of Judas Iscariot beyond the bare facts of his call to the Apostolate, his treachery, and his death. . . We are told nothing concerning the circumstances of his call or his share in the ministry and miracles of the Apostles.

And it is significant that he is never mentioned without some reference to his great betrayal. Thus, in the list of the Apostles given in the Synoptic Gospels, we read: "and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him". (Matthew 10:4. Cf. Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16). So again in St. John's Gospel the name first occurs in connection with the foretelling of the betrayal: "Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil? Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him whereas he was one of the twelve" (John 6:71-2).

In this passage St. John adds a further particular in mentioning the name of the traitor Apostle's father, which is not recorded by the other Evangelists. And it is he again who tells us that Judas carried the purse. For, after describing the anointing of Christ's feet by Mary at the feast in Bethania, the Evangelist continues:

Then one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, he that was about to betray him, said: 'Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?' Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the purse, carried the things that were put therein (John 12:4-6).

This fact that Judas carried the purse is again referred to by the same Evangelist in his account of the Last Supper (13:29). The Synoptic Gospels do not notice this office of Judas, nor do they say that it was he who protested at the alleged waste of the ointment.

But it is significant that both in Matthew and Mark the account of the anointing is closely followed by the story of the betrayal: "Then went one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, to the chief priests, and said to them: What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you?" (Matt., xxvi, 14-5); "And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went to the chief priests, to betray him to them. Who hearing it were glad; and they promised him they would give him money" (Mark, xiv, 10-1).

In both these accounts it will be noticed that Judas takes the initiative: he is not tempted and seduced by the priests, but approaches them on his own accord. St. Luke tells the same tale, but adds another touch by ascribing the deed to the instigation of Satan: "And Satan entered into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariot, one of the twelve. And he went, and discoursed with the chief priests and the magistrates, how he might betray him to them. And they were glad, and convenanted to give him money. And he promised. And he sought opportunity to betray him in the absence of the multitude" (Luke, xxii, 3-6).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Iscariot

In the other, 'Iscariot' is considered to be a transformation of the Latin Sicarius, or "dagger-man", one of a cadre of assassins among Jewish rebels intent on driving the Romans out of Judea. A more complete description of them is at Sicarii. It is possible then, that this Latin name might have beeen transformed by Aramaic into a form more closely resembling 'Iscariot'. Whether Judas actually was a sicariote or even a sympathizer will never be known. The term may have simply been used pejoratively.

Hmmmm, Dagger Man? :huh:

And here is something about Peter, the apostle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter

The gospels . . . state that Jesus foretold that Peter would deny him three times after Jesus' arrest. Again according to the Gospel of Matthew, on the evening before Good Friday, Jesus predicted to his disciples that they would "fall away" from him that night. Peter replied, "Even if all desert you, I will never desert you." Jesus answered, "In truth I tell you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will have denied me three times." Confronted after Jesus had been arrested, Peter did deny knowing Jesus to avoid being arrested himself. When he heard a cock crow, he remembered what Jesus had said, and wept. (Matt. 26:31-35, 69-75; Mark 14: 26-31, 66-72; Luke 22:31-34,54-62; John 18:15-18, 25-27).

Attributes: Key(s)
Patronage: Popes, fishermen; Rome; against snake bites, rabies; and more

Chiev-Yes, thank you that is what I was getting at, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear! I'm actually not as concerned with Pettigrew/Judas as I am with Peter and Lupin, and a possible connection there. Though both parallels are interesting.

clkginny- I thought it was a joke, but I wasn't sure if it was directed at me or not, lol and I didn't want to start off on the wrong foot. I didn't mean you were insulting anyones beliefs, I just thought maybe I got a little carried away there, and sounded a bit too much like a sermon, when I was trying to clarify myself, though I'm going to guess I didn't, hehe.

My comment concerned a situation, not an individual.In that case, I apologize. Since we often clash over Snape and your comment was posted in response to mine, I naturally believed your comment was directed at me.

So far, the most angst we've seen Lupin display is in the Shrieking Shack scene. He describes being torn between doing what he should and doing what he wants. This should be a source of angst for him throughout PoA because his ongoing choice is wrong (not to tell Dumbledore about Sirius being an animagus) and he knows it. Or phrased another way, he has yet to make the decision to do the right thing. Perhaps this is why he's so accepting of Snape's disclosure about his lycanthropy at the end of PoA--he no longer feels the angst of choosing between his friend's trust (in this case Dumbledore's) and doing the right thing. Until the Shrieking Shack scene, though, Lupin never really betrays any of this angst he must be feeling, does he?

Lupin wasn't just afraid of not having friends. He was afraid of being discriminated against by paranoid members of the wizarding world. Having three people who loved and understood helped, I'm sure, but it didn't remove the prejudice Lupin could and does face.

Not everyone is over emtional. Out of all of the characters who openly display their emotions, I would say Lupin falls near or at the very bottom. He is a very private person. Just because he feels angst does not mean he shows it.

I think he accepts Snape's betrayal of Dumbledore's trust because Lupin knows it isn't safe for him to teach with his condition. He says so himself. He also says that parents won't feel safe with him teaching their children and adds that after what happened the night before, he couldn't blame them. Yes, the night before wasn't likely to happen every full moon, but there were still dangers which Lupin quietly accepted.

clkginny- I thought it was a joke, but I wasn't sure if it was directed at me or not, lol and I didn't want to start off on the wrong foot. I didn't mean you were insulting anyones beliefs, I just thought maybe I got a little carried away there, and sounded a bit too much like a sermon, when I was trying to clarify myself, though I'm going to guess I didn't, hehe.
I’m going to guess that to get it through my thick head you will have to quote chapter and verse. That’s okay, I’ll let you debate it with someone else and I’ll just watch. I am interested in the possible connection between Lupin and Peter. I missed it when Subtle brought it up. I think you might have something, but without any real knowledge, I have no idea what you might have.

Lupin wasn't just afraid of not having friends. He was afraid of being discriminated against by paranoid members of the wizarding world. Having three people who loved and understood helped, I'm sure, but it didn't remove the prejudice Lupin could and does face.
Yes, and his feelings on this were/are quite understandable. He needs to learn to trust, and I think he is making good progress on that. It will be interesting to see what happens with Lupin in the next two books.

Not everyone is over emtional. Out of all of the characters who openly display their emotions, I would say Lupin falls near or at the very bottom. He is a very private person. Just because he feels angst does not mean he shows it.
This is part of what makes it so hard to figure out what makes Lupin tick. I am sure that lycanthropy has affected him more than what we see on the surface. Just because he has accepted it doesn’t mean that it has been easy or that he has escaped the ramifications unscathed.

Lupin wasn't just afraid of not having friends. He was afraid of being discriminated against by paranoid members of the wizarding world. Having three people who loved and understood helped, I'm sure, but it didn't remove the prejudice Lupin could and does face.

HermioneLuna: Let's not forget one thing about Lupin. These friends who were such a comfort to him also suspected him of being a spy and "ratting" on them. They didn't always act as loving and understanding as many here seem to think. When the going got tough, there were fingers pointing at Lupin - why do you think that is?

And Dumbledore never seems to have been anything but kind to Lupin, yet clearly Lupin betrays his trust more than once.

Not everyone is over emtional. Out of all of the characters who openly display their emotions, I would say Lupin falls near or at the very bottom. He is a very private person. Just because he feels angst does not mean he shows it.

Well, that's for sure. He certainly isn't an open book, is he?

As I was reading all that stuff about Peter and Judas, they seem to have so much in common. They both betray the trust of Jesus, even though they both seem above reproach. Judas is the worst, to me, because he betrays for money and he goes seeking it. Peter, on the other hand, scoffs at the idea that he would ever lie about knowing Jesus, but he misunderstands his own ability to be a coward. He lied to save himself, and then wept at his own failure.

The difference is, Judas went on to kill himself because of what he had done, and Peter went on to be one of the leaders of the early Church.

But I can see a bit why people think that the Apostle Peter might be closer to Lupin, since he went on to be redeemed.

At any rate, all this is making me wonder if we should look closer at Harry's friends to find the Judas and the Peter, instead of trying to analyze the past? Harry seems to be the "future savior/martyr" just as much as Lily or James were to their generation.

In that case, I apologize. Since we often clash over Snape and your comment was posted in response to mine, I naturally believed your comment was directed at me.
Actually, I was agreeing with you, but in a different context.

:tu: Onward!

HermioneLuna: Let's not forget one thing about Lupin. These friends who were such a comfort to him also suspected him of being a spy and "ratting" on them. They didn't always act as loving and understanding as many here seem to think. When the going got tough, there were fingers pointing at Lupin - why do you think that is?

All we know for sure is that Sirius thought Lupin was the spy. He knew it was someone close to James, knew it wasn't him, and thought Peter was too weak and talentless to be the spy. That left Lupin. The fact that he suspected Remus showed he thought Lupin was strong and cunning enough to do such a horrible thing, which seems like a high opinion to me. However, suspecting him of something so low and evil is definitely not a sign of a high opinion.

We know that Peter didn't suspect Lupin, and we don't know what James thought. Sirius just says that he convinced James and Lily to switch Secret Keepers at the last minute, not that they all thought Lupin had turned traitor.

I'm not entirely sure where your comment came from since I was talking about something completely different, but discussions are allowed to have tangents. I think that if anything, you've added to my point. If he was isolated from his friends during the First War, then it would have added to his "angst" over his lycanthropy. However, I don't believe he was as much as an outsider as so many think.

"We've been having a little chat, Peter, about what happened the night Lily and James died. You might have missed the finer points while you were squeaking around down there on the bed - "

"Remus," gasped Pettigrew, and Harry could see beads of sweat breaking out over his pasty face, "you don't believe him, do you ...? He tried to kill me, Remus...."

"So we've heard," said Lupin, more coldly. "I'd like to clear up one or two little matters with you, Peter, if you'd be so - "

"He's come to try and kill me again!" Pettigrew squeaked suddenly, pointing at Black, and Harry saw that he used his middle finger, because his index was missing. "He killed Lily and James and now he's going to kill me too.... You've got to help me, Remus...."

Black's face looked more skull-like than ever as he stared at Pettigrew with fathomless eyes.

"No one's going to try and kill you until we've sorted a few things out," said Lupin.

"Sorted things out?" squealed Pettigrew, looking wildly about him once more, eyes taking in the boarded windows and, again, the only door. "I knew he'd come after me! I knew he'd be back for me! I've been waiting for this for twelve years!"

"You knew Sirius was going to break out of Azkaban?" said Lupin, his brow furrowed. "When nobody has ever done it before?"

"He's got dark powers the rest of us can only dream of!" Pettigrew shouted shrilly. "How else did he get out of there? I suppose He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named taught him a few tricks!"

Black started to laugh, a horrible, mirthless laugh that filled the whole room.

"Voldemort, teach me tricks?" he said.

Pettigrew flinched as though Black had brandished a whip at him.

"What, scared to hear your old master's name?" said Black. "I don't blame you, Peter. His lot aren't very happy with you, are they?"

"Don't know what you mean, Sirius -" muttered Pettigrew, his breathing faster than ever. His whole face was shining with sweat now.

"You haven't been hinding from me for twelve years," said Black. "You've been hiding from Voldemort's old supporters. I heard things in Azkaban, Peter.... They all think you're dead, or you'd have to answer to them.... I've heard them screaming all sorts of things in their sleep. Sounds like they think the double-crosser double-crossed them. Voldemort went to the Potters' on your information ... and Voldemort met his downfall there. And not all Voldemort's supporters ended up in Azkaban, did they? There are still plenty out here, biding their time, pretending they've seen the error of their ways.... If they ever got wind that you were still alive, Peter -"

"Don't know ... what you're talking about ...," said Pettigrew again, more shrilly than ever. He wiped his face on his sleeve and looked up at Lupin. "You don't believe this - this madness, Remus -"

"I must admit, Peter, I have difficulty in understanding why an innocent man would want to spend twelve years as a rat," said Lupin evenly.

"Innocent, but scared!" squealed Pettigrew. "If Voldemort's supporters were after me, it was because ]b\I put one of their best men in Azkaban - the spy, Sirius Black!"[/b]

Black's face contorted.

"How dare you," he growled, sounding suddenly like the bear-sized dog he had been. "I, a spy for Voldemort? When did I ever sneak around people who were stronger and more powerful than myself? But you, Peter - I'll never understand why I didn't see you were the spy from the start. You always liked big friends who'd look after you, didn't you? It used to be us ... me and Remus ... and James...."

Pettigrew wiped his face again; he was almost panting for breath.

"Me, a spy ... must be out of your mind ... never ... don't know how you can say such a -"

"Lily and James only made you Secret-Keeper because I suggested it," Black hissed, so venomously that Pettigrew took a step backward. "I thought it was the perfect plan ... a bluff.... Voldemort would be sure to come after me, would never dream they'd use a weak, talentless thing like you.... It must have been the finest moment of your miserable life, telling Voldemort you could hand him the Potters."

Pettigrew was muttering distractedly; Harry caught words like "far-fetched" and "lunacy," but he couldn't help paying more attention to the ashen color of Pettigrew's face and the way his eyes continued to dart toward the windows and door.

