Deconstructing the Marauders V.9

That still doesn't make it right.

Did I say it did?

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.

That isn't the point. The point is Sirius was willing to play by the rules. Both before Snape was knocked out, and after. If he were as bent on killing Peter without a trial as some people seem to be trying to make it seem, nothing Snape or Harry did would have been able to deter him.

What would vengeance be without hate? Hate is what keeps one from forgiving. Lack of forgiveness is what makes vengeance seem necessary.

Clearly, you aren't understanding my points. We've had a long discussion on vengeance vs. revenge on a previous version of this thread. Vengeance isn't always fulled by hate, but by the need to avenge. Peter had betrayed all those who held him dear, Sirius was trying to avenge that betrayal. It's possible to avenge or want vengeance without feeling overwhelming hate.

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.

You're right. Harry's curse wouldn't have worked on Bellatrix for the reasons you've listed. However, that doesn't change the fact that Harrywanted to cause Bellatrix pain.

Talking about "noble" wizards using the unforgiveable curses, don't you think, if one knew how to do it, in some siituation in his life may try to use it against someone, whom he hates just like harry hates bella? Maybe we can put this act as a adolescent behaviour. DD plans to be noble when it comes to destroying LV? But others? I know he is the most powerful, but what about an OOTP member Vs. a DE?

What about imperius? What if say, DD or any OOTP member gets a DE in hand, put imperius, and send him back to LV. It could be a good source of information. Not a nice way of handling things, but would someone think of using it?

About AK, i agree with DD, "there are more ways of destroying a man".

What i mean to say is, use of unforgiveable curse is not right. But would any of OOTP member think that it is?

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.Did I say it did?Essentially, yes. The part about the result being the same (with Avada Kedavra versus, say, a knife) makes no sense to me. However, you go on to say that Sirius can't be blamed (your wording) for saying killing is bad and then killing someone, if the situation arose. What about that statement doesn't condone Sirius killing someone? If killing is condoned, it's the same as saying it's 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. That isn't the point. The point is Sirius was willing to play by the rules. Both before Snape was knocked out, and after. If he were as bent on killing Peter without a trial as some people seem to be trying to make it seem, nothing Snape or Harry did would have been able to deter him.No, the point is that Sirius had every intention of killing Peter and was not interested in a trial. Sirius bowed to outside influences because he had no choice. With Snape, Sirius was physically at a disadvantage and offering to go back to go back to the castle (and MoM) with Peter would provide the best outcome for him at that moment. With Harry, Sirius's allegience to James's son trumped his own preferred outcome of killing Peter. In each case, it is not the choice Sirius would have made if he and Lupin had been alone with Peter. That is the point. That is what makes Sirius's statement hypocritical.*

*I'm not discounting that Sirius could have changed his mind or been thinking more clearly about the issues when he spoke with Harry about Crouch Sr.Clearly, you aren't understanding my points. We've had a long discussion on vengeance vs. revenge on a previous version of this thread. Vengeance isn't always fulled by hate, but by the need to avenge. .Well, I disagree. Someone does not decide to avenge someone else in a cold, clinical way--it's tied to emotion. If someone does not hate, there is no need for personal vengeance. Can you think of an example where vengeance was carried out without hatred being a factor? :huh:Peter had betrayed all those who held him dear, Sirius was trying to avenge that betrayal. It's possible to avenge or want vengeance without feeling overwhelming hate.It may not be overwhelming, but it's there. Are you denying that Sirius hated Peter? It's pretty clear to me in the text that he did.

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.
That isn't the point. The point is Sirius was willing to play by the rules. Both before Snape was knocked out, and after. If he were as bent on killing Peter without a trial as some people seem to be trying to make it seem, nothing Snape or Harry did would have been able to deter him.
No, the point is that Sirius had every intention of killing Peter and was not interested in a trial. Sirius bowed to outside influences because he had no choice. With Snape, Sirius was physically at a disadvantage and offering to go back to go back to the castle (and MoM) with Peter would provide the best outcome for him at that moment. With Harry, Sirius's allegience to James's son trumped his own preferred outcome of killing Peter. In each case, it is not the choice Sirius would have made if he and Lupin had been alone with Peter. That is the point. That is what makes Sirius's statement hypocritical.*

*I'm not discounting that Sirius could have changed his mind or been thinking more clearly about the issues when he spoke with Harry about Crouch Sr.

I'm enjoying your debate, but I have to say that it just seems that we have to look at what Sirius actually did, in order to decide if Sirius was reasonable and wanting to play "by the rules" or not. Snape had the upper hand when Lupin was tied up and Sirius didn't have a wand. But as soon as the children zapped Snape, there is no mention of taking Peter anywhere until Harry intervenes. Like Chiev, all I see is anger and the thirst for revenge. They are all shaking with anger! And Sirius is playing judge and jury. I'm not saying it isn't human nature or understandable. However, it isn't legal or exactly full of mercy either.

PoA, Chapter 19

Both Black and Lupin strode forward, seized Pettigrew's shoulders, and threw him backward onto the floor. He sat there, twitching with terror, staring up at them.

"You sold Lily and James to Voldemort," said Black, who was shaking too. "Do you deny it?"

Pettigrew burst into tears. It was horrible to watch, like an oversized, balding baby, cowering on the floor.

"Sirius, Sirius, what could I have done? The Dark Lord... you have no idea... he has weapons you can't imagine.... I was scared, Sirius, I was never brave like you and Remus and James. I never meant it to happen.... He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named forced me --"

"DON'T LIE!" bellowed Black. "YOU'D BEEN PASSING INFORMATION TO HIM FOR A YEAR BEFORE LILY AND JAMES DIED! YOU WERE HIS SPY!"

"He -- he was taking over everywhere!" gasped Pettigrew. "Wh -- what was there to be gained by refusing him?"

"What was there to be gained by fighting the most evil wizard who has ever existed?" said Black, with a terrible fury in his face. "Only innocent lives, Peter!"

"You don't understand!" whined Pettigrew. "He would have killed me, Sirius!"

"THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE DIED!" roared Black. "DIED RATHER THAN BETRAY YOUR FRIENDS, AS WE WOULD HAVE DONE FOR YOU!"

Black and Lupin stood shoulder to shoulder, wands raised.

"You should have realized," said Lupin quietly, "if Voldemort didn't kill you, we would. Good-bye, Peter."

Hermione covered her face with her hands and turned to the wall.

"NO!" Harry yelled. He ran forward, placing himself in front Pettigrew, facing the wands. "You can't kill him," he said breathlessly. "You can't."

Black and Lupin both looked staggered.

"Harry, this piece of vermin is the reason you have no parents," Black snarled. "This cringing bit of filth would have seen you die too, without turning a hair. You heard him. His own stinking skin meant more to him than your whole family."

"I know," Harry panted. "We'll take him up to the castle. We'll hand him over to the dementors.... He can go to Azkaban... but don't kill him."


Clearly, you aren't understanding my points. We've had a long discussion on vengeance vs. revenge on a previous version of this thread. Vengeance isn't always fulled by hate, but by the need to avenge. .
Well, I disagree. Someone does not decide to avenge someone else in a cold, clinical way--it's tied to emotion. If someone does not hate, there is no need for personal vengeance. Can you think of an example where vengeance was carried out without hatred being a factor?