Could this be the source of all the confusion about who is or isn't the spy? Looks like it was Peter sowing some enmity and discord at least in that scene.

I was always certain that Peter was the one spreading the suspicion against Lupin.

what gave him the courage to actually seek out Voldemort and ask to be accepted by him?
He did think that voldy would win. Peter would do anything to save his life. He had two options, die now or die later. Since he was so sure voldy will win, he decided he will somehow join his side. Maybe peter is not that worthless....:D

I was always certain that Peter was the one spreading the suspicion against Lupin.me too....

Could this be the source of all the confusion about who is or isn't the spy? Looks like it was Peter sowing discord at least in that scene.

After reading this, one question is popping up in my head. My did voldy trust peter as much as he did. Sure, peter maybe easy to control. But still, he is a wizard, and voldemort was powerless. I am talking about the beginning of GOF. I know peter was running away from DD and others. But suppose, just for an instant, if peter had felt angry and voldemort for STILL treating him badly, then he could have done anything with voldemort. He maybe scared of attacking him.... but there are certain moments of hatred. Was LV protecting himself with nagini? But a wizard against a snake? Couldn't voldemort ask wormtail to contact others? peter would have accepted the offer. Crouch was still far away....

Secondly, why would peter follow him still? Is it because he just can't be a free man?

PS. had an awful problem for past two days. My keyboard stopped working, i tried to put an old keyboard, but severaly letters were not working.... tried to use online keyboard, but wasn't used to it at all. I gave up. All i could do was read, read, and read.... Now everything is back to normal...

After reading this, one question is popping up in my head. My did voldy trust peter as much as he did. Sure, peter maybe easy to control. But still, he is a wizard, and voldemort was powerless. I am talking about the beginning of GOF. I know peter was running away from DD and others. But suppose, just for an instant, if peter had felt angry and voldemort for STILL treating him badly, then he could have done anything with voldemort. He maybe scared of attacking him.... but there are certain moments of hatred. Was LV protecting himself with nagini? But a wizard against a snake? Couldn't voldemort ask wormtail to contact others? peter would have accepted the offer. Crouch was still far away....

Secondly, why would peter follow him still? Is it because he just can't be a free man?

Voldemort had no choice. Everyone else had abandoned him. Is Peter any less trustworthy than the other DEs? Peter had no choice but to go back to Voldemort. He couldn't avoid capture by Dumbledore, Remus and Lupin without a strong Voldy.

Voldemort had no choice. Everyone else had abandoned him. Is Peter any less trustworthy than the other DEs? Peter had no choice but to go back to Voldemort. He couldn't avoid capture by Dumbledore, Remus and Lupin without a strong Voldy.A strong voldemort, thats what he wanted. But voldemort in that condition... did he have that much hope?

Peter could have lived rest of his life as a rat, you know. Hidden from the world, if he is so crazy about living. In that situation, he would have seen that LV is very weak compared to DD. seeing his character, and condition, you would say he will try to hide till the whole story of voldemort and harry is over. Did he have that much faith in voldemort's plan? Peter is character, who has faith in only the strong.

Even other DE had not thought of seeking LV.
(sorry, everyone, for deviating from the original topic)

I don't know that the religious motifs always match up exactly. Especially in HP: the references are more broad strokes. As in everything else she does in the books, JKR puts her own spin on the basic idea. She uses the motifs (and others drawn from other sources) to reinforce or highlight ideas--not as the basis and full meaning behind her plot, as, say happens in The Chronicles of Narnia.

That being said, I do see Pettigrew as the Judas--despite his name, he doesn't fit the Biblical Peter's behavior. Peter (I'm going to use this name for the Biblical figure and the last name for the HP character; otherwise, I'm going to confuse myself...more than usual) committed his betrayal inadvertently--it was predicted, but it wasn't something he wanted or meant to do, and he immediately regretted his actions, even though he really had no choice but to fulfill the prophecy (now, there's where I think the details of the Bible story have nothing to do with HP--Lupin isn't doomed to keep information from Dumbeldore!!!). His repentance is sincere, and so he is forgiven, and he goes on to be the leader of the new Church (anyone in favor of Lupin as the HBP, feel free to use that as fodder for the argument!).

Judas, on the other hand, betrays Jesus for cold, hard cash--and because he begins to disagree with Jesus' methods and philosophy. His association with the Apostles and Jesus involved politics, more than religion; he was one of those who interpreted the 'King of the Jews' literally, and Jesus was to be the Messiah who freed the Jews from Roman rule. Judas became disenchanted, considered Jesus a bit of a loose cannon, and turned him over to the Roman and Jewish authorities. This does seem to parallel a lot of Pettigrew's behavior--the desire to associate himself with power, somehow becoming disenchanted with the Order and its power, and, in looking to gain some personal benefit from allying himself with the opposing side, turns his best friends over to Voldemort to be killed. I don't think JKR is saying that the Potters are, symbolically, Jesus--but rather Jesus figures: the correspondence in the story is the idea of being betrayed by a close friend who abandons you to die...not that the Potters were Messiahs.

The conclusion to Judas' story evokes pity. He does repent what he did; however, he chooses suicide to express his self-condemnation--the one unforgivable sin. Murder, for instance, is a mortal sin, but can be forgiven if the murderer is truly repentant. However, suicide is self-murder: yet, because of the nature of the sin, the 'murderer' cannot repent his sin. Therefore, it is not forgivable. So--reading the pattern of the motif: does this mean that Pettigrew will come to regret all of his actions and die in order to (partially?) redeem himself? (Stay tuned to find out!!)

As for why Voldemort trusts Pettigrew...I don't think he does. I think Voldemort knows exactly what he's dealing with and exploits it. As he delineates himself, as Tom Riddle in CoS, his talent is discovering what people want (almost a Mirror of Erised, only for the darkest desires) and thereby drawing them into his circle. He makes it clear at the bginning of GoF that he knows exactly what Pettigrew is: a coward who loves to be associated with power; therefore, Voldemort can rely upon him to help him back to full power, as that's exactly what Pettigrew wants. Another mirror scene happens at the end of GoF, when Voldemort confronts Lucius in the graveyard and tells Malfoy to his face that he doesn't trust him: again, he knows exactly why Malfoy is allied to him and, as long as he knows, he can exploit it and count on it (I actually see Malfoy as a better dressed and sophisticated Pettigrew). In the motifs, Voldemort is pretty obviously Satanic--the Great Tempter. He has no love for his followers--only uses for them.

Side note...it's interesting that Pettigrew never elects to go to Dumbledore to beg forgiveness. At any point in his miserable history. There would've been a test of Dumbledore's forgiving nature! I do think that Dumbledore is the God figure in the novels (the descriptions and the subsequent illustrations alone are so blatantly based on traditional views of God the Father)--although, again, with the JKR twist: he isn't a god, he's a human. Therefore, despite his near omniscience and his infinite patience and capacity for forgiveness, he is fallible. A perfect example of how the character echoes traits of someone else, but is not intended to be that individual.

HermioneLuna: Let's not forget one thing about Lupin. These friends who were such a comfort to him also suspected him of being a spy and "ratting" on them. They didn't always act as loving and understanding as many here seem to think. When the going got tough, there were fingers pointing at Lupin - why do you think that is? I think the fact that Sirius suspected Lupin of being the spy demonstrates the terror and confusion of Voldemort's reign of terror, more than any weakness in their relationship. This is how Sirius describes what it was like to the trio in the cave at Hogsmeade:
'Imagine that Voldemort's powerful now. You don't know who his supporters are, you don't know how's working for him and who isn't; you know he can control people so that they do terrrible things without being able to stop themselves. You're scared for yourself, and your family, and your friends. Every week, news comes of more deaths, more disappearances, more torturing...the Ministry of Magic's in disarry, they don't know what to do, they're trying to keep everything hidden from the Muggles, but meanwhile, Muggles are dying too. Terror everywhere...panic...confusion...that's how it used to be.'
GoF, Padfoot Returns, p457 UK PaperbackThis isn't just Sirius' opinion, it is echoed in Dumbledore's speech at the leaving feast; 'Lord Voldemort's gift for spreading discord and enmity is very great' (p627 Ibid). The fear and paranoia Voldemort inspires is also apparent when Amos Diggory accuses Harry of having conjured the Dark Mark at the Quidditch World Cup.

If Sirius wasn't close to Lupin his doubting his loyalty wouldn't hold so much resonance. It is an indication of how terrifying the circumstances were at the time that Sirius might believe that someone he and known and loved for years might be betraying them. When you don't know who to trust, when lives are in danger then even the best and closest of friendships are placed under terrible strains. The tragedy is both that Sirius was wrong - Lupin never betrayed them - and, even worse, he was right - he couldn't trust a close friend. That is very frightening.
Originally Posted by ComicBookWorm
I was always certain that Peter was the one spreading the suspicion against LupinYes, it seems the most likely answer.

Really, I don't think it would have been that hard for Peter to plant the seeds of doubt in Sirius' mind. What could he say to make Sirius doubt Remus? Quite easy really;

What is Remus up to?
If Remus was doing Top Secret Hush Hush work for the Order back then (not canon, but reasonable speculation) then Peter continually wondering what he is doing could lead Sirius to question exactly what Remus was up to.
How did he keep his lycanthropy secret from us?
Under normal circumstances, Sirius would be able to rationalise this easily - it is not in the least surprising that Remus kept this a secret. But when you don't know who to trust, it is easy to doubt someone who has a track record of being good at keeping secrets.
Reminding Sirius of the Whomping Willow incident
A particularly neat pyschological trick. It gives Remus some sort of motive for betraying his friends, if he hadn't truly forgiven Sirius. More siginificantly, it plays on Sirius' guilt at his own betrayal of Remus. Logically, knowing that he had betrayed Remus doesn't give Sirius a reason to doubt him, but people often aren't all that logical and guilt is such a nasty, destructive emotion that it makes people particularly illogical. People who accuse their partners of infedelity without good reason often are, or have been unfaithful themselves. Perverse as it may seem, I think it is entirely possible that Peter could have manipulated Sirius' guilt at having betrayed Remus to make him suspect Remus of being a traitor.

It is also worth noting that Remus didn't know that Sirius suspected him at the time, which suggests that Sirius never openly accused him of being a traitor, or point the finger of blame, so to say. Peter might not have been able to convince Sirius that Remus was the speak, but he didn't need to. All that was needed was for Sirius to question Remus' loyalty, to have enough of a doubt to keep the arrangements for the Fidelius Charm from him, just in case. Lily, James and Sirius didn't tell anyone what they were doing, which indicates a high level of fear, or even paranoia.

Side note...it's interesting that Pettigrew never elects to go to Dumbledore to beg forgiveness.
It is indeed. It in a way shows that peter, has a very very minute bit of dignity. Or it can be just that, he is more scared of the outcome, than voldemort.

I do think that Dumbledore is the God figure in the novels (the descriptions and the subsequent illustrations alone are so blatantly based on traditional views of God the Father)--although, again, with the JKR twist: he isn't a god, he's a human. Therefore, despite his near omniscience and his infinite patience and capacity for forgiveness, he is fallible. A perfect example of how the character echoes traits of someone else, but is not intended to be that individual.
Very true. I think even DD woudn't have forgiven. We all really don't know why he trusts snape, but he must be having a very good reason for that. But in peter's case he lacks that one factor.

If Sirius wasn't close to Lupin his doubting his loyalty wouldn't hold so much resonance. It is an indication of how terrifying the circumstances were at the time that Sirius might believe that someone he and known and loved for years might be betraying them. When you don't know who to trust, when lives are in danger then even the best and closest of friendships are placed under terrible strains. The tragedy is both that Sirius was wrong - Lupin never betrayed them - and, even worse, he was right - he couldn't trust a close friend. That is very frightening.But wasn't this before sirius went to azkaban? At that time, what strain was he under. Or was it just that this doubt cropped up in his mind in azkaban...

I don't know that the religious motifs always match up exactly. Especially in HP: the references are more broad strokes. As in everything else she does in the books, JKR puts her own spin on the basic idea. She uses the motifs (and others drawn from other sources) to reinforce or highlight ideas--not as the basis and full meaning behind her plot, as, say happens in The Chronicles of Narnia.

I don't think JKR writes with the century's old "God" structure in mind, as in the writings of Thomas Paine, Phillis Wheatley and Henry David Thoreau, in which the stories were dissected into bits and parts and were always linked somehow to God or a Godlike notion. I think that idea ran out sometime in the eighteen hundreds, but that thought could just be mine.

I see HP as being a struggle between "good and evil," which will always be a good plot device as even though less people go to church and praise any certain God, people will always believe in good and evil. Today, religious connotations are not as prevalent as they were a few hundred years ago when almost everyone went to church every Sunday, and the church was the center of civilized life. To continue to write within that structure doesn't seem very plausible in modern literature.