Maybe Hermione Luna is thinking of that phrase, "Revenge is a dish best eaten cold." The trouble is that Sirius doesn't seem to be thinking clearly and rationally, and is acting like a vicious hothead. Lupin is much calmer, so you can almost say that he is going about the death "clinically," as Chiev put it, but that seems out-of-character for Lupin, doesn't it? So we can't be sure just what is going on in his mind in that scene, can we?

I have no problem with talking about this again. Vengeance, by definition, means punishment:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=vengeance&searchmode=none

revenge
1375, from O.Fr. revengier, from re-, intensive prefix, + vengier "take revenge," from L. vindicare "to lay claim to, avenge, punish" (see vindicate).

To avenge is “to get revenge” or “to take vengeance”; it suggests the administration of just punishment for a criminal or immoral act. Revenge seems to stress the idea of retaliation a bit more strongly and implies real hatred as its motivation. ["The Columbia Guide to Standard American English," 1993]
The noun is first recorded 1547.

wreak
O.E. wrecan "avenge," originally "to drive, drive out, punish" (class V strong verb; past tense wræc, pp. wrecen), from P.Gmc. *wrekanan (cf. O.S. wrekan, O.N. reka, O.Fris. wreka, M.Du. wreken "to drive, push, compel, pursue, throw," O.H.G. rehhan, Ger. rächen "to avenge," Goth. wrikan "to persecute"), from PIE base *werg- "to work, to do" (cf. Lith. vergas "distress," vergas "slave," O.C.S. vragu "enemy;" see urge (v.)). Meaning "inflict or take vengeance" is c.1489; that of "inflict or cause damage or destruction" is from 1817.

Whenever I think of the phrase "vengeance is a dish best eaten cold," I recall the book The Count of Monte Cristo, by Alexander Dumas, about the prisoner who is wrongly accused, escapes, lives as a pirate for years until he is wealthy, and then he returns to take revenge on everyone who has ever wronged him. He's almost able to act calmly, but his anger still fuels everything he does.

Whenever I think of the phrase "vengeance is a dish best eaten cold," I recall the book The Count of Monte Cristo, by Alexander Dumas, about the prisoner who is wrongly accused, escapes, lives as a pirate for years until he is wealthy, and then he returns to take revenge on everyone who has ever wronged him. He's almost able to act calmly, but his anger still fuels everything he does.

I've always thought of this as "hot anger" versus "cold anger" and it still surprises me that Sirius' anger was so hot after all those years in Azkaban to...umm, consider his position. I've always thought of cold anger being the more dangerous. Someone might kill you in the midst of hot anger, but they will make you pay before they wreak their full revenge when it is cold anger.

Snape at the end of OoTP, epitomizes cold anger, to me.

About Sirius and Lupin almost killing Peter:
I’m assuming they must have been planning to use the AK curse, although a good point was also made about the curse Dolohov used in the DoM. Of course, both Sirius and Lupin are wrong to be prepared to do this no matter what their reason, but as I’ve said before, I feel that they both believed there was no other way. I believe they saw it as a way to prevent more innocent lives from being lost at Peter’s hand – he certainly proved to both of them (and to readers) that he was more than capable of taking innocent lives. So aside from wanting to avenge the Potters and all of the lives Peter ruined, Sirius and Lupin most likely saw this as an opportunity to stop Peter from ever harming anyone again; in other words, this was basically a preventative measure. And wrong though it was, you can’t blame them for thinking this way under these circumstances. Again, this action would have been wrong no matter which way you look at it, but as I’ve said in the past, given the circumstances, it’s understandable.

As for Harry being the one to stop Sirius and Lupin:
Since Harry is the hero of the story, it is fitting that he should be the one to prevent Lupin ad Sirius from killing Peter. I think JKR may have wanted to show that despite the fact that the words and actions of children are sometimes overlooked, this doesn’t mean that they can’t change the course of the future, or act in a mature way. I don’t think the point of this part was to show that two adults had to be stopped by a mere child; rather, I feel that the point was 1) to show that adults are fallible; 2) that children can act maturely and can change the course of the future: if Harry hadn’t stepped in, the life debt would never have been activated; and 3) for plot reasons to create a twist, and to get Peter indebted to Harry.

About vengeance:
Since I didn’t participate in the previous version, I’d like to throw in my two cents about vengeance and hatred. I think most times, vengeance and hatred do go hand in hand, but sometimes, vengeance can be fuelled by the desire to see justice done (ie the idea the the wrongdoer must be punished for their actions). This doesn't preclude hatred though, but I believe it's on one side of the spectrum that can include feelings of hatred very minimally. On the other side of the spectrum is vengeance fuelled by an overwhelming feeling of hatred, kind of like what Harry felt when he was trying to hurt Bellatrix with the Cruciatus curse (though his actions can be redeemed somewhat by his inability to perform the curse). This instance doesn't preclude a desire to see the person pay, but it does involve a large amount of hatred. In the middle is vengeance driven equally by a sense of justice and feelings of hatred for the wrongdoer.

About Sirius and vengeance:
I believe Sirius falls somewhere toward the "hatred" side of the spectrum: Sirius wanted to see Peter pay for what he did and he wanted to commit the murder he had been convicted of. Sirius was impulsive and wanted to act now and think about it later. But he does indeed defer to Harry, no matter what he would have rather done. This not only shows his loyalty to Harry and the fact that he cares about him a great deal, but it also shows evidence of Sirius' maturity by recognizing Harry's right to decide Pettigrew's fate, instead of continuing with his own vendetta against him. This also shows considerable restraint on Sirius' part, because after all, he was absolutely itching to kill Peter for 12 years now, and after Harry intervenes, he is willing to drop his 12-year vendetta and do what Harry says.

Whenever I think of the phrase "vengeance is a dish best eaten cold," I recall the book The Count of Monte Cristo, by Alexander Dumas, about the prisoner who is wrongly accused, escapes, lives as a pirate for years until he is wealthy, and then he returns to take revenge on everyone who has ever wronged him. He's almost able to act calmly, but his anger still fuels everything he does.I've always heard "Revenge is a dish best served cold." I've always attributed the quote to James Bond (or Ian Fleming, I suppose). Coldness doesn't preclude anger or hatred, though. I've always thought of the use of "cold" as implying a lack of compassion, although it could also imply the phrase "in cold blood" (ie. with premeditation).Lupin is much calmer, so you can almost say that he is going about the death "clinically," as Chiev put it, but that seems out-of-character for Lupin, doesn't it? So we can't be sure just what is going on in his mind in that scene, can we?Yes, I was wondering if HermioneLuna would bring that up in response. As you say, though, we don't know what's going on in Lupin's mind. It's hard for me to believe that he felt no sense of anger or betrayal that influenced his willingness to kill Peter. In fact, I'd think less of him, if he was willing to kill Peter without those emotions playing a role.I've always thought of this as "hot anger" versus "cold anger" and it still surprises me that Sirius' anger was so hot after all those years in Azkaban to...umm, consider his position. I've always thought of cold anger being the more dangerous. Someone might kill you in the midst of hot anger, but they will make you pay before they wreak their full revenge when it is cold anger.

Snape at the end of OoTP, epitomizes cold anger, to me.I agree with your description of "cold anger" vs "hot anger." I'm not sure what you mean about Snape, though. I'd say that he's characterized by "cold anger" throughout the series. What is different at the end of OotP?

I agree with your description of "cold anger" vs "hot anger." I'm not sure what you mean about Snape, though. I'd say that he's characterized by "cold anger" throughout the series. What is different at the end of OotP?

Well, to me it wasn't really anger until the end of PoA, and the Pensieve dive in OoTP. It seemed like detatched irritation at the world in general, Harry in particular.

The outburst at the pensieve dive indicated some serious problems with what Harry did, and that was definitely barely controlled anger. After that, Snape goes quiet, for the most part. This is unusual, generally he is full of barbs and sarcastic comments. His anger at the Harry/pensieve incident is still there, but his anger has, apparently, chilled.

Lupin is much calmer, so you can almost say that he is going about the death "clinically," as Chiev put it, but that seems out-of-character for Lupin, doesn't it? So we can't be sure just what is going on in his mind in that scene, can we?Yes, I wondering if HermioneLuna would bring that up in response. As you say, though, we don't know what's going on in Lupin's mind. It's hard for me to believe that he felt no sense of anger or betrayal that influenced his willingness to kill Peter. In fact, I'd think less of him, if he was willing to kill Peter without those emotions playing a role.I don't believe Lupin would have wanted revenge on Peter without feeling a sense of anger and betrayal- if he didn't that would show extreme indifference on Lupin's part, which I don't think he is capable of showing in such an emotionally charged and personal situation. Lupin is only human, so it's unrealistic to think that he didn't feel angry and betrayed by Peter's depravity. After all, Pettigrew committed the heinous crime of betraying his friends and their innocent baby to their deaths- a despicable act to say the least. So I think it's safe to say that Lupin did indeed feel these emotions toward Peter in this scene and that they influenced his willingness to kill Peter.

About Sirius and Lupin almost killing Peter:
I’m assuming they must have been planning to use the AK curse, although a good point was also made about the curse Dolohov used in the DoM. Of course, both Sirius and Lupin are wrong to be prepared to do this no matter what their reason, but as I’ve said before, I feel that they both believed there was no other way. I believe they saw it as a way to prevent more innocent lives from being lost at Peter’s hand – he certainly proved to both of them (and to readers) that he was more than capable of taking innocent lives. So aside from wanting to avenge the Potters and all of the lives Peter ruined, Sirius and Lupin most likely saw this as an opportunity to stop Peter from ever harming anyone again; in other words, this was basically a preventative measure. And wrong though it was, you can’t blame them for thinking this way under these circumstances. Again, this action would have been wrong no matter which way you look at it, but as I’ve said in the past, given the circumstances, it’s understandable.Yes, it's understandable that they want vengeance. I'm not sure about your point regarding them wanting justice for Peter or preventing further harm to innocents, though. Surely the MoM would be equipped to deal with that and there would be no reason for Sirius and Lupin to take matters into their own hands? That's what makes me think vengeance was the reason for their plans to kill Peter themselves. As for Harry being the one to stop Sirius and Lupin:
Since Harry is the hero of the story, it is fitting that he should be the one to prevent Lupin ad Sirius from killing Peter. I think JKR may have wanted to show that despite the fact that the words and actions of children are sometimes overlooked, this doesn’t mean that they can’t change the course of the future, or act in a mature way. I don’t think the point of this part was to show that two adults had to be stopped by a mere child; rather, I feel that the point was 1) to show that adults are fallible; 2) that children can act maturely and can change the course of the future: if Harry hadn’t stepped in, the life debt would never have been activated; and 3) for plot reasons to create a twist, and to get Peter indebted to Harry.Actually, I think it was a set up for Harry (the hero) to appear noble. He takes a stand that shows vengeance is not right. His insistance on taking Peter to the authorities demonstrates his nobility. The fact that Peter escapes is irrelevent. Dumbledore reinforces the nobility of Harry's decision despite Peter's escape at the end of PoA.

Well, to me it wasn't really anger until the end of PoA, and the Pensieve dive in OoTP. It seemed like detatched irritation at the world in general, Harry in particular.

The outburst at the pensieve dive indicated some serious problems with what Harry did, and that was definitely barely controlled anger. After that, Snape goes quiet, for the most part. This is unusual, generally he is full of barbs and sarcastic comments. His anger at the Harry/pensieve incident is still there, but his anger has, apparently, chilled.I see what you mean. He definitely displayed "hot anger" at the end of PoA and after the Pensieve dive. His apparent ignoring Harry after the Pensieve dive does suggest a "cold anger" that is different from his behavior earlier in the books. The question is whether or not he still felt this or returned to his baseline "detached irritability" by the end of OotP.

It seemed like detatched irritation at the world in general, Harry in particular.
I would say it is the irritation giving birth to the anger.....:)

I don't believe Lupin would have wanted revenge on Peter without feeling a sense of anger and betrayal- if he didn't that would show extreme indifference on Lupin's part, which I don't think he is capable of showing in such an emotionally charged and personal situation
True. Especially betrayal. There is a huge contrast between Harry and Lupin, and I guess James and Lupin. Lupin, thinks before acting, the other two don't. Lupin probably feels emotions before the act, as do the other two. Only those emotions would make Lupin think, but Harry and james just act faster. I am not so sure about james, but I believe so. That's why Lupin appears far more mature than the other marauders. And he is.

Lupin is much calmer, so you can almost say that he is going about the death "clinically," as Chiev put it, but that seems out-of-character for Lupin, doesn't it?
Thanks for reminding, SIP. I was wondering this long ago, but just forgot at the right time. I am far toooo slow.

Lupin hides his feelings. I am sure, inside, he is broken. But, he has to manage harry. And probably thats why he seems to be taking it better. It is probable that he would have gone after the whole issue and expressed his feelings in secret. He needs a friend now to support him I guess. I really can't imagine his situation. Two closest friends dead, and one gone....

SIP, it is a cool signature.......

Actually, I think it was a set up for Harry (the hero) to appear noble. He takes a stand that shows vengeance is not right. His insistance on taking Peter to the authorities demonstrates his nobility. The fact that Peter escapes is irrelevent. Dumbledore reinforces the nobility of Harry's decision despite Peter's escape at the end of PoA.

I absolutely agree Harry is the hero of the scene and the moral compass. Usually, Hermione functions as the the conscience of the scene, but she is overwhelmed this time and probably doesn't think she can talk Lupin and Sirius out of killing Peter. Besides - Harry is the hero of the story. :agree:

I see what you mean. He definitely displayed "hot anger" at the end of PoA and after the Pensieve dive. His apparent ignoring Harry after the Pensieve dive does suggest a "cold anger" that is different from his behavior earlier in the books. The question is whether or not he still felt this or returned to his baseline "detached irritability" by the end of OotP.