I think the fact that Sirius suspected Lupin of being the spy demonstrates the terror and confusion of Voldemort's reign of terror, more than any weakness in their relationship. This is how Sirius describes what it was like to the trio in the cave at Hogsmeade:
This isn't just Sirius' opinion, it is echoed in Dumbledore's speech at the leaving feast; 'Lord Voldemort's gift for spreading discord and enmity is very great' (p627 Ibid). The fear and paranoia Voldemort inspires is also apparent when Amos Diggory accuses Harry of having conjured the Dark Mark at the Quidditch World Cup.

If Sirius wasn't close to Lupin his doubting his loyalty wouldn't hold so much resonance. It is an indication of how terrifying the circumstances were at the time that Sirius might believe that someone he and known and loved for years might be betraying them. When you don't know who to trust, when lives are in danger then even the best and closest of friendships are placed under terrible strains. The tragedy is both that Sirius was wrong - Lupin never betrayed them - and, even worse, he was right - he couldn't trust a close friend. That is very frightening.
Yes, it seems the most likely answer.

Really, I don't think it would have been that hard for Peter to plant the seeds of doubt in Sirius' mind. What could he say to make Sirius doubt Remus? Quite easy really;

What is Remus up to?
If Remus was doing Top Secret Hush Hush work for the Order back then (not canon, but reasonable speculation) then Peter continually wondering what he is doing could lead Sirius to question exactly what Remus was up to.
How did he keep his lycanthropy secret from us?
Under normal circumstances, Sirius would be able to rationalise this easily - it is not in the least surprising that Remus kept this a secret. But when you don't know who to trust, it is easy to doubt someone who has a track record of being good at keeping secrets.
Reminding Sirius of the Whomping Willow incident
A particularly neat pyschological trick. It gives Remus some sort of motive for betraying his friends, if he hadn't truly forgiven Sirius. More siginificantly, it plays on Sirius' guilt at his own betrayal of Remus. Logically, knowing that he had betrayed Remus doesn't give Sirius a reason to doubt him, but people often aren't all that logical and guilt is such a nasty, destructive emotion that it makes people particularly illogical. People who accuse their partners of infedelity without good reason often are, or have been unfaithful themselves. Perverse as it may seem, I think it is entirely possible that Peter could have manipulated Sirius' guilt at having betrayed Remus to make him suspect Remus of being a traitor.

It is also worth noting that Remus didn't know that Sirius suspected him at the time, which suggests that Sirius never openly accused him of being a traitor, or point the finger of blame, so to say. Peter might not have been able to convince Sirius that Remus was the speak, but he didn't need to. All that was needed was for Sirius to question Remus' loyalty, to have enough of a doubt to keep the arrangements for the Fidelius Charm from him, just in case. Lily, James and Sirius didn't tell anyone what they were doing, which indicates a high level of fear, or even paranoia.


Great post shaggydogstail :tu: Good obervations! I agree with you in that Voldemort spreads fear and mistrust as Dumbledore pointed out to the students. It was a problem in the first war, with the lack of trust between the Marauders, and it was also a big problem in OotP. No one trusted Harry, including Semus - the trio was always bickering amongst themselves, which really got on Harry's nerves. The entire book was filled with examples of Dumbledore's speech at the leaving feast in GoF.

Religious Stuff -- Admittedly, I am a lapsed Catholic turned agnostic so I haven't been to church in a while nor read the Bible in the recent past and most of my current knowledge of the story comes from Jesus Christ Superstar ;), but I thought Peter didn't betray Jesus so much as he "denied" him (thrice)? (Unless that's considered betrayal, in which case ingore this.) The hunt was out for Jesus' followers and Peter was trying to save his own skin by denying any affiliation with Jesus. Remain secretive and don't reveal who your friends are, that sort of thing. :eyebrows:

Peter / Judas -- This might sound odd, but I've never thought of Judas in as much of a negative light as much of Christianity. Yes, his betrayal was horrible, but there's a school of thought that his betrayal is important and quintessential to the Jesus story in that he's an active participant (rather than a hated enemy) in helping Jesus return to the Kingdom Of Heaven*, which is exactly the point of the Easter story (the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ). Judas is an easy scapegoat for the death of Jesus, but considering the crucifixion had to take place in order for the divine miracle of the resurrection to occur, Judas is more of a tool in the grand scheme of things rather than the one who wields the tool. (I hope that made sense.) And so I return to Peter Pettigrew ... if he is, truly, the Judas figure then I see his role as largely the same. He is, in fact, the betrayer and that was obviously a choice he made, but at the same time he's just another one of Voldemort's minions doing a job. One way or another, Voldemort was going to get the Potters; Peter simply facilitated this. If there hadn't been a Judas, I'm sure we would have heard of another disciple who betrayed Jesus, just as if there hadn't been a Peter I'm sure Voldemort would have found another way to kill the Potters. It's the death of these figures that set the story in motion, and Judas and Peter are (albeit truly horrible) facilitators of this.

*Kingdom of Heaven is a new movie coming out in May (I think) with David Thewlis in it (and Liam Neeson! :love: ) for anyone who's interested

I was always certain that Peter was the one spreading the suspicion against Lupin.:tu: Precisely. Look how he does it in the Shrieking Shack -- he's trying to pit them against each other in order to help himself, so it seems fairly reasonable to speculate that he did the same during Vold War I. It doesn't seem like a talent that he's suddenly developed.

If Sirius wasn't close to Lupin his doubting his loyalty wouldn't hold so much resonance. Your whole entire point was really great, shaggy, but I think this is the most important point. We raised it when discussing how close Peter was to the other three, and my reasoning for saying they did see him as a close friend was exactly this: for the betrayal to seem so monumental, so earth shattering, so extreme, it has to come from someone you would never think would do it, someone you trust implicitly, someone you are close to.

I think it's also important to point out that Sirius suspecting Remus was probably not an instantaneous thing. I doubt Sirius woke up one day and thought "Right, then, clearly Remus is the spy." I imagine that Sirius had quite an internal battle about it for quite some time after having the idea planted in his brain. This was his friend, this was someone he had gone to great lengths to make happy, this was someone for whom he had taken great risks for ... and this person could just give it up so easily? (Or so he thought.) The other thing is that I'm beginning to think that the finger may have been pointed at other people for a while, or that they didn't realise the spy was within their inner circle until quite near the end, or else why wouldn't Sirius have tried to out Remus? I don't think Sirius speculated for the entire year the spy was there that it was Remus; that would have given him ample time to confront or otherwise expose Remus. I'm starting to think it was only in the last few weeks that the gears in Sirius' brain really started turning on the Remus front, but before he could come up with any real proof (especially since ... there wasn't any? ;)) the Potters were killed and everything fell apart.

But wasn't this before sirius went to azkaban? At that time, what strain was he under. Or was it just that this doubt cropped up in his mind in azkaban...Yes, it was before Azkaban. I wasn't referring to any particular stress that Sirius was suffering from personally (although I think knowing that the Darkest Wizard who ever lived wants to murder your best friend, your Godson and probably you is quite stressful) but to the strain that many friendships would have been placed under by the atmosphere of paranoia and suspicion. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Is Peter ever selfless? He cuts off his hand for Voldemort. . .I'm not sure what I think of that.I’ve viewed this as Peter doing what he must to survive. Sure, it takes a lot of guts to do that to oneself, but I’m sure he wouldn’t have done it if there wasn’t something in it for him, i.e. being rewarded by Voldemort (not to mention that if he refused, he’d probably end up dead). In GoF, he reminds Voldemort that he promised to reward him, so Peter cut off his hand with the knowledge (or the hope) that Voldemort would repay him.

When the going got tough, there were fingers pointing at Lupin - why do you think that is?I blame Peter mostly for this, as several people said. It seems evident from the scene whizbang posted that he was indeed trying to take the heat off of himself by sewing discord. The way I see it, Peter could have whispered mainly lies or misinformation to Sirius about Lupin, possibly emphasizing that he wasn’t in contact with the rest of the Marauders very much. This could have been due to his work for the Order; even though the Marauders were in the Order too, he may have had an assignment that required him to be away for long periods of time like we’re told in OotP. In addition to this, what shaggydogstail points out is extremely relevant: the fact that these were very dark times where even sometimes friends couldn’t trust one another. I agree completely with this quote:If Sirius wasn't close to Lupin his doubting his loyalty wouldn't hold so much resonance. It is an indication of how terrifying the circumstances were at the time that Sirius might believe that someone he and known and loved for years might be betraying them. When you don't know who to trust, when lives are in danger then even the best and closest of friendships are placed under terrible strains. The tragedy is both that Sirius was wrong - Lupin never betrayed them - and, even worse, he was right - he couldn't trust a close friend. That is very frightening. This really is a terrible dilemma: if I was in James’ shoes knowing that one of my close friends was a traitor but didn’t know which one, I would find it extremely hard to be suspicious of any of them.

Also as HermioneLuna stated, it wasn’t that everyone automatically pointed their fingers at Lupin- it was more of an insidious process helped along by Peter that got Sirius to feel suspicious toward Remus rather than Peter, who was more skilled in deception than anyone realized. I also agree that Sirius saw Lupin and not Peter as being more capable of being the spy talent- and usefulness-wise. We also know that Sirius was indeed able to convince James and Lily that Remus was the spy; and he was able to convince them to use Peter as the Secret Keeper instead of himself.

It is also worth noting that Remus didn't know that Sirius suspected him at the time, which suggests that Sirius never openly accused him of being a traitor, or point the finger of blame, so to say.:tu: Precisely.


His repentance is sincere, and so he is forgiven, and he goes on to be the leader of the new Church (anyone in favor of Lupin as the HBP, feel free to use that as fodder for the argument!).Not only that, but there is strong evidence that Lupin has a position of relatively high rank and leadership within the Order- he appears to be in command of the rescue operation of Harry at the DoM. That said, it’s possible that he may be in a position to take over leadership of the Order for Dumbledore if anything should happen to him (I sincerely hope nothing happens to Dumbledore though!).

I’ve viewed this as Peter doing what he must to survive. Sure, it takes a lot of guts to do that to oneself, but I’m sure he wouldn’t have done it if there wasn’t something in it for him, i.e. being rewarded by Voldemort (not to mention that if he refused, he’d probably end up dead). In GoF, he reminds Voldemort that he promised to reward him, so Peter cut off his hand with the knowledge (or the hope) that Voldemort would repay him.Good point. There was no selflessness there. (I don't know what I was thinking! :rolleyes: ;) ) So, as far as we know, Peter never performed a selfless act. James did (saving Snape from Lupin--regardless of who he did it for, his life was at risk) and Sirius did (attempting to rescue Harry in the DoM). What selfless act has Lupin performed? (I'm sure there must be one, it's just too late for me to remember.)

I'd definitely say that Peter's problem is more that he's selfish than that he's a coward.

Good point. There was no selflessness there. (I don't know what I was thinking! :rolleyes: ;) ) So, as far as we know, Peter never performed a selfless act. James did (saving Snape from Lupin--regardless of who he did it for, his life was at risk) and Sirius did (attempting to rescue Harry in the DoM). What selfless act has Lupin performed? (I'm sure there must be one, it's just too late for me to remember.)
I think Remus rushing into a nest of Death Eaters at the DoM to save the lives of Harry and his schoolmates' lives counts as a selfless act, don't you? Or maybe, giving up the only well paying job he's ever had so other people will be safe? Surely we haven't forgotten that..

After reading this, one question is popping up in my head. My did voldy trust peter as much as he did. Sure, peter maybe easy to control. But still, he is a wizard, and voldemort was powerless. That's a good question. It doesn't seem as though Voldemort had much more than threats and promises to hold Wormtail. Still, he did kill Frank Bryce .....
Secondly, why would peter follow him still? Is it because he just can't be a free man? He seems to be the slave of his fears.
PS. had an awful problem for past two days. My keyboard stopped working, i tried to put an old keyboard, but severaly letters were not working.... tried to use online keyboard, but wasn't used to it at all. I gave up. All i could do was read, read, and read.... Now everything is back to normal...Sounds like you had a frustrating couple of days. Glad everything is fixed. :)

That's a good question. It doesn't seem as though Voldemort had much more than threats and promises to hold Wormtail. Still, he did kill Frank Bryce .....
But Pettigrew went looking for Voldemort. And, if it hadn't been for Pettigrew, Voldemort would have still been existing in the forests of Albania, living off of (how apropos) rats.

Pettigrew chose to go back, I think, because he feared the other DE's as much or more than Dumbledore and company. Didn't Sirius say that the other DE's blamed Pettigrew for Vodlemort's defeat? He lead Voldemort to the Potter's, and there Voldemort met his downfall, if only temporarily.

As far as living as a rat for the rest of his life (and a wizard's life is pretty long), there is a big difference between hiding as the pampered pet of a wizard family, and scrounging around in the sewer. Pettigrew is too lazy to want to spend his life fighting it out with the other vermin. He wants the easy life.

Yes, it was before Azkaban. I wasn't referring to any particular stress that Sirius was suffering from personally (although I think knowing that the Darkest Wizard who ever lived wants to murder your best friend, your Godson and probably you is quite stressful) but to the strain that many friendships would have been placed under by the atmosphere of paranoia and suspicion. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
That is true :). We all get a good idea about sirius's feelings. But what Lupin was thinking at that time, is a mystery.