To me, Snape seemed to return to "normal" at the end of OotP. which fits with the "returning" theme - McGonagall returning in that same scene, Hagrid returning, Dumbledore back as Head of Hogwarts, Harry returning home, and Luna giving Harry that whole speech about people always "coming back," which I think of as her "eternal return" speech. :p

But as far as Snape being "chilled" toward Harry, I think it means he was more angry than ever before! I don't know about the rest of you, and maybe this is because I have that personality type (INTJ) "thang" going on with Snape, but when I am really angry, I stop speaking to people. That is how my husband knows I am really, really angry, and how my children know they have pushed me over the limit. That is why I don't answer my sister's e-mails (long story). When I am just ordinarily ticked-off, I fuss. :evil: I know it's hard to believe I ever get upset, but I do. :rotfl:

SIP, it is a cool signature.......

Thanks! I was going to do something new, but this is my favorite picture anyway.

I'm not sure about your point regarding them wanting justice for Peter or preventing further harm to innocents, though. Surely the MoM would be equipped to deal with that and there would be no reason for Sirius and Lupin to take matters into their own hands? This is a fair point, but I think it’s the combination of wanting revenge, wanting justice to be done on Peter, and wanting to prevent more innocent lives from being lost that made them want to kill Peter themselves. Plus, I think Lupin and especially Sirius may have had reason to believe that the Ministry was unreliable and would somehow screw things up. After all, Sirius never even got a trial. Plus, if Peter was put in Azkaban, think how easy it would be for him to escape as a rat like Sirius did. I believe Sirius likely realizes that they had underestimated Peter’s capabilities at deception and cunning, so it’s plausible to believe that Sirius (and Lupin) figured that Peter could escape the Ministry's clutches. Especially since Peter had heard Sirius' entire story of how he himself escaped. So in the end, by wanting to kill Peter instead of letting the Ministry handle it, Sirius and Lupin were taking several things into account:

1) The fact that this was a very personal matter and that revenge did indeed factor largely into wanting to kill Peter.

2) A desire to see justice done by their own hands, because again, this is a very personal matter: Peter wronged them very deeply, and so justice done by their own hands seemed more fitting than having the Ministry take care of it.

3) Killing Peter would have made sure right then and there that no more innocent lives were lost at Peter's hand, whereas there is a certain degree of uncertainty in handing Peter over to the authorities; after all, it's possible they could screw up.

4) Now that Lupin and Sirius realized just how cunning and deceptive Peter really was, and judging from the fact that Peter had heard Sirius' entire "escape story" from Azkaban, I feel they could have realized that Peter would probably be able to escape the dementors in due time as a rat. After all, it would be much easier for a rat to slip through the bars of a cell, and as a rat is so much easier to remain hidden even if Sirius and Remus told the authorities about his ability to transform.

Actually, I think it was a set up for Harry (the hero) to appear noble. :tu: Yes, I can certainly agree that this was a major reason for having Harry interfere. One of Harry's defining (Gryffindor) qualities is that he is noble and just, so I agree that Harry's nobility was indeed being set up and emphasized in this scene.

Apologies if this is already old. Couldn't post earlier due to technical problems

Essentially, yes. The part about the result being the same (with Avada Kedavra versus, say, a knife) makes no sense to me. However, you go on to say that Sirius can't be blamed (your wording) for saying killing is bad and then killing someone, if the situation arose. What about that statement doesn't condone Sirius killing someone? If killing is condoned, it's the same as saying it's right.I know this is directed at HermioneLuna, but I'd like to make a point in response. I think it goes back to what she was saying about their being a difference between condoning something and understanding it. I can understand Sirius wanting to kill Peter, as Peter was responsible for Lily and James being murdered, Harry nearly being murdered, had himself murdered 12 Muggles and framed Sirius for all of this. As many prisoners go mad and die in Azkaban Peter's actions could have killed Sirius as well. It would take an almost saintly disposition not to want to kill someone under these circumstances, even if it doesn't make it right to do so. For me this is the difference between understanding and condoning - condoning would be to say that Sirius should have killed Peter.
Originally posted by Chiev
No, the point is that Sirius had every intention of killing Peter and was not interested in a trial. Sirius bowed to outside influences because he had no choice. With Snape, Sirius was physically at a disadvantage and offering to go back to go back to the castle (and MoM) with Peter would provide the best outcome for him at that moment. With Harry, Sirius's allegience to James's son trumped his own preferred outcome of killing Peter. In each case, it is not the choice Sirius would have made if he and Lupin had been alone with Peter. That is the point. That is what makes Sirius's statement hypocritical.*

*I'm not discounting that Sirius could have changed his mind or been thinking more clearly about the issues when he spoke with Harry about Crouch Sr.I think hypocrtical is going too far, though there is an inconsistency. Sirius was right to condemn Crouch for allowing Unforgiveable Curses to be used as a normal part of the fight against Voldemort, for sending people to Azkaban without a trial and generally acting without due process of law. His confrontation with Peter is such an extraordinary situation that it is easy for me at least to see how he might not act within his own usual moral codes. Peter isn't just 'a suspect', Sirius knows for a fact that he is a traitor and a mass-murderer, furthermore he was willing to help Voldemort kill Sirius' best friend and Godson.

Losing sight of your own usual moral code in the face of such extreme provocation is not hypocrisy, merely fallibility. Fortunately most of us will never have our own morality pushed to such an extreme, but I'm sure many people if so tested might be found wanting. For instance, I'm morally opposed to the death penalty, but if someone I loved had been murdered and I stood facing them with a gun within reach, I couldn't say for sure that morality would win over emotion, so I can understand someone taking the choice to kill, whilst still believing that killing is wrong. There is a difference between being driven by emotion into wrong behaviour under extreme circumstances, and calmly sitting in an office deciding that it is OK.
Originally posted by Chiev
What would vengeance be without hate? Hate is what keeps one from forgiving. Lack of forgiveness is what makes vengeance seem necessary.As a general point, I agree with this. But I don't think Sirius should have forgiven Peter, and I'm not sure that even forgiveness cancels out the need for vengence.

For instance, I saw an interesting documentary programme about forgiveness recently. It featured a couple whose son had been murdered. The culprit was found, tried, convicted and imprisoned. They made the decision to forgive him, I think largely for religious reasons (they were born-again Christians) and wrote to him in prison to tell him so. Though they forgave this man, they still believed (quite rightly of course) that it was right that he should serve a lengthy prison sentence. Though they weren't extracting vengence themselves, the punishment was being inflicted and they agreed with that, even though they had forgiven the killer. It seems to me it is possible to want someone to be punished, even if you forgive them.
Originally posted by SIP
It makes me wonder if James ever performed an unforgivable curse? I'm betting he did.Why? The nearest we get to finding out about what James did in VWI is when Harry remembers Voldemort killing him. There's nothing to suggest James attempted an Unforgiveable Curse of Voldy then - and if there is one situation where it would be completely excusable to use an Unforgiveable Curse, it's trying to stop Voldy murdering your wife and son. If he didn't do it then, I doubt he ever did.
Originally posted by SIP
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. That is why. :tu: Yes, I am inclined to agree with this. I think this might be part of what sets the Unforgiveable Curses apart from all other forms of magic. There probably are other ways to kill, cause pain and to impede free will, so perhaps what makes the Unforgiveable Curses so - well - unforgivebale is that they require a special kind of darkness from within - even evil.
Originally Posted by subtle science
Petty detail, but the question crossed my mind: how was Sirius planning to kill Pettigrew?He and Lupin both pointed their wands at Peter, so it was probably a spell they had in mind, rather than using a knife or turning Peter into Padfoot's RatSnack. :evil: One thing that interests me is that whatever they were planning, Sirius and Remus don't need to discuss it. It ties in with the notion that they were conforming to some pre-agreed Order or (more likely) Marauder code on dealing with traitors, along with Lupin's comment to Peter; 'You should have realised Peter, if Voldemort didn't kill you, then we would.' It seems like they all know something which isn't clearly expressed in words, because they all know how it works.
Originally posted by HermioneLuna
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.I wonder if Sirius and Remus would have been capable of using Avada Kedavra successfully, but for slightly different reasons. I'm inclined to agree with SIP and Chiev that Sirius was full of anger and hatred for Peter in that scene, which I also think is perfectly understandable under the circumstances - I wouldn't be able to face someone who had done what Peter did calmly either.