But why did the doubt fall on Lupin? Peter certainly would have been a better candidate. I mean, lupin, Sirius and James, were quite close to each other. So, if they had a doubt, it would have been sensible to doubt peter. Just because he is not that powerful, doesn't mean that he can't harm at all. Oh well! at times, you do tend to think abnormal things....

But Pettigrew went looking for Voldemort. And, if it hadn't been for Pettigrew, Voldemort would have still been existing in the forests of Albania, living off of (how apropos) rats.
That is true. But that is what peter is all about. For him, his life is above everything. He went to voldemort to save himself. But why trust him? Voldemort looks at things in a different view. I doubt, in a way, that he would ever think that he owes his life to peter. His thought would be that, oh, peter is my servant. He is supposed to help me. Even LV would be aware of peter's character. What peter did was not out of love for LV, but for his own purposes. Then, why trust him? Trusting a weakling is not a voldy's character.... even though the weak person, was at that time far more power ful than him

The point is, how can you expect love or even a help from a far more powerful person than you are, when you don't treat him properly? How could LV be sure that peter would do everything for him, when he himself was never that nice to him. Though being nice is not a part of voldemort's character. but he could have paid due regard like he does to other DEs. Peter is NOT voldemort's dog.

He seems to be the slave of his fears.
Well said, whiz. It really reminds me of the poem.. The Unknown Citizen, by Auden. Has anyone read it?

Sounds like you had a frustrating couple of days. Glad everything is fixed.
I am glad too.... :whistle: :clap:

What is Remus up to?
If Remus was doing Top Secret Hush Hush work for the Order back then (not canon, but reasonable speculation) then Peter continually wondering what he is doing could lead Sirius to question exactly what Remus was up to.

Good question - I wonder exactly what Lupin does do for the Order? We are never told - only that he leaves for long periods of time as is mentioned in OotP. Lupin told Harry that he can't do the recruiting for the Order because being a werewolf makes him "an unpopular dinner guest." Dumbledore uses Snape to spy on Voldemort because he, of course, used to be a Death Eater and is familiar with the organization. What is it then that Dumbledore asks Lupin to do? I think this might be an important bit of information.

What selfless act has Lupin performed? (I'm sure there must be one, it's just too late for me to remember.)I think Remus rushing into a nest of Death Eaters at the DoM to save the lives of Harry and his schoolmates' lives counts as a selfless act, don't you? Or maybe, giving up the only well paying job he's ever had so other people will be safe? Surely we haven't forgotten that..There's no need to be hostile--it was an honest question.

That's right, though. Leaving Hogwarts at the end of PoA is a good example. I didn't propose the DoM situation for Lupin because I'd already used it for Sirius and it's clearly so much more of a sacrifice for him than it is for Lupin.But Pettigrew went looking for Voldemort. And, if it hadn't been for Pettigrew, Voldemort would have still been existing in the forests of Albania, living off of (how apropos) rats.Maybe this is a mirror between Voldemort and Sirius--Sirius was living off rats around that time, too! :p

That's right, though. Leaving Hogwarts at the end of PoA is a good example. I didn't propose the DoM situation for Lupin because I'd already used it for Sirius and it's clearly so much more of a sacrifice for him than it is for Lupin.
Indeed, i agree with you. There may be ofcourse somehting that we may not yet know about. But, of the known information, this is what the answer can be.

Maybe this is a mirror between Voldemort and Sirius--Sirius was living off rats around that time, too!
Great find! But can't really see any other similarity.... This may be harsh, but at times sirius does expect things to be just the way he wants, and hates to get a no.(Harry V james...) He is not exactly egoistic, but not a soft person... so maybe there is a similarity.:)

Great find! But can't really see any other similarity.... This may be harsh, but at times sirius does expect things to be just the way he wants, and hates to get a no.(Harry V james...) He is not exactly egoistic, but not a soft person... so maybe there is a similarity.:)I was mostly joking, but you bring up an interesting point about them both expecting to get their way. Fortunately, Sirius doesn't go around AK-ing and Crucio-ing people when he doesn't get what he wants. ;)

Ya, really. But wonder if he knows how to use the spells. can be useful, in terrible moments. Ministry doesn't seems to be tracking it at all....

Ya, really. But wonder if he knows how to use the spells. can be useful, in terrible moments. Ministry doesn't seems to be tracking it at all....Well, obviously since he's dead now, it's not going to be an issue in a future book; however, I think that Harry trying to use Crucio on Bella was really a low point for him. He was in a dark place due to Sirius's death and wasn't thinking clearly. The three curses (Imperius, Crucio, and Avada Kedavra) would seem to be classified as "Unforgivable" because they cross the line of what's considered moral in the wizarding world; therefore, even if any of the characters on the side of good knew how to perform them, I doubt they would use them. There is also the issue that, if a character's general mindset would be to remain moral, they would not have the necessary mindset for the spell--similar to Harry being unable to perform Crucio against Bella in the MoM. The argument against this last part (about mindset) is that McGonagall says that Dumbledore could resort to the same tactics as Voldemort, but that he is too noble. Although it's unclear exactly what powers she's speaking about, the Unforgivables may be included in what Dumbledore would have the ability to do, if he wasn't too noble.

Sirius' comments about the Aurors during Vold War I keep coming back to me, though. Sirius respects Moody because Moody always tried to bring in Death Eaters alive whenever possible rather than AKing them, but the words "whenever possible" suggests that there were times when it was quite unavoidable and that even Moody resorted to using the Unforgiveables. Now, granted, the Aurors are an elite squad of Dark Wizard catchers akin to the FBI or Scotland Yard, so they're given the "license to kill" by the Ministry (Alastor Moody, Double-Oh-Seven ;)). But I think the idea that people on the "good" side may have also killed is something that is important to deal with. They were in the midst of a war, and "kill or be killed" might have been a situation people found themselves in more often than they or we'd like. Add to that being a member of an undercover defense force (the Order), and that seems to greatly increase your chance of being put into situations where you might need to kill or be killed. In war there are casualties, on both sides and perpetrated by both sides. I think we have to consider that Dumbledore or Sirius or Lupin or Benjy Fenwick or Elphias Dodge may have killed in the past.

Also, slight tangent but possibly relevant: exactly what kind of war was Vold War I? Wizards don't seem to wage open war the way Muggles do,considering that they have much more available to them to keep their actions under wraps and to disguise their tactics. At the same time, Muggles were being killed left, right, and center which seems to indicate some sort of open warfare on some level. Meh.

Sirius' comments about the Aurors during Vold War I keep coming back to me, though. Sirius respects Moody because Moody always tried to bring in Death Eaters alive whenever possible rather than AKing them, but the words "whenever possible" suggests that there were times when it was quite unavoidable and that even Moody resorted to using the Unforgiveables. Now, granted, the Aurors are an elite squad of Dark Wizard catchers akin to the FBI or Scotland Yard, so they're given the "license to kill" by the Ministry (Alastor Moody, Double-Oh-Seven ;)). But I think the idea that people on the "good" side may have also killed is something that is important to deal with. They were in the midst of a war, and "kill or be killed" might have been a situation people found themselves in more often than they or we'd like. Add to that being a member of an undercover defense force (the Order), and that seems to greatly increase your chance of being put into situations where you might need to kill or be killed. In war there are casualties, on both sides and perpetrated by both sides. I think we have to consider that Dumbledore or Sirius or Lupin or Benjy Fenwick or Elphias Dodge may have killed in the past.That's true, although isn't there a subtext in the book that those tactics were bad? It seems like there was something said about Barty Crouch Sr being as bad as Voldemort. I guess it depends on how realistic a war it was. In real war, both sides use equally cruel methods to prosecute the war. The closest history has come to an ideological war where one side really was immoral was WWII. In that conflict, the allies ("good side") firebombed Dresden, which was morally questionable.Also, slight tangent but possibly relevant: exactly what kind of war was Vold War I? Wizards don't seem to wage open war the way Muggles do,considering that they have much more available to them to keep their actions under wraps and to disguise their tactics. At the same time, Muggles were being killed left, right, and center which seems to indicate some sort of open warfare on some level. Meh.I've been thinking about this recently. I tend to see the Death Eaters as a Ku Klux Klan type of organization, using a variety of intimidation, tormenting, and killing to carry out their ideals. The other component would be that it is similar to a civil war carried out in a guerilla warfare/terrorism style. The question is what was Voldemort's goal and how would such a conflict help him achieve it? I'd say his goal was to eradicate non-purebloods and place himself in a position of dictatorship. He is able to achieve this through intimidating those not willing to fight into submission and killing the rest.

That's true, although isn't there a subtext in the book that those tactics were bad?Yup, there definitely was subtext that those tactics were bad, but I think the subtext was specifically (to get nitpicky ;)) about using free reign with the Unforgiveables, i.e. using them willy nilly because you had been given permission to do so, rather than using them only as a last resort, which is what it sounds like Moody did if he had to use the Unforgiveables at all. Using them as a last resort would largely mean using them in "kill or be killed" situations, situations the good guys would probably often find themselves in.

(I'm not bent on making the Order look like murderers by any means, truly, just that while we've been discussing darker sides of characters I thought it might be a good opportunity to broach the topic of whether or not those on the good side have had to dabble in the things we largely think are reserved for the bad side. :))

:tu: Also, I like the KKK analogy.

The other component would be that it is similar to a civil war carried out in a guerilla warfare/terrorism style. The question is what was Voldemort's goal and how would such a conflict help him achieve it? I'd say his goal was to eradicate non-purebloods and place himself in a position of dictatorship. He is able to achieve this through intimidating those not willing to fight into submission and killing the rest. :tu: Yes, I think guerilla warfare sounds like the most accurate description of Vold War 1. Clearly it was a civil war as it primarily involved factions within the British Wizarding Communities struggle for power, as opposed to nations fighting over territory or somesuch. Sirius' comments about the Ministry trying to keep things under cover fits in with the notion of a guerrilla war, rather than all-out, open warfare.
Originally posted by grrliz
In war there are casualties, on both sides and perpetrated by both sides. I think we have to consider that Dumbledore or Sirius or Lupin or Benjy Fenwick or Elphias Dodge may have killed in the past.Yes, it is horrible, but true. It would be so much pleasanter if Dark Wizards could always be dispatched safely to prison, but that really isn't always the case. There are, as you say, situations were it is necessary to kill rather than be killed, or to prevent innocent lives being lost. I'm glad I never have to make that sort of judgement call though.
Originally posted by Chiev
I was mostly joking, but you bring up an interesting point about them both expecting to get their way. Fortunately, Sirius doesn't go around AK-ing and Crucio-ing people when he doesn't get what he wants. Thank you for pointed that out. I was starting to get scared about where we might be heading... :scared:

Yup, there definitely was subtext that those tactics were bad, but I think the subtext was specifically (to get nitpicky ;)) about using free reign with the Unforgiveables, i.e. using them willy nilly because you had been given permission to do so, rather than using them only as a last resort, which is what it sounds like Moody did if he had to use the Unforgiveables at all. Using them as a last resort would largely mean using them in "kill or be killed" situations, situations the good guys would probably often find themselves in.Okay, then if the subtext supports the use of the Unforgivables as a last resort, it probably is likely that some of the "good characters" had used them. I wonder if this only applies to Avada Kedavra or Crucio and Imperius as well? If it applied to Crucio, wouldn't that imply that torture was acceptable in some circumstances? Yet it seems strange that Avada Kedavra, which is permanent, would be more acceptable than Crucio, which only lasts as long as the person using it is casting it. Although, as in the case of the Longbottoms, the effect may be permanent. Still, is Neville better off visiting his mentally absent parents at St. Mungo's or visiting their grave sites? Tough issues. . .:tu: Yes, I think guerilla warfare sounds like the most accurate description of Vold War 1. Clearly it was a civil war as it primarily involved factions within the British Wizarding Communities struggle for power, as opposed to nations fighting over territory or somesuch. Sirius' comments about the Ministry trying to keep things under cover fits in with the notion of a guerrilla war, rather than all-out, open warfare.Yup. The difference for me between a soley guerilla war and a war involving terrorism would be whether or not civilians were purposely targeted. Clearly on Voldemort's side they were. Even though we're struggling with the idea of a moral line being crossed with the Unforgivables, I'm certain that the Order would not have targeted people who were not Death Eaters.Thank you for pointed that out. I was starting to get scared about where we might be heading... :scared::lol: I'm not that crazy!

Sirius' comments about the Aurors during Vold War I keep coming back to me, though. Sirius respects Moody because Moody always tried to bring in Death Eaters alive whenever possible rather than AKing them, but the words "whenever possible" suggests that there were times when it was quite unavoidable and that even Moody resorted to using the Unforgiveables. Now, granted, the Aurors are an elite squad of Dark Wizard catchers akin to the FBI or Scotland Yard, so they're given the "license to kill" by the Ministry (Alastor Moody, Double-Oh-Seven ;)). But I think the idea that people on the "good" side may have also killed is something that is important to deal with. They were in the midst of a war, and "kill or be killed" might have been a situation people found themselves in more often than they or we'd like. Add to that being a member of an undercover defense force (the Order), and that seems to greatly increase your chance of being put into situations where you might need to kill or be killed. In war there are casualties, on both sides and perpetrated by both sides. I think we have to consider that Dumbledore or Sirius or Lupin or Benjy Fenwick or Elphias Dodge may have killed in the past.