But I'm not sure that anger is the power behind a successful Avada Kedavra curse. We have never seen it used by someone who is in an intensly emotional, angry state. Voldemort was quite calm when he killed James, and only mildly annoyed when he killed Lily. Wormtail didn't appear to turn a hair as he AK'd Cedric, who he can't possibly have been angry with. Bellatrix tells Harry that his Cruciatus curse won't do much damage because he is using 'self - righteous anger', which isn't good enough to fuel an Unforgiveable Curse. I think self-righteous anger would be a pretty good description of Sirius' emotional state in the Shrieking Shack. His motivation is exactly the same as Harry's in the DoM - he wants to punish someone for killing someone he loved. We don't know whether or not Sirius planned to use Avada Kedavra on Peter, but I really wonder whether he would have been able to do it if he tried. Sirius gets a lot of criticism in this thread, but I don't think anyone really believes he is evil - if, as SIP suggests, evil is a necessary component in proper use of Unforgiveables, then Sirius wouldn't have been able to do it, for all his talk about killing Peter.
Originally posted by SIP
I'm enjoying your debate, but I have to say that it just seems that we have to look at what Sirius actually did, in order to decide if Sirius was reasonable and wanting to play "by the rules" or not.I agree, what Sirius does is more important than what he actually does. Sirius keeps saying he is going to kill Peter, but repeatedly fails to do so.

The day after the Potter's were killed, Sirius says he would have killed Peter, but Peter was 'too quick for him'. Yet Peter apparently had time to denounce Sirius as a traitor before blowing up the street - it takes longer to say 'Lily and James - how could you?' than it does to say 'Avada Kedavra!' Peter's denouncement gave Sirius time to kill him, but he didn't.

Sirius has many opportunities to kill Peter in the Shrieking Shack. Padfoot could have just broken the rat's neck, he could have used Ron's wand to kill Peter before Harry and Hermione showed up, he could have insisted on killing Peter without explaining it all to Harry, he could have refused to listen when Harry asked him not to do it. Time and again Sirius lets the chance to kill Peter slip through he fingers. Why? I'm inclined to agree with something Grrliz said about Sirius a while ago - when it comes to murder, Sirius is all talk. Wanting to kill someone if a very different thing from actually going through with it, and for all Sirius' ranting, raving and righteous anger he never goes through with it.
Originally posted by SIP
Whenever I think of the phrase "vengeance is a dish best eaten cold," I recall the book The Count of Monte Cristo, by Alexander Dumas, about the prisoner who is wrongly accused, escapes, lives as a pirate for years until he is wealthy, and then he returns to take revenge on everyone who has ever wronged him. He's almost able to act calmly, but his anger still fuels everything he does.Random aside - Stephen Fry, who narratives the UK Harry Potter audio books also published a novel called 'The Stars Tennis Balls', the story of which is basically the same as The Count of Monte Cristo, though in a different setting. It is a terrific book. (I love Stephen Fry!)

This is a fair point, but I think it’s the combination of wanting revenge, wanting justice to be done on Peter, and wanting to prevent more innocent lives from being lost that made them want to kill Peter themselves. Plus, I think Lupin and especially Sirius may have had reason to believe that the Ministry was unreliable and would somehow screw things up. After all, Sirius never even got a trial. Plus, if Peter was put in Azkaban, think how easy it would be for him to escape as a rat like Sirius did.

Yes, but the Ministry didn't know that Sirius was a dog, but the story would have to come out about them all if they turned Peter in. Otherwise, the ministry wouldn't believe it was true. Do you see the difference? Sirius is a "secret animagus," but with Peter they would know from the beginning.

I believe Sirius likely realizes that they had underestimated Peter’s capabilities at deception and cunning, so it’s plausible to believe that Sirius (and Lupin) figured that Peter could escape the Ministry's clutches. Especially since Peter had heard Sirius' entire story of how he himself escaped. So in the end, by wanting to kill Peter instead of letting the Ministry handle it, Sirius and Lupin were taking several things into account:

1) The fact that this was a very personal matter and that revenge did indeed factor largely into wanting to kill Peter.

2) A desire to see justice done by their own hands, because again, this is a very personal matter: Peter wronged them very deeply, and so justice done by their own hands seemed more fitting than having the Ministry take care of it.


Yes, I think revenge is always personal. But that is a rationalization, in a way, that doesn't float. Most murder is personal, too, and is done by someone the victim knows. Lots of crimes are personal, from abuse to robbery, but I don't think that is a valid excuse.


3) Killing Peter would have made sure right then and there that no more innocent lives were lost at Peter's hand, whereas there is a certain degree of uncertainty in handing Peter over to the authorities; after all, it's possible they could screw up.

I find it fascinating that there are these "nameless" Muggles who died at Peter's hand, yet we never find out anything about them - not even where the crime happened. Do we? All we know is that Sirius caught up with Peter the next day, and he was on foot when he left Hagrid. But he could apparate anywhere, couldn't he?

Sirius doesn't seem concerned with any lives lost except James and Lily. That's just an observation, but I don't really believe Sirius was thinking about other innocent lives lost in the past or in the future. I feel he is focused on the betrayal aspect, since that is all he talks about.


4) Now that Lupin and Sirius realized just how cunning and deceptive Peter really was, and judging from the fact that Peter had heard Sirius' entire "escape story" from Azkaban, I feel they could have realized that Peter would probably be able to escape the dementors in due time as a rat. After all, it would be much easier for a rat to slip through the bars of a cell, and as a rat is so much easier to remain hidden even if Sirius and Remus told the authorities about his ability to transform.

I have a problem with the idea that Lupin and Black were worried about Peter escaping. If they really were worried, then why handcuff him? It reminds me of that old Steve Martin joke back in the 70's about finding cat prints all over his car and needing a pair of "cat handcuffs." They should have used "rat handcuffs," instead of something so large that Peter could just slip out of it. The second time through Prisoner of Azkaban, I was thinking, "Why don't they use a net of some kind? Or a box and make it "impervious?" And now, since we know that an animagus can be trapped in a jar by a little girl and made to "reform," as in Hermione with Rita Skeeter, then I just wonder why Sirius and Lupin didn't think a little more carefully about the "dangerous" Peter Pettigrew?

It really makes no sense that two such supposedly "clever" wizards could lose their prisoner so quickly, and they didn't take the full moon into account either? As Dumbledore said, most wizards aren't logical, I suppose.

Quote from silver ink pot:
It really makes no sense that two such supposedly "clever" wizards could lose their prisoner so quickly, and they didn't take the full moon into account either? As Dumbledore said, most wizards aren't logical, I suppose.

This is completely off topic but where does Dumbledore make that quote?

I think silver ink pot may have meant Hermione, at the end of PS/SS, if she was thinking what I'm thinking of; it comes when Hermione realizes what Snape has done to protect the Stone:

"Brilliant," said Hermione. "This isn't magic--it's logic--a puzzle. A lot of the greatest wizards haven't got an ounce of logic, they'd be stuck here forever" (p. 285, US paper).

I still think a major point about the Unforgivable Curses is the emotion that is emphasized each time Harry wants to use Cruciatus: it's not anger. Both times the point is explicitly made that Harry's primary emotion is hatred. And Sirius and Lupin are certainly filled with hate in the Shrieking Shack, and I have no doubt that hate factors into Pettigrew's actions--hate for Voldemort, hate for himself...and I'll even venture hate for the rest Marauders, whom he hero-worshipped but never quite measured up to.

I know this is directed at HermioneLuna, but I'd like to make a point in response. I think it goes back to what she was saying about their being a difference between condoning something and understanding it.I’m sorry, but I don’t remember that as being part of what she said; although, I do recognize a difference between understanding and condoning.

Actually, after having read her post again, it seems that she might be saying that Sirius isn’t the only character to express that killing is wrong and then try to kill someone at some time and that Sirius can’t be blamed for this inconsistency because he is not the only character to manifest such inconsistencies. I disagree with this, too. I think hypocrtical is going too far, though there is an inconsistency. Sirius was right to condemn Crouch for allowing Unforgiveable Curses to be used as a normal part of the fight against Voldemort, for sending people to Azkaban without a trial and generally acting without due process of law. His confrontation with Peter is such an extraordinary situation that it is easy for me at least to see how he might not act within his own usual moral codes. Peter isn't just 'a suspect', Sirius knows for a fact that he is a traitor and a mass-murderer, furthermore he was willing to help Voldemort kill Sirius' best friend and Godson.Sirius’s desire to kill Peter is understandable; however, I think it is hypocritical for him to condemn someone else for the same thing he planned to do. What if Barty Crouch Sr was right about the “suspects” being guilty 99.99999% of the time and had ironclad proof (essentially, Sirius was the only mistake)? Wouldn’t Sirius still think Crouch Sr was just as wrong to use morally questionable tactics that 99.99999% of the time? What’s the difference between Crouch Sr and Sirius in that situation? It’s really unlikely that a situation like Sirius’s with someone being framed so well occurred more than once. Losing sight of your own usual moral code in the face of such extreme provocation is not hypocrisy, merely fallibility. Fortunately most of us will never have our own morality pushed to such an extreme, but I'm sure many people if so tested might be found wanting. For instance, I'm morally opposed to the death penalty, but if someone I loved had been murdered and I stood facing them with a gun within reach, I couldn't say for sure that morality would win over emotion, so I can understand someone taking the choice to kill, whilst still believing that killing is wrong.What would be hypocrisy would be if you fully intended to murder someone who you knew had killed a loved one, were stopped by someone else, and then spoke against the death penalty for other people. This is much closer to Sirius’s situation. The hypocrisy might be lessened to an inconsistency by Sirius acknowledging the inconsistency and expressing relief that he didn’t kill Peter. When I replied to HermioneLuna, I allowed for Sirius having a change of heart about it as a possibility; however, I’m not convinced at all that he isn’t sorry he didn’t kill Peter. As a general point, I agree with this. But I don't think Sirius should have forgiven Peter, and I'm not sure that even forgiveness cancels out the need for vengence.Sirius doesn’t have to have forgiven Peter—he could still choose not to seek vengeance (a la Harry); however, by seeking vengeance, I think it shows that there was no forgiveness.For instance, I saw an interesting documentary programme about forgiveness recently. It featured a couple whose son had been murdered. The culprit was found, tried, convicted and imprisoned. They made the decision to forgive him, I think largely for religious reasons (they were born-again Christians) and wrote to him in prison to tell him so. Though they forgave this man, they still believed (quite rightly of course) that it was right that he should serve a lengthy prison sentence. Though they weren't extracting vengence themselves, the punishment was being inflicted and they agreed with that, even though they had forgiven the killer. It seems to me it is possible to want someone to be punished, even if you forgive them.This is a different situation. I don’t see wanting someone in prison for a crime for which prison is appropriate as vengeance. If this man murdered one person, it’s possible he could murder again. Keeping him in prison protects society, which is separate from vengeance.

Quote from Subtle Science:
I still think a major point about the Unforgivable Curses is the emotion that is emphasized each time Harry wants to use Cruciatus: it's not anger. Both times the point is explicitly made that Harry's primary emotion is hatred. And Sirius and Lupin are certainly filled with hate in the Shrieking Shack, and I have no doubt that hate factors into Pettigrew's actions--hate for Voldemort, hate for himself...and I'll even venture hate for the rest Marauders, whom he hero-worshipped but never quite measured up to.

The thing I don't understand about the Unforgivables is that you don't seem to need to hate the object on which they are cast. Pettigrew AKs Cedric without ever knowing him but the curse still works. I highly doubt that Pettigrew trully and totally hated Cedric. And the spiders that Crouch Jr. tortured, controled, and killed didn't seem to cause much hate in him.

It would take an almost saintly disposition not to want to kill someone under these circumstances, even if it doesn't make it right to do so. For me this is the difference between understanding and condoning - condoning would be to say that Sirius should have killed Peter. :tu: Exactly- I agree completely.

Losing sight of your own usual moral code in the face of such extreme provocation is not hypocrisy, merely fallibility.:tu: I think this is the heart of it right here. Both Sirius and Lupin momentarily lost sight of their moral codes precisely because of the personal nature of this situation. The point is that when you are looking at the situation objectively from the outside, it is easy to see that what Sirius and Lupin were doing was unequivocally wrong and that they don’t appear to be thinking about things clearly. But from their point of view, I believe they felt it was the only way, and they felt that it was the best way to handle things. What Peter did hit far too close to home for them not to want to avenge the Potters’ deaths and the hard life of suffering that Harry was forced to endure on his account. This act alone hardly warrants them to be branded hypocrites, but rather as shaggy said, it shows that even the best of us are capable of making mistakes- even big ones. When loved ones are involved, it is extremely hard to be objective without seeming indifferent. The fact that both Sirius and Lupin were prepared to kill Peter demonstrates just how much they cared for James, Lily, and Harry because it shows how far they were willing to go for their loved ones. Again, this doesn’t make it right, but it is entirely understandable to me as something that a fallible human being might do in this situation.