I totally understand the "kill or be killed" situation, which would be a self-defense situation and obviously part of any war.

But what Sirius was talking about in GoF was the idea of the Aurors given the power to "kill without a trial" - in other words, vigilante justice which is sometimes in error and filled with the anger of the moment. There is always the chance an innocent person could be killed because they were "in the wrong place at the wrong time."

GoF, Chapter 27

"Well, times like that bring out the best in some people and the worst in others. Crouch's principles might've been good in the beginning - I wouldn't know. He rose quickly through the Ministry, and he started ordering very harsh measures against Voldemorts supporters. The Aurors were given new powers - powers to kill rather than capture, for instance. And I wasn't the only one who was handed straight to the dementors without trial. Crouch fought violence with violence, and authorized the use of the Unforgivable Curses against suspects. I would say he became as ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark Side. He had his supporters, mind you - plenty of people thought he was going about things the right way, and there were a lot of witches and wizards clamoring for him to take over as Minister of Magic. When Voldemort disappeared, it looked like only a matter of time until Crouch got the top job. But then something rather unfortunate happened. ..." Sirius smiled grimly. "Crouch's own son was caught with a group of Death Eaters who'd managed to talk their way out of Azkaban. Apparently they were trying to find Voldemort and return him to power."

I mean, at the time when people were so afraid, who would care if a "suspected" Death Eater got killed by Aurors? Who would care if there were fewer people headed for Azkaban and possible release from prison on lack of evidence? Sirius is really one of the lucky ones. There would have been good reason to kill him on the spot, and I've always wondered why he wasn't killed? Was he friends with the Aurors who brought him in?

Yet, we all know that police sometimes do abuse their own power, taking out their anger on possibly innocent people. So while it is great to have a tough police force or an army that can protect you, it is also good to have a structure that leads to "justice" instead of more bloodshed.

Also, slight tangent but possibly relevant: exactly what kind of war was Vold War I? Wizards don't seem to wage open war the way Muggles do,considering that they have much more available to them to keep their actions under wraps and to disguise their tactics. At the same time, Muggles were being killed left, right, and center which seems to indicate some sort of open warfare on some level. Meh.

JKR has said that Muggles will start seeing strange things happening as the new war begins, so I think there will be attacks on Muggles that may be blamed on "terrorists," and there will certainly be more disappearances and, unfortunately, murders.

On another note:

I found another "rat destruction" image in GoF, only it is about Snape and not Sirius. Harry and Ron have to do a detention with Snape:

GoF, Chapter 19

"Stunningly pretty? Her?" Pansy Parkinson had shrieked the first time she had come face-to-face with Hermione after Rita's article had appeared. "What was she judging against - a chipmunk?"
"Ignore it," Hermione said in a dignified voice, holding her head in the air and stalking past the s******ing Slytherin girls as though she couldn't hear them. "Just ignore it, Harry."
But Harry couldn't ignore it. Ron hadn't spoken to him at all since he had told him about Snape's detentions. Harry had half hoped they would make things up during the two hours they were forced to pickle rats' brains in Snape's dungeon, but that had been the day Rita's article had appeared, which seemed to have confirmed Ron's belief that Harry was really enjoying all the attention. :lol:

Okay, then if the subtext supports the use of the Unforgivables as a last resort, it probably is likely that some of the "good characters" had used them. I wonder if this only applies to Avada Kedavra or Crucio and Imperius as well? If it applied to Crucio, wouldn't that imply that torture was acceptable in some circumstances? Yet it seems strange that Avada Kedavra, which is permanent, would be more acceptable than Crucio, which only lasts as long as the person using it is casting it. Although, as in the case of the Longbottoms, the effect may be permanent. Still, is Neville better off visiting his mentally absent parents at St. Mungo's or visiting their grave sites? Tough issues. . .Good questions. We've got three Unforgiveable Curses: Crucio, Imperius, and of course Avada Kedavra. Sirius says "I'll say this for Moody, though, he never killed if he could help it. Always brought people in alive where possible", which initially suggested to me that the only Unforgiveable the Aurors used was AK. But Sirius also says that Crouch authorized the use of the Unforgiveables (as in, explicitly says "Unforgiveables" in the text), which suggests all three of them were used, not just AK. I can't see Crucio being all that practical for an Auror to use; I can't see the Ministry purposely allowing torture, and if the goal of the Aurors was to round up Death Eaters, I can't really see how useful Crucio would be in reaching that goal. Imperius would be useful in that regard: the Death Eaters become docile enough to willingly go to the Ministry without much of a fight, which is a fairly effective way of doing things. Hmm.

Even now, though, outright killing in a war is always preferable to torture, it seems. I think part of it, for the wizarding world at least, is that to use the AK implies a last resort, a "kill or be killed" situation (I feel repetetive saying that all the time :p), whereas if you're taking the time to Crucio someone, the situation can't be that dire. I don't know.

::edit:: SIP, I think you misinterpreted my point: I was using Sirius' statements about Moody as a jumping off point as to whether or not, in dire circumstances, any one on the "good side" (Dumbledore, Sirius, Lupin, James, etc.) might have found themselves in a situation where they'd have to be killed. Aurors were issued permission to use the Unforgiveables, but regular wizards were not but might be forced into situations where they'd have to use them as well, which is what I'm interested in. However, on the topic of the Aurors, Moody seems to have at the very least set himself apart in not using them if humanly possible, which I assume is the type of approach we'd see from the other members of the "good" side. :)

There is always the chance an innocent person could be killed because they were "in the wrong place at the wrong time."Or jailed for twelve years because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. ;) :p

Sirius is really one of the lucky ones. There would have been good reason to kill him on the spot, and I've always wondered why he wasn't killed? Was he friends with the Aurors who brought him in?

I assumed it was because he wasn't fighting them. He was laughing (or so Fudge says) when the proper officials arrived at the scene. If he didn't appear to pose a threat after the fact, they'd have no justification in killing him.

Yes, I know they thought he had just killed 13 people, but when they got there he wasn't doing anything except laughing. He didn't have a wand pointed at them and he wasn't trying to escape. Therefore, at that exact moment, he wasn't a threat. Besides, Azkaban is a much better torture than death.

Quote from Chievrefueil
Well, obviously since he's dead now, it's not going to be an issue in a future book; however, I think that Harry trying to use Crucio on Bella was really a low point for him. He was in a dark place due to Sirius's death and wasn't thinking clearly. The three curses (Imperius, Crucio, and Avada Kedavra) would seem to be classified as "Unforgivable" because they cross the line of what's considered moral in the wizarding world; therefore, even if any of the characters on the side of good knew how to perform them, I doubt they would use them. There is also the issue that, if a character's general mindset would be to remain moral, they would not have the necessary mindset for the spell--similar to Harry being unable to perform Crucio against Bella in the MoM. The argument against this last part (about mindset) is that McGonagall says that Dumbledore could resort to the same tactics as Voldemort, but that he is too noble. Although it's unclear exactly what powers she's speaking about, the Unforgivables may be included in what Dumbledore would have the ability to do, if he wasn't too noble.

This is going to come off bad but I really don't see the big deal with Harry using Cruio on Bella. I understand that it was wrong and if he'd been thinking clearly he would've stunned her but it doesn't seem like a low point to me. Bella got what she deserved (she wanted to torture Ginny!!) and she stops talking in that annoying baby voice doesn't she? (Some people respect violence)

Regarding what type of war VoldWar I was...I'd say a political conflict that led to a terrorist campaign to was on the verge of becoming open civil war when Voldemort fell. For at least part of Voldemort's first rise he was an accepted political figure (as shown by Sirius's parents). Then there probably started to be "disappearances" of people against him...the whole situation just snowballed from there. What I want to know is how long his true terror campaign lasted since the Dementors didn't revolt the first time but already have for the second (giving Voldemort a near invincible force).

This is going to come off bad but I really don't see the big deal with Harry using Cruio on Bella. I understand that it was wrong and if he'd been thinking clearly he would've stunned her but it doesn't seem like a low point to me. Bella got what she deserved (she wanted to torture Ginny!!) and she stops talking in that annoying baby voice doesn't she? (Some people respect violence) I think it is a big deal, although I don't really condemn Harry for doing it.

It is understandable that Harry wanted to hurt Bellatrix (I always insist on using her full name, BTW, because Bella sounds are too friendly and is rather close to my daughter's name, Ella). She is undoubtedly vile, sadistic and one of the few characters I would be comfortable as describing as evil. Harry had ever reason to hate the person he had just seen murder his Godfather and given the emotional turmoil he was suffering having witnessed the death of the person he loved most in the world, no-one could reasonably expect him to show good judgement or react at all calmly.

However the fact remains that the Cruciatus Curse is nothing more or less than an instrument of torture, and there is fundamentally something wrong with using torture on anyone. It isn't a question of whether or not Bellatrix deserved it, but what it means for Harry to have used an Unforgiveable Curse, to have attempted to torture someone.

This reminds me of Harry stopping Remus and Sirius from killing Peter in the Shrieking Shack. He didn't do it to save Peter's life, he did it to stop Remus and Sirius from becoming killers. In using the Cruciatus Curse Harry stepped over a line, albeit under the most extreme provocation imaginable. I'm not bothered about how it affects Bellatrix at all, but the impact on Harry is far more interesting, now that he knows he has the capacity to use such a curse. The most promising aspect for me is that Harry wasn't able to perform the Curse properly, as he doesn't contain the necessary sadism.
Originally posted by grrliz
I can't see Crucio being all that practical for an Auror to use; I can't see the Ministry purposely allowing torture, and if the goal of the Aurors was to round up Death Eaters, I can't really see how useful Crucio would be in reaching that goal.It wouldn't be much use in face-to-face combat, as you say. If the Ministry did use the Cruciatus Curse it would probably be used in the same way that Muggles use torture - principally to extract information. I don't know whether they did or not, but if they did, it would underline what Sirius said about Crouch Snr becoming as ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark Side, as Bellatrix and co attempted to use the Cruciatus Curse on the Longbottoms to extract information.
Originally posted by grrliz
Even now, though, outright killing in a war is always preferable to torture, it seems. I think part of it, for the wizarding world at least, is that to use the AK implies a last resort, a "kill or be killed" situation (I feel repetetive saying that all the time ), whereas if you're taking the time to Crucio someone, the situation can't be that dire. I don't know.I agree. I think the reason there is something particularly unpleasant about the Cruciatus Curse, even beyond Avada Kedavra, is that it is simply cruel and sadistic. Whilst I'm not saying it is OK to kill someone, Avada Kedavra is at least quick and kind of clinical and might be used in self-defence, which could not be said of the Cruciatus Curse. There is also something about the mindset involved; as Bellatrix tells Harry, to successfully perform the Cruciatus Curse you have to enjoy causing pain, which is particularly disturbing.
Originally posted by SIP
I mean, at the time when people were so afraid, who would care if a "suspected" Death Eater got killed by Aurors? Who would care if there were fewer people headed for Azkaban and possible release from prison on lack of evidence? Sirius is really one of the lucky ones. There would have been good reason to kill him on the spot, and I've always wondered why he wasn't killed? Was he friends with the Aurors who brought him in?As HermioneLuna says, it would be hard to justify killing someone who clearly presented no immediate threat - I would expect that when genuine Death Eaters were cornered by Aurors they probably put up more of a fight! Also things were pretty confused at the time. Only a few hours before everyone had known Sirius as a loyal Order member and the Potters' best friend, the street had just exploded and there were Muggles everywhere - not a good time to start throwing Killing Curses around, when they were clearly unnecassary.
Originally posted by SIP
Yet, we all know that police sometimes do abuse their own power, taking out their anger on possibly innocent people. So while it is great to have a tough police force or an army that can protect you, it is also good to have a structure that leads to "justice" instead of more bloodshed.Of course. This is exactly what Sirius is talking about when he criticises Crouch's approach, saying that his extreme measures led to abuses of power and a lack of due process. :)

Quote from shaggydogstail:
However the fact remains that the Cruciatus Curse is nothing more or less than an instrument of torture, and there is fundamentally something wrong with using torture on anyone. It isn't a question of whether or not Bellatrix deserved it, but what it means for Harry to have used an Unforgiveable Curse, to have attempted to torture someone.

Quote from shaggydogstail:
It wouldn't be much use in face-to-face combat, as you say. If the Ministry did use the Cruciatus Curse it would probably be used in the same way that Muggles use torture - principally to extract information. I don't know whether they did or not, but if they did, it would underline what Sirius said about Crouch Snr becoming as ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark Side, as Bellatrix and co attempted to use the Cruciatus Curse on the Longbottoms to extract information.

Shaggy: I don't think that Harry attempted to torture Bellatrix (the scene describes extreme hatred in Harry not an urge to torture Bellatrix). An analogy to me for what Harry did is this: It's a lot like kicking a man in his "private areas." It's a low, cheap move (against about a hundred male unwritten rules) and it causes a lot of pain (it really does :upset: ). I'd say that's how the Cruciatus Curse can be used in a face to face fight (like what Harry was in). Also it has shock value...when you get hit by a Cruciatus Curse it probably throws you off your game.

I'm not convinced that it's Harry that will struggle with what he did but those around him (coughHermionecough).

Shaggy: I don't think that Harry attempted to torture Bellatrix (the scene describes extreme hatred in Harry not an urge to torture Bellatrix). An analogy to me for what Harry did is this: It's a lot like kicking a man in his "private areas." It's a low, cheap move (against about a hundred male unwritten rules) and it causes a lot of pain (it really does :upset: ). I'd say that's how the Cruciatus Curse can be used in a face to face fight (like what Harry was in). Also it has shock value...when you get hit by a Cruciatus Curse it probably throws you off your game.

I'm not convinced that it's Harry that will struggle with what he did but those around him (coughHermionecough).

I disagree. It's not nearly so simple as kicking someone where it will hurt the most. Harry was in pain and angry and he wanted to kill Bellatrix. One does not chase someone through an entire department, secure a safe place out of wand-shot, and use an Unforgivable on another person just for shock value. Harry chased Bellatrix, they weren't in face to face combat when he cursed her.

And you're probably right that the curse throws a person off their game, but not because they're shocked or stunned. It's because the Cruciatus Cruse inflicts pain upon pain. It's used to torture. We see the effects of it on Frank and Alice Longbottom. It isn't something to be tossed around purely for shock. If it were as innocent or as simple as that, it wouldn't be an Unforgivable.

Quote from HermioneLuna:
I disagree. It's not nearly so simple as kicking someone where it will hurt the most. Harry was in pain and angry and he wanted to kill Bellatrix. One does not chase someone through an entire department, secure a safe place out of wand-shot, and use an Unforgivable on another person just for shock value. Harry chased Bellatrix, they weren't in face to face combat when he cursed her.

And you're probably right that the curse throws a person off their game, but not because they're shocked or stunned. It's because the Cruciatus Cruse inflicts pain upon pain. It's used to torture. We see the effects of it on Frank and Alice Longbottom. It isn't something to be tossed around purely for shock. If it were as innocent or as simple as that, it wouldn't be an Unforgivable.

HermioneLuna: The kicking was only an analogy of what Harry did to Bellatrix not the use of the Cruciatus Cruse in general. Yes Harry wanted to kill her, make her suffer (perhaps is the canon to back that up?) but he doesn't even go though the motions of using the curse (ie holding his wand on her). Harry was in a tight situation...Bellatrix could have killed him (prophecy aside). I believe that the torture scene is meant to be compared to the scene where "love" saves Harry. Emotions save Harry but they are also the path to the "Dark side" (throw in some Star Wars) for him.

And they were in face to face combat when Harry catches up ...Bellatrix had stopped running and was turning to fight Harry (they weren't "duelling" but it is pretty close). Bellatrix is a fully trained witch and Harry still has to 2 years of school...who do you think would win? That's why I don't fault Harry for using the Cruciatus Cruse...it wasn't a fair fight to begin with.

HermioneLuna: The kicking was only an analogy of what Harry did to Bellatrix not the use of the Cruciatus Cruse in general. Yes Harry wanted to kill her, make her suffer (perhaps is the canon to back that up?) but he doesn't even go though the motions of using the curse (ie holding his wand on her). Harry was in a tight situation...Bellatrix could have killed him (prophecy aside). I believe that the torture scene is meant to be compared to the scene where "love" saves Harry. Emotions save Harry but they are also the path to the "Dark side" (throw in some Star Wars) for him.

And they were in face to face combat when Harry catches up ...Bellatrix had stopped running and was turning to fight Harry (they weren't "duelling" but it is pretty close). Bellatrix is a fully trained witch and Harry still has to 2 years of school...who do you think would win? That's why I don't fault Harry for using the Cruciatus Cruse...it wasn't a fair fight to begin with.

I'm well aware it was an analogy, but considering the two situations, I don't think it was a very good one. It isn't the same thing at all. The only similarity is they both cause pain, but lots of things can cause pain. There is canon to support the fact that Harry wanted to kill Bellatrix, and I don't think one uses the Cruciatus Curse if they don't intend to inflict pain or make their victim suffer.

It doesn't matter if Harry doesn't hold his wand on her. It wouldn't have made a difference. In order to use the Cruciatus Curse correctly, the caster has to enjoy causing pain. Harry's spell wasn't working. It's canon that Bellatrix was on her feet within moments of Harry caster the spell and if some crazed Death Eater were on their feet and casting an unknown spell at me, I wouldn't try to hold a curse that clearly wasn't effective. I'd duck out of the way just like Harry did.

As for the part about the torture scene (not the best name since Bellatrix was never actually tortured) being meant as a comparison to when love saves Harry, I again don't agree. I don't see your reasoning there at all.

I think Bellatrix was actually injured to some degree; doesn't she start shrieking with pain and contorting weirdly? (I can't remember all that well.)

Quote from HermioneLuna:
As for the part about the torture scene (not the best name since Bellatrix was never actually tortured) being meant as a comparison to when love saves Harry, I again don't agree. I don't see your reasoning there at all.

I'll clarify this first...Harry's love of Sirius causes him to hate Bellatrix for killing him. He then tries to use the Cruciatus Cruse on her. Later when Voldemort possess Harry the power that Harry possess (love is the one most people assume it is) drives him out. It seems like a contrast to me (maybe I'm missing something?).

Quote from HermioneLuna:
It doesn't matter if Harry doesn't hold his wand on her. It wouldn't have made a difference. In order to use the Cruciatus Curse correctly, the caster has to enjoy causing pain. Harry's spell wasn't working. It's canon that Bellatrix was on her feet within moments of Harry caster the spell and if some crazed Death Eater were on their feet and casting an unknown spell at me, I wouldn't try to hold a curse that clearly wasn't effective. I'd duck out of the way just like Harry did.

So then why didn't Harry use Avada Kedavra? (It probably would have done more damage) Yes Harry wanted to give Bellatrix a taste of her own medicine but Harry doesn't try to prolong the pain he simply fires off the curse and that's all he has time for. Does it cause pain? Yes. Is it on the same level of what Neville's parents experienced? We don't know. Would it have been wiser to use a stunner? Yes (that's a mistake Harry shouldn't make again). Then what would Harry have done? It's the Shrieking Shack all over again.

It's horrible that Harry used Cruiatus but that was situation was a life or death struggle (for both involved). Would it have been different if Harry has used a Reductor Curse to blast off Bellatrix's arm? That's not an Unforgivable.

Quote from grrliz:
I think Bellatrix was actually injured to some degree; doesn't she start shrieking with pain and contorting weirdly? (I can't remember all that well.)

She screams but did not writhe and shriek with pain as Neville had- (OotP p. 715)

May I provide the passage?

"I thought you were here to avenge my dear cousin?"
"I am!" shouted Harry, and a score of ghostly Harrys seemed to chorus I am! I am! I am! all around the room.
"Aaaaaarh...did you love him, little baby Potter?"
Hatred rose in Harry such as he had never known before. He flung himself out from behind the fountain and bellowed, "Crucio!"Bellatrix screamed. The spell had knocked her off her feet, but she did not writher and shriek with pain as Neville had--she was already on her feet again, breathless, no longer laughing....
"Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy?" she yelled. She had abandoned her baby voice now. "You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain--to enjoy it--righteous anger won't hurt me for long--I'll show you how it is done, shall I? I'll give you a lesson--"
Harry had been edging around the fountain on the other side. She screamed, "Crucio!" (p. 810, OotP, US hardcover).

It's interesting that, although this was the first time Harry tried Cruciatus, it's the second time he thought of using it--even Harry can be tempted to do the worst.

I think Bellatrix was actually injured to some degree; doesn't she start shrieking with pain and contorting weirdly? (I can't remember all that well.)


The spell had knocked her off her feet, but she did not writhe and shriek with pain as Neville had.


So then why didn't Harry use Avada Kedavra? (It probably would have done more damage) Yes Harry wanted to give Bellatrix a taste of her own medicine but Harry doesn't try to prolong the pain he simply fires off the curse and that's all he has time for. Does it cause pain? Yes. Is it on the same level of what Neville's parents experienced? We don't know. Would it have been wiser to use a stunner? Yes (that's a mistake Harry shouldn't make again). Then what would Harry have done? It's the Shrieking Shack all over again.


He didn't use Avada Kedavra because it's like I've been saying for a few posts now. He didn't simply want to kill her. He wanted to cause her pain. Avada Kedavra causes no physical pain. And I think it's clear Harry didn't inflict the same sort of torture that the Longbottoms experienced.

I think it is a big deal, although I don't really condemn Harry for doing it.

It is understandable that Harry wanted to hurt Bellatrix (I always insist on using her full name, BTW, because Bella sounds are too friendly and is rather close to my daughter's name, Ella). She is undoubtedly vile, sadistic and one of the few characters I would be comfortable as describing as evil. Harry had ever reason to hate the person he had just seen murder his Godfather and given the emotional turmoil he was suffering having witnessed the death of the person he loved most in the world, no-one could reasonably expect him to show good judgement or react at all calmly.

However the fact remains that the Cruciatus Curse is nothing more or less than an instrument of torture, and there is fundamentally something wrong with using torture on anyone. It isn't a question of whether or not Bellatrix deserved it, but what it means for Harry to have used an Unforgiveable Curse, to have attempted to torture someone.

I totally agree with that - it isn't that Bella isn't heartless and cruel, it's really that Harry diminishes his own soul when he tortures her.

That's a problem I see with Aurors doing it as well. Think of how few people we see doing Cruciatus - Tom Riddle, Voldemort, Crazy Barty Crouch/Fake Moody. And Bella says you have to really "mean it" - that it can't just be "self-righteous anger." She means, I think, that you have to be one cruel, calloused individual in order to torture someone.

This reminds me of Harry stopping Remus and Sirius from killing Peter in the Shrieking Shack. He didn't do it to save Peter's life, he did it to stop Remus and Sirius from becoming killers. In using the Cruciatus Curse Harry stepped over a line, albeit under the most extreme provocation imaginable. I'm not bothered about how it affects Bellatrix at all, but the impact on Harry is far more interesting, now that he knows he has the capacity to use such a curse. The most promising aspect for me is that Harry wasn't able to perform the Curse properly, as he doesn't contain the necessary sadism.

Exactly, couldn't have put it better myself! :)

It wouldn't be much use in face-to-face combat, as you say. If the Ministry did use the Cruciatus Curse it would probably be used in the same way that Muggles use torture - principally to extract information. I don't know whether they did or not, but if they did, it would underline what Sirius said about Crouch Snr becoming as ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark Side, as Bellatrix and co attempted to use the Cruciatus Curse on the Longbottoms to extract information.

And notice that Dumbledore doesn't resort to that if possible - he uses Veritaserum or Legillimens on the suspect. The only person I suspect that he might have done something to in order to extract information was Kreacher, who, because he is a house elf with special powers, might have been able to keep secrets better than a human. It might have been harder for Dumbledore to break down his "secrecy defenses" about Narcissa Malfoy. But from the way Dumbledore tells Harry about it in OotP, you can bet he didn't enjoy having to do that to Kreacher.

I agree. I think the reason there is something particularly unpleasant about the Cruciatus Curse, even beyond Avada Kedavra, is that it is simply cruel and sadistic. Whilst I'm not saying it is OK to kill someone, Avada Kedavra is at least quick and kind of clinical and might be used in self-defence, which could not be said of the Cruciatus Curse. There is also something about the mindset involved; as Bellatrix tells Harry, to successfully perform the Cruciatus Curse you have to enjoy causing pain, which is particularly disturbing.

Again, exactly.

Shaggy: I don't think that Harry attempted to torture Bellatrix (the scene describes extreme hatred in Harry not an urge to torture Bellatrix). An analogy to me for what Harry did is this: It's a lot like kicking a man in his "private areas." It's a low, cheap move (against about a hundred male unwritten rules) and it causes a lot of pain (it really does ). I'd say that's how the Cruciatus Curse can be used in a face to face fight (like what Harry was in). Also it has shock value...when you get hit by a Cruciatus Curse it probably throws you off your game.

I'm not convinced that it's Harry that will struggle with what he did but those around him (coughHermionecough).

I think Harry acted totally out of anger, and wasn't thinking of shocking anyone. Plus, Harry may not be fully-grown, but most 15-year-old boys are at least as tall as most women, so Bella wasn't really that different in size. We know that Harry can do most spells the DEs can do, anyway, so I think it was a fair fight in most ways.

One can make a case, I suppose, that Harry was acting in self-defense, except that Bella was running away from him, and not the other way around.

However, I agree with Shaggy that Harry crossed an important line in wanting to torture Bella, and I do believe he will do some soul searching about it, with and without Hermione.