What would be hypocrisy would be if you fully intended to murder someone who you knew had killed a loved one, were stopped by someone else, and then spoke against the death penalty for other people. This is much closer to Sirius’s situation. The hypocrisy might be lessened to an inconsistency by Sirius acknowledging the inconsistency and expressing relief that he didn’t kill Peter. When I replied to HermioneLuna, I allowed for Sirius having a change of heart about it as a possibility; however, I’m not convinced at all that he isn’t sorry he didn’t kill Peter.Sirius doesn’t specifically speak against murder though in that quote- he speaks against the Unforgivables. And though it seems like he was about to use the AK curse on Peter, there really isn't a way to be 100% sure. What we do know is that Sirius doesn't agree with the authorization to use the Unforgivables against people who were suspected of being traitors. As has already been mentioned here, Peter wasn't just suspected- it was known that he was a traitor who wouldn't hesistate to harm his friends as well as Harry when it suited him. That said, I think this is really what Sirius is totally against: the use of the Unforgivables against people who are merely suspected of being traitors without giving them any chance to prove themselves innocent (though I'm sure he is also against the use of the Unforgivables unless it's absolutely necessary). After all, this is exactly what happened to him. It is also the mentalitiy that Sirius is against, the whole "kill/convict first, investigate later" kind of mindset. I'd say this is something that Sirius feels strongly against.

As for whether or not Sirius is sorry he didn't kill Peter- well, we can't know for sure, but I don't recall Sirius ever mentioning the incident again during either GoF or OotP. I do have a gut feeling that Sirius didn't sit in regret at having not killed Peter, but I'm sure he did think that things would have been a lot better if he had.

There's nothing to suggest James attempted an Unforgiveable Curse of Voldy then - and if there is one situation where it would be completely excusable to use an Unforgiveable Curse, it's trying to stop Voldy murdering your wife and son. If he didn't do it then, I doubt he ever did.I agree, there’s nothing to suggest that James ever performed any Unforgivable Curses. I doubt he ever did, even when battling Voldemort, because let’s not forget that James also had the quality of nobility. The way he’s described by Voldemort as dying ‘straight-backed and proud’ indicates nobility. I’ll admit there is a possibility he could have used an Unforgivable Curse while he was battling Voldemort, but given James’ characteristics as an adult, I don’t feel it’s very likely.

I'm inclined to agree with something Grrliz said about Sirius a while ago - when it comes to murder, Sirius is all talk. Wanting to kill someone if a very different thing from actually going through with it, and for all Sirius' ranting, raving and righteous anger he never goes through with it.:tu: Now that you mention it, this makes a lot of sense. Though I really have to wonder if perhaps this last time, Sirius really was planning to go through with it. JKR has said that Azkaban did unhinge Sirius a bit, so I’m not sure Sirius wasn’t planning to kill Peter in the Shrieking Shack. It says that Lupin has a pretty hard time restraining Sirius, and only when he mentions Harry having the right to know the truth does Sirius back down. I think Sirius is torn here with really wanting to commit the murder he was imprisoned for (as it says in the book) and with respecting what Harry wanted. And in the end, he chose Harry.

Yes, but the Ministry didn't know that Sirius was a dog, but the story would have to come out about them all if they turned Peter in. Otherwise, the ministry wouldn't believe it was true. Do you see the difference? Sirius is a "secret animagus," but with Peter they would know from the beginning. Yes, you’re right- at least the Ministry would have a heads-up with Peter.

It really makes no sense that two such supposedly "clever" wizards could lose their prisoner so quickly, and they didn't take the full moon into account either? As Dumbledore said, most wizards aren't logical, I suppose.It actually makes a lot of sense: they were in the thick of things, experiencing a highly-emotional situation in which they lost sight of their objectivity and moral codes. It’s not that Lupin and Sirius aren’t logical, it’s just that in this instance, things hit a little too close to home, and they did not think clearly owing to the extenuating circumstances. Again, I don’t condone what they were about to do, but I do understand it and I understand that they are fallible human beings who don’t always think clearly despite the fact that they are both very smart.

The thing I don't understand about the Unforgivables is that you don't seem to need to hate the object on which they are cast. Pettigrew AKs Cedric without ever knowing him but the curse still works. I highly doubt that Pettigrew trully and totally hated Cedric. And the spiders that Crouch Jr. tortured, controled, and killed didn't seem to cause much hate in him.It's a difficult issue. I'd say that it's a general hatred for humanity that allows the Unforgivables to used, but that doesn't explain how Dumbledore may be powerful enough to use them. Perhaps that's a word-play? Dumbledore is powerful enough, but his nobility prevents him from using the Unforgivables--he's both too moral to use them and physically incapabable because of his love for humanity?

It's a difficult issue. I'd say that it's a general hatred for humanity that allows the Unforgivables to used, but that doesn't explain how Dumbledore may be powerful enough to use them. Perhaps that's a word-play? Dumbledore is powerful enough, but his nobility prevents him from using the Unforgivables--he's both too moral to use them and physically incapabable because of his love for humanity?Does it ever say that Dumbledore is capable of performing the Unforgivables specifically? Because I recall McGonagall saying in PS/SS only that Dumbledore was capable of using the Dark Arts, but was too noble to do so. Now, obviously the Unforgivables fall under the category of Dark Arts, but not all Dark Arts are Unforgivables. So do you think it's possible that Dumbledore can perform some Dark Arts but not the Unforgivables? To me, this seems like a much more likely possibility, because I agree that a "general hatred for humanity" is what allows the Unforgivables to be performed (I like the way you put that :tu: ).

Sirius’s desire to kill Peter is understandable; however, I think it is hypocritical for him to condemn someone else for the same thing he planned to do. What if Barty Crouch Sr was right about the “suspects” being guilty 99.99999% of the time and had ironclad proof (essentially, Sirius was the only mistake)? Wouldn’t Sirius still think Crouch Sr was just as wrong to use morally questionable tactics that 99.99999% of the time? What’s the difference between Crouch Sr and Sirius in that situation? The difference is that Crouch, unlike Sirius, didn't know for sure that suspects where guilty and the emotional factor. Sirius had just escaped 12 years in Azkaban and was face to face with the person who was responsible for the death of his best friend, his wife and the attempted murder of Sirius' godson. It is normal to react differently when in a personal situation than sitting in an office talking about hypothetical suspects. That's why police and legal forces exist - because human beings often fail to act in a rational way in these situations. 'The system' is supposed to be above such over-riding emotion.

To put it another way, I don't think it is hypocritical of me to expect the police to act more fairly towards a murder suspect than I might to towards someone I knew had murdered someone I loved.