Originally posted by Jaguarundi
So then why didn't Harry use Avada Kedavra? (It probably would have done more damage) Yes Harry wanted to give Bellatrix a taste of her own medicine but Harry doesn't try to prolong the pain he simply fires off the curse and that's all he has time for. Harry has experienced the Cruciatus Curse, so it is fair to assume he expected Bellatrix to experience it as he did:
It was pain beyond anything Harry had ever experienced; his very bones were on fire; his head was surely splitting along his scar; his eyes were rolling madly in his head; he wanted it to end...to black out...to die'
GoF, The Death Eaters, p 570 UK PaperbackHarry also learnt about the Unforgiveable Curses from FakeMoody
'Pain', said Moody softly. 'You don't need thumbscrews or knives to torture someone if you can perform the Cruciatus curse...that one was very popular once, too.'
[...]
'Avada Kedavra's a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic behind it - you could all get your wands out now and point them at me and say the words, and I doubt I'd get so much as a nose bleed'
GoF, The Unforgiveable Curses, p190 -192 UK PaperbackI think it is fairly clear that the Cruciatus Curse is a magical torture device, and it's affects are pretty horrific when it is used properly. Harry's curse was only partially effective on Bellatrix, because he is angry, but doesn't enjoy inflicting pain.

I don't believe that it was Harry's love for Sirius that drove him to use the Cruciatus Curse on Bellatrix - it was anger, and hatred of her. It was love that drove Voldemort out of him though. This for me is the importance of the contrast - Harry loves more than he hates and he is more powerful with love, than he is with hatred.

However the fact remains that the Cruciatus Curse is nothing more or less than an instrument of torture, and there is fundamentally something wrong with using torture on anyone. It isn't a question of whether or not Bellatrix deserved it, but what it means for Harry to have used an Unforgiveable Curse, to have attempted to torture someone. I agree. Harry wanted to hurt Bellatrix, so that's what he tried to do. There was no reason to use Crucio at that point. Harry had been duelling with Death Eaters for hours and hadn't tried it. If the Ministry did use the Cruciatus Curse it would probably be used in the same way that Muggles use torture - principally to extract information. I don't know whether they did or not, but if they did, it would underline what Sirius said about Crouch Snr becoming as ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark Side, as Bellatrix and co attempted to use the Cruciatus Curse on the Longbottoms to extract information.After reading the passage posted by SIP, it seems clear to me that Sirius definitely falls on the side of never thinking it's acceptable to use the Unforgivable curses. Since Sirius is a representative of the "good side," I think the subtext is that the Unforgivables should never be used, not even by Aurors. It's ironic, then, that Harry's attempt at using one is to avenge Sirius.Whilst I'm not saying it is OK to kill someone, Avada Kedavra is at least quick and kind of clinical and might be used in self-defense, which could not be said of the Cruciatus Curse.After thinking about this a bit, I can't see why Avada Kedavra would ever be used in self-defense. I mean muggles use guns to kill people in self-defense, but wizards have better resources for defense--Impedimenta, Petrificus Totalis, Stupefy, etc. In what kind of scenario would Avada Kedavra have to be used instead of one of these defensive spells? :huh: I believe that the torture scene is meant to be compared to the scene where "love" saves Harry. Emotions save Harry but they are also the path to the "Dark side" (throw in some Star Wars) for him.:tu: Interesting. This also ties back to Snape's comment about wearing emotions on one's sleeve, doesn't it? Another reference to negative emotion leading to dark things. . .

After reading the passage posted by SIP, it seems clear to me that Sirius definitely falls on the side of never thinking it's acceptable to use the Unforgivable curses. Since Sirius is a representative of the "good side," I think the subtext is that the Unforgivables should never be used, not even by Aurors. It's ironic, then, that Harry's attempt at using one is to avenge Sirius.I'm still not sure about that, mainly because of the "whenever possible" bit; it still suggests (to me, at least) that under extenuating circumstances drastic measures might be undertaken and might be understandable. (Not condoned, just understandable.)

After thinking about this a bit, I can't see why Avada Kedavra would ever be used in self-defense. I mean muggles use guns to kill people in self-defense, but wizards have better resources for defense--Impedimenta, Petrificus Totalis, Stupefy, etc. In what kind of scenario would Avada Kedavra have to be used instead of one of these defensive spells? :huh: The only instance I can think of is someone is, in turn, casting AK on you -- which again goes back to the "kill or be killed" idea. You can't block an AK, so perhaps the only way to defend yourself against one is to cast an AK before the other guy finishes casting his.

Both times that Harry considers using the Cruciatus Curse (and, of course, this includes his actual use of it), the description in the book emphasizes not anger--but hatred, the opposite of love. I think that says something about the way the Unforgivables work; then, it becomes even more striking that Voldemort can use Cruciatus and AK so casually and easily...

I like the way you put it, silver ink pot, about the use of Cruciatus diminishing Harry's soul. With Harry, I think the key is that he rather fails at Cruciatus (and the first time, he only thought of using it; he didn't attempt it); however, your wording describes perfectly what happens to those who use it, use it well, and use it frequently. In fact, I think it aptly describes Crouch Senior, and the danger the Aurors who used the Unforgivables faced--not the DEs, but rather the eroding of their own morals in using such methods.

And I agree with your observation, Chievrefueil. AK as self-defense could be understood; nevertheless, there are disabling alternatives that the wizarding world can use. Therefore, AK isn't really a viable choice for self defense; I think Dumbledore illustrates that, in that he can but does not use such magic. It is 'cleaner' than Cruciatus, but it is still taking a life, and there seem to be many magical alternatives. Which does lead to the question of what will happen in the Harry-Voldemort showdown, doesn't it?

I find it interesting that the three Unforgivables all entail control over others, from their will to their lives, and the distinguishing feature that seems to make this control 'unforgivable'--as opposed, say, to Impedimenta--is that the motive is powerful hatred. Actually, I find that fascinating.........

I'm still not sure about that, mainly because of the "whenever possible" bit; it still suggests (to me, at least) that under extenuating circumstances drastic measures might be undertaken and might be understandable. (Not condoned, just understandable.)Here's the quote SIP posted again:"Well, times like that bring out the best in some people and the worst in others. Crouch's principles might've been good in the beginning - I wouldn't know. He rose quickly through the Ministry, and he started ordering very harsh measures against Voldemorts supporters. The Aurors were given new powers - powers to kill rather than capture, for instance. And I wasn't the only one who was handed straight to the dementors without trial. Crouch fought violence with violence, and authorized the use of the Unforgivable Curses against suspects. I would say he became as ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark Side. He had his supporters, mind you - plenty of people thought he was going about things the right way, and there were a lot of witches and wizards clamoring for him to take over as Minister of Magic. When Voldemort disappeared, it looked like only a matter of time until Crouch got the top job. But then something rather unfortunate happened. ..." Sirius smiled grimly. "Crouch's own son was caught with a group of Death Eaters who'd managed to talk their way out of Azkaban. Apparently they were trying to find Voldemort and return him to power." The part in orange really implies a strong disapproval for the Unforgivables ever being used (to me, anyway). When Sirius speaks of Moody, maybe he doesn't have the Unforgivable's in mind? Perhaps other circumstances might lead to a "suspect" being killed?The only instance I can think of is someone is, in turn, casting AK on you -- which again goes back to the "kill or be killed" idea. You can't block an AK, so perhaps the only way to defend yourself against one is to cast an AK before the other guy finishes casting his.I was going to write a longer answer, but subtle summed it up well. It just doesn't seem like there is a situation in which AK would work better than one of the other defensive spells. If you can use AK before someone AK's you, you can use one of the other, less damaging, spells to incapacitate him/her.

If you can use AK before someone AK's you, you can use one of the other, less damaging, spells to incapacitate him/her.

There's no block against Avada Kedavra. That would seem to imply that even the weaker defense spells, even if cast on time, wouldn't be effective against it. It makes sense that the only counter curse to Avada Kedavra is Avada Kedvara.

Silver ink pot, when does Tom Riddle use the Cruciatus Curse?

Here's the quote SIP posted again:The part in orange really implies a strong disapproval for the Unforgivables ever being used (to me, anyway). When Sirius speaks of Moody, maybe he doesn't have the Unforgivable's in mind? Perhaps other circumstances might lead to a "suspect" being killed?Maybe. Sirius doesn't explicitly mention the Unforgiveables when he talks about Moody a few pages after he mentions Crouch, but it seems implicit that in talking about Moody killing people, he's talking about the AK (unless Moody's got other killing curses up his sleeve). For me, taking the two passages together and in chronological order, Sirius seems to be saying "Using the Unforgiveables is really bad and they should never, ever be used and Crouch is basically the equivalent of a Death Eater for even authorizing their use ... but there are some people, like Moody, to whom I give credit because while they were technically allowed to use the Curses they tried to avoid doing so whenever possible and thus never stooped to the level of the Death Eaters, but sometimes it was unavoidable." Or ... something. :D

Good point about the AK, HermioneLuna. I can see it being a pre-emptive thing. I mean, if you hear someone start to say "Avada --" it's not going to do much good to throw a shield charm at them. This assumes that you'll cast your own AK before the other guy finishes saying kedavra, of course, but I'm sure it could be done if you had fast enough reflexes.

self defense...

Dumbledore does use the statue bits to deflect the AK in OotP. So--if you've got an ugly statue nearby---

I think what still is bothering me about the use of AK, even in self-defense, is that factor of hatred...If authorizing the UC's made Crouch as cruel as the DEs, what did actually using them do to the Aurors? If they used them effectively--remember what Fake Moody said about the students' only being able to produce a nosebleed if they tried to use AK--then that means fueling them with extreme hatred. What does that do to you?

Consider: Even Harry's hatred of Bellatrix after she killed Sirius was insufficient for an effective Cruciatus, and that spell's a step down from AK...........



Petty detail, but the question crossed my mind: how was Sirius planning to kill Pettigrew?

Quote from silver ink pot:
I totally agree with that - it isn't that Bella isn't heartless and cruel, it's really that Harry diminishes his own soul when he tortures her.

I'd say it only diminishes Harry soul if he tries it again or purposely sets out to use it.

Quote from silver ink pot:
I think Harry acted totally out of anger, and wasn't thinking of shocking anyone. Plus, Harry may not be fully-grown, but most 15-year-old boys are at least as tall as most women, so Bella wasn't really that different in size. We know that Harry can do most spells the DEs can do, anyway, so I think it was a fair fight in most ways.

One can make a case, I suppose, that Harry was acting in self-defense, except that Bella was running away from him, and not the other way around.

However, I agree with Shaggy that Harry crossed an important line in wanting to torture Bella, and I do believe he will do some soul searching about it, with and without Hermione.

Actually Bella had stopped running. It could be argued that she planned to lure Harry there. The only soul searching Harry needs to do is to find a way to control his emotions (anger, hatred, love etc).

Quote from Chievrefueil
Interesting. This also ties back to Snape's comment about wearing emotions on one's sleeve, doesn't it? Another reference to negative emotion leading to dark things. . .

That's the point I was trying to make. Thank you. I think Snape was delivering a premature warning.

Quote from Chievrefueil:
I agree. Harry wanted to hurt Bellatrix, so that's what he tried to do. There was no reason to use Crucio at that point. Harry had been duelling with Death Eaters for hours and hadn't tried it.

I agree that hurting Bellatrix was the main reason for using Crucio but I think there may have been another reason as well. Harry was making a blunt point to Bellatrix...he is willing to fight at their level. Bellatrix took him a lot more seriously after that.

Sirius preached against the Unforgivables but had no problem planning on using a knife to murder Peter. I’d say that it’s another example of Sirius saying one thing and doing the other.

The more I think about this issue the more I feel we haven’t seen the last of Harry and the Unforgivables (I mean he’s going to try them again).

Edited to include: I don't believe that AK is the only way for a wizard to kill...it's simply the easiest and cleanest.

Dumbledore does use the statue bits to deflect the AK in OotP. So--if you've got an ugly statue nearby---

It didn't deflect the curse. Instead, the statue absorbed the curse rather than Dumbledore.

Petty detail, but the question crossed my mind: how was Sirius planning to kill Pettigrew?

Well, he did have a kinfe. And in the Shrieking Shack, he took a wand from the kids.

Sirius preached against the Unforgivables but had no problem planning on using a knife to murder Peter. I’d say that it’s another example of Sirius saying one thing and doing the other.

Killing someone with a knife and using an Unforgivable is not the same thing. Yes, the result is the same, but they aren't on the same level. Also, Sirius wasn't preaching to the kids, he just Crouch's methods made him no better than the Death Eaters. Using a knife to kill someone is simple compared with using the killing curse.

As subtle science said, Harry couldn't even manage Crucio with all he was feeling and that's not as strong as Avada Kedavra. Sirius would have to have been in even more of a homocidal crazy excaped prisoner rage than he was to have managed Avada Kedavra. He wanted to kill Peter out of vengance, not just anger. Avada kedavra is more anger or for the enjoyment of killing than anything else.

Petty detail, but the question crossed my mind: how was Sirius planning to kill Pettigrew?There are numerous quotes that prove this, so I feel confident in saying that Sirius would have eaten Peter in his animagus form. ;) :p :lol:

Quote from HermioneLuna:
Killing someone with a knife and using an Unforgivable is not the same thing. Yes, the result is the same, but they aren't on the same level. Also, Sirius wasn't preaching to the kids, he just Crouch's methods made him no better than the Death Eaters. Using a knife to kill someone is simple compared with using the killing curse.

This is where I differ from you. The person is still dead and unless it was an accident you had to have hate in your heart. So how is using a knife any different? If anything I'd consider it worse...using a knife is a hard way to kill someone at least compared to AK (the blood seeping onto your hands, the life slowly fading from their eyes etc...)

If the Unforgiveables are acceptable self-defense, then why don't any of the adult Order members use them at the DoM? :huh: I can't think of a more compelling situation than when a group of children are being attacked, yet we don't see any of them using those curses. And there is a good reason why. Because they don't work unless you have anger and hatred in your heart. They don't completely work for you unless you are evil yourself. That is why.

I agree that hurting Bellatrix was the main reason for using Crucio but I think there may have been another reason as well. Harry was making a blunt point to Bellatrix...he is willing to fight at their level. Bellatrix took him a lot more seriously after that.

He got her attention, that's for sure! Excruciating pain generally does - ask any torturer.

Sirius preached against the Unforgivables but had no problem planning on using a knife to murder Peter. I’d say that it’s another example of Sirius saying one thing and doing the other.

Sirius also says that the Aurors shouldn't have killed "suspects" without a trial, yet that is what he and Lupin were going to do to Peter. :rolleyes: Good Old Sirius.

The more I think about this issue the more I feel we haven’t seen the last of Harry and the Unforgivables (I mean he’s going to try them again).

I sincerely, fervently hope not. A true hero cannot go around torturing people. (Check your Star Wars or Lord of the Rings or any other great hero tale you prefer.) A hero has to have a certain line he won't cross, or he becomes a villain.

Edited to include: I don't believe that AK is the only way for a wizard to kill...it's simply the easiest and cleanest.

That's true - there is death by murderous plants, as with Broderick Bode, or death by poisoning, or death by decapitation, or death by . . . what else? Starvation? I'm sure even a wizard could pick up a gun and shoot someone. Wizards aren't zombies or terminators.

Silver ink pot, when does Tom Riddle use the Cruciatus Curse?

HermioneLuna: Sorry about that. I shouldn't have listed Tom and Voldemort as two people, since they are the same person. Buy you are right, in a way, that we don't see Tom Riddle doing Cruciatus in CoS.

All right, I'm obsessive, even in a facetious comment...the statue did deflect the AK: "The spell merely glanced off its chest as the statue flung out its arms, protecting Harry" (p. 813, OotP, US hardcover).

Rule #1 Auror's Handbook: No AK fighting unless there's good cover (Look for unattractive art objects).

Quote from silver ink pot:
I sincerely, fervently hope not. A true hero cannot go around torturing people. (Check your Star Wars or Lord of the Rings or any other great hero tale you prefer.) A hero has to have a certain line he won't cross, or he becomes a villain.

Actually I was thinking specifically of Avada Kedavra.

The wizards I'd most like to ask about this are Dumbledore and Snape. I'm pretty sure they have struggled with this issue a lot.

All right, I'm obsessive, even in a facetious comment...the statue did deflect the AK: "The spell merely glanced off its chest as the statue flung out its arms, protecting Harry" (p. 813, OotP, US hardcover).

Rule #1 Auror's Handbook: No AK fighting unless there's good cover (Look for unattractive art objects).

:lol:

Actually I was thinking specifically of Avada Kedavra.

Well, don't you think it is even more severe to want to kill someone than to just hurt someone? Or maybe neither one is desirable in a hero?


The wizards I'd most like to ask about this are Dumbledore and Snape. I'm pretty sure they have struggled with this issue a lot.

I'd like to ask Lupin what the heck he was thinking in the Shrieking Shack when he and Sirius were about to kill Peter and had to be stopped by a child?

We see Peter do the Avada Kedavra on Cedric, on orders of Voldemort and giving it no thought whatsoever. We see Sirius and Lupin attempt to kill Peter in the Shrieking Shack, also apparently planning to use AK. It makes me wonder if James ever performed an unforgivable curse? I'm betting he did.

This is where I differ from you. The person is still dead and unless it was an accident you had to have hate in your heart. So how is using a knife any different? If anything I'd consider it worse...using a knife is a hard way to kill someone at least compared to AK (the blood seeping onto your hands, the life slowly fading from their eyes etc...)

If you're going off the principle that the result is the same, then you can't blame Sirius for "saying one thing and then doing another." He isn't the only character who would say killing is bad, and yet kill when the situation called for it. And remember he was perfectly willing to see Peter get some version of a trial. I still say that operating on vengance and operating on pure hate are two totally different things. With these books, it's important to consider intent or motive as well as actions.

Sirius also says that the Aurors shouldn't have killed "suspects" without a trial, yet that is what he and Lupin were going to do to Peter.

Peter wasn't just a suspect in that situation. He had confessed his crimes. I don't think there is usually a trial when the suspect is saying they committed the offense. Sirius told Snape that as long as Ron took Scabbers up to the castle, he (Sirius) would go willingly. Snape wouldn't have that. Then, Sirius was willing to let Harry make the call on Peter's fate. That means he wasn't just raging with no sense of self control. He was capable of putting aside what he wanted for what someone else wanted. I doubt anyone feeling the anger that would create an effective Avada Kedavra curse would be of that same mind-frame.

Subtle science, you're right. Since it is the killing curse, maybe it's only unblockable if you're alive.

Dumbledore does use the statue bits to deflect the AK in OotP. So--if you've got an ugly statue nearby---

I think what still is bothering me about the use of AK, even in self-defense, is that factor of hatred...If authorizing the UC's made Crouch as cruel as the DEs, what did actually using them do to the Aurors? If they used them effectively--remember what Fake Moody said about the students' only being able to produce a nosebleed if they tried to use AK--then that means fueling them with extreme hatred. What does that do to you?

Consider: Even Harry's hatred of Bellatrix after she killed Sirius was insufficient for an effective Cruciatus, and that spell's a step down from AK...........



Petty detail, but the question crossed my mind: how was Sirius planning to kill Pettigrew?
Are we sure that Sirius and Remus were going to use the AK? What was the purple curse that Dolohov used on Hermione? It would have killed her if he had been able to speak the incantation.

Quote from HermioneLuna:
If you're going off the principle that the result is the same, then you can't blame Sirius for "saying one thing and then doing another." He isn't the only character who would say killing is bad, and yet kill when the situation called for it. And remember he was perfectly willing to see Peter get some version of a trial. I still say that operating on vengance and operating on pure hate are two totally different things. With these books, it's important to consider intent or motive as well as actions.

Quote from silver ink pot:
We see Peter do the Avada Kedavra on Cedric, on orders of Voldemort and giving it no thought whatsoever. We see Sirius and Lupin attempt to kill Peter in the Shrieking Shack, also apparently planning to use AK. It makes me wonder if James ever performed an unforgivable curse? I'm betting he did.

This is the reason I don't see the difference between killing a person with a knife (or anyother way) and using AK. Peter doesn't know Cedric, he probably doesn't hate Cedric but he can still AK him. I'm not saying emotion doesn't play apart in a spell but perhaps it's isn't as fundmental as we're lead to believe (at least in regards to thr Unforgivables).

If the Unforgiveables are acceptable self-defense, then why don't any of the adult Order members use them at the DoM? I can't think of a more compelling situation than when a group of children are being attacked, yet we don't see any of them using those curses. And there is a good reason why. Because they don't work unless you have anger and hatred in your heart. They don't completely work for you unless you are evil yourself.
I think this, too, is where they get their name. I wonder how many people actually knew that Crouch Sr. had authorized the use of the unforgivables? I would have trouble with the idea that there were people on "my" side out there employing these things for the better good, as it would indicate they had the capacity in the first place. I don't think that JK would have Harry use an unforgivable again. Especially after some soul searching.


It makes me wonder if James ever performed an unforgivable curse? I'm betting he did.
I might buy the idea that he thought about using one, especially on Halloween night in Godric's Hollow, but I have a little trouble with the idea that he used one. A bully doesn't have to be a sadist or evil.

If you're going off the principle that the result is the same, then you can't blame Sirius for "saying one thing and then doing another." He isn't the only character who would say killing is bad, and yet kill when the situation called for it.That still doesn't make it right. And remember he was perfectly willing to see Peter get some version of a trial. Only because Snape had the upper hand. As soon as Snape was knocked out, Sirius had no intention of returning Peter to the authorities until Harry interrupted the planned murder and requested it. I still say that operating on vengance and operating on pure hate are two totally different things. What would vengeance be without hate? Hate is what keeps one from forgiving. Lack of forgiveness is what makes vengeance seem necessary.

I think Bellatrix was actually injured to some degree; doesn't she start shrieking with pain and contorting weirdly? (I can't remember all that well.)
Hatred rose in Harry such as he had never known before; he flung himself out from behind the fountain and bellowed, "Crucio!"

Bellatrix screamed: the spell had knocked her off her feet, but she did not writhe and shriek with pain as Neville had - she was already back on her feet, breathless, no longer laughing. Harry dodged behind the golden fountain again. Her counter-spell hit the head of the handsome wizard, which was blown off and landed twenty feet away, gouging long scratches into the wooden floor.

"Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy?" she yelled. She had abandoned her baby voice now. "You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain - to enjoy it - righteous anger won't hurt me for long - I'll show you how it is done, shall I? I'll give you a lesson -"

Here's a question: if crucio can only be performed if you truly mean it, how does imperio!Krum use it on Cedric in GoF? Krum may have been under the Imperius Curse, but can mind control produce a strong enough desire to want to cause someone pain? :huh:

He didn't use Avada Kedavra because it's like I've been saying for a few posts now. He didn't simply want to kill her. He wanted to cause her pain. Avada Kedavra causes no physical pain. And I think it's clear Harry didn't inflict the same sort of torture that the Longbottoms experienced.But Bellatrix tells Harry that righteous anger won't do much damage. One has to really enjoy causing pain. Maybe what we needed to know was that Harry is incapable of enjoying someone's else's pain, not matter how deserved.

Harry's curse was only partially effective on Bellatrix, because he is angry, but doesn't enjoy inflicting pain.

Bellatrix also used a countercurse to stop Harry's Cruciatus.

Here's a question: if crucio can only be performed if you truly mean it, how does imperio!Krum use it on Cedric in GoF? Krum may have been under the Imperius Curse, but can mind control produce a strong enough desire to want to cause someone pain? :huh:
Darn good question!

Here's a question: if crucio can only be performed if you truly mean it, how does imperio!Krum use it on Cedric in GoF? Krum may have been under the Imperius Curse, but can mind control produce a strong enough desire to want to cause someone pain? :huh:

I don't think it is related to Krum's desire, but it is related to Crouch Jr.'s desire. Otherwise, I think that they would have prosecuted...say Malfoy, who claimed he acted under the curse. Apparently, nothing done while under the curse relates to the person cursed, only the curser.

I don't think it is related to Krum's desire, but it is related to Crouch Jr.'s desire. Otherwise, I think that they would have prosecuted...say Malfoy, who claimed he acted under the curse. Apparently, nothing done while under the curse relates to the person cursed, only the curser.I'm not so sure about that. It's still Krum, not Fake Moody, who is performing the spell. Pleading "imperio" in court or wherever simply relieves you of taking responsibility for your actions while under the Imperius Curse, it doesn't mean you didn't still perform them.

I'm not so sure about that. It's still Krum, not Fake Moody, who is performing the spell. Pleading "imperio" in court or wherever simply relieves you of taking responsibility for your actions while under the Imperius Curse, it doesn't mean you didn't still perform them.
Much like "driving under the influence"?

Crucioing under the influence! I'm imagining the aurors now: "Yeah, we've got another CUI down here in Hogsmeade, we'll have to throw him in the tank for the night until the effects begin to wear off ..."


::edit:: Not quite like driving under the influence though, because in most cases the person who did the driving is still responsible for their actions, whereas with the Imperius Curse they're not. They maintain the same lack of control of their actions, however.

:rotfl:

I'm not so sure about that. It's still Krum, not Fake Moody, who is performing the spell. Pleading "imperio" in court or wherever simply relieves you of taking responsibility for your actions while under the Imperius Curse, it doesn't mean you didn't still perform them.
Unfortunately, to be certain how it works, we will have to see someone that we don't believe capable of performing the curses, use them while under the Imperio curse to be certain.

I tend to feel that Krum is not capable of performing the curses, emotionally, but according to Hermione, I doubt he would be capable of performing them at all. She said something along the line of "He said Harry knew how to do things that he didn't know, and he was in the last year at Durmstrang." I am leaning towards it taking a certain amount of skill, as well as emotional (or evil) state to do those curses. We know Krum is powerful, or he wouldn't have been picked for the Triwizard tournament, but apparently he isn't as skilled, unless he was lying to Hermione, which is of course, possible.