BTW, I'm sure Sirius is one in a million, but it is fairly unlikely that the Ministry rounded up that many suspected Death Eaters! ;)
Originally posted by Chiev
What would be hypocrisy would be if you fully intended to murder someone who you knew had killed a loved one, were stopped by someone else, and then spoke against the death penalty for other people. Harry's intervention might have prompted Sirius to change his mind, but Harry didn't force Sirius to spare Peter. It was his choice - if Sirius had really wanted to kill Peter anyway, Harry wouldn't have been able to stop him. Sirius and Remus chose to spare Peter at Harry's request. Crouch's orders to the Aurors left no room for listening to pleas for clemency.
Originally posted by Chiev
This is a different situation. I don’t see wanting someone in prison for a crime for which prison is appropriate as vengeance. If this man murdered one person, it’s possible he could murder again. Keeping him in prison protects society, which is separate from vengeance.Yes, of course it is, and I don't want to make a big deal of it because it isn't hugely relevant. My point was merely that forgiveness doesn't necessarily preclude a desire for wrongdoing to be punished. In some circumstances, it actually depends upon it.
Originally posted by Chiev
I've always heard "Revenge is a dish best served cold." I've always attributed the quote to James Bond (or Ian Fleming, I suppose). Coldness doesn't preclude anger or hatred, though. I've always thought of the use of "cold" as implying a lack of compassion, although it could also imply the phrase "in cold blood" (ie. with premeditation).I'm not sure about the origins of the phrase, but I've always thought it meant dispassionately, not in the heat of the moment.
Originally posted by subtle science
I still think a major point about the Unforgivable Curses is the emotion that is emphasized each time Harry wants to use Cruciatus: it's not anger. Both times the point is explicitly made that Harry's primary emotion is hatred. And Sirius and Lupin are certainly filled with hate in the Shrieking Shack, and I have no doubt that hate factors into Pettigrew's actions--hate for Voldemort, hate for himself...and I'll even venture hate for the rest Marauders, whom he hero-worshipped but never quite measured up to.I'd say that hatred is a result of their anger, so anger is still the primary emotion. There aren't many times when someone experiences hatred without anger, and the anger usually comes first, I think. The two are pretty inter-related though.

It still leaves a major problem with Avada Kedavra, as Wormtail surely didn't hate Cedric did he? :huh:

I'm coming to think that the emotional force needed to perform the Unforgiveable Curses is something deeper than normal, though negative, human emotions, however powerful they may be. Harry was explosively angry with Bellatrix and really hated her, but he couldn't perform the Cruciatus Curse properly. Perhaps these spells really do require something much more sinister than the usual range of human emotions - evil, as SIP suggested? :huh:

EDITED TO ADD - I just went to fetch myself some ice-cream after this post (all that talk of dishes served cold was giving me cravings) when a thought hit me about the Unforgiveable Curses.

Perhaps what is actually needed to successfully perform an Unforgiveable Curse is actually a lack of emotion? Bellatrix talks about anger not being sufficient, that it is necessary to enjoy causing pain to carry out the Cruciatus Curse. Voldemort and Wormtail both use Avada Kedavra without any visible display of emotion.

I'm thinking of a couple of sayings about evil - 'the banality of evil' and evil being defined as 'lack of empathy'. The thought behind these notions is that evil isn't the result of overwhelming emotion, quite the opposite, it is about a lack of human emotion. If Unforgiveable Curses require the caster to be cold, calculating and unemotional that implies a degree of evil in them. Unforgiveables are not 'crimes of passion' which is why they are unforgiveable, as well as for their consequences. A wizard might cause pain or even death in other ways, particularly in the heat of battle or an emotional moment and though this is still wrong, it is forgiveable, or potentially forgiveable. It is the difference between killing or causing pain in anger - a lapse in judgement and killing for the pleasure of it, not caring who the victim is. It isn't that the former is OK, just that the latter is even more wrong, and sinister.

ALSO ETA

Dumbledore says 'Voldemort had powers I will never have.' to which McGonagal says, 'Only because you are too - well - noble to use them.' (PS The Boy Who Lived, p14 UK paperback) It is pretty vague!

Quote from Chievrefueil:
It's a difficult issue. I'd say that it's a general hatred for humanity that allows the Unforgivables to used, but that doesn't explain how Dumbledore may be powerful enough to use them. Perhaps that's a word-play? Dumbledore is powerful enough, but his nobility prevents him from using the Unforgivables--he's both too moral to use them and physically incapabable because of his love for humanity?
I'd probably say the first one about Dumbledore being to moral to use them, I haven't really seen any love of humanity from him (did I miss that?). It could also simply be that we haven't really seen Dumbledore pushed yet in combat...the duel in MoM had the feeling of a mental chess match not an out and out fight like Harry and Bellatrix.

One can be filled with hatred and yet not have it directed at a specific target, whether it is Cedric or a spider. Both Pettigrew and Crouch Junior are DEs--a profession which in and of itself seems to require a degree of hate. And, as I said before, Pettigrew seems filled with hate; Crouch Junior obviously feels tremendous hatred towards his father.

Anger doesn't do it. Anybody can be angry. Hatred takes much more--you're playing on a whole new field there.

By the way, nice points, chievrefueil. We're all getting quite philiosophical here...!
ETA:
shaggydogstail: I didn't say that anger didn't figure into it; I merely pointed out that the narrative in the books, each time, points out that it's hatred that is the primary motive. Anger is clearly part of it, but the common denominator for Harry both times is an emphasis on the hate. I'm just pointing out what is said in GoF and OotP--not actually my opinion on it.

Dumbledore and the Unforgivables (a new alternative rock band)--
This is the exchange between Voldemort and Dumbledore in the Ministry at the end of OotP:

"You do not seek to kill me, Dumbledore?" called Voldemort, his scarlet eyes narrowed over the top of the shield. "Above such brutality, are you?"

"We both know that there are other ways of destroying a man, Tom," Dumbledore said calmly, continuing to walk toward Voldemort as though he had not a fear in the world, as though nothing had happened to interrupt his stroll up the hall. "Merely taking your life would not satisfy me, I admit--"

"There is nothing worse than death, Dumbledore!" snarled Voldemort.

"You are quite wrong," said Dumbledore, still closing in upon Voldemort and speaking as lightly as though they were discussing the matter over drinks...."Indeed, your failure to understand that there are things worse than death has always been your greatest weakness--" (p. 814, US hardcover).

Very, very interesting what Dumbledore says there about not being satisfied with "merely taking your life"--now there's a touch of vengeance in there. Interesting combination of both Dumbledore's nobility (Voldemort's baiting him with the idea that Dumbledore is above using the killing curse--which Voldemort had used on the previous page) and then his own acknowledgment of a very flawed, human thought of not just killing Voldemort....

Essentially, yes. The part about the result being the same (with Avada Kedavra versus, say, a knife) makes no sense to me. However, you go on to say that Sirius can't be blamed (your wording) for saying killing is bad and then killing someone, if the situation arose. What about that statement doesn't condone Sirius killing someone? If killing is condoned, it's the same as saying it's right.

I never said Sirius would be right in killing someone. There's a difference between understanding and condoning. I think it's understandable that Sirius wanted to kill Peter. If you don't think so, well that's your right, but I don't see how you can't see that. Just because I say someone can't be blamed for saying killing is wrong, but still killing doesn't mean I condone it. There are some situations where it is plainly, simply, and purely unavoidable. I'm not saying Sirius killing Peter was unavoidable, but I definitely think it's understandable.

There's more I could say on the subject, but I think shaggy and RemusLupinFan convered it quite nicely. In fact, I think they covered everything I was going to say to this entire post, so :tu: RemusLupinFan and shaggy.


What would vengeance be without hate? Hate is what keeps one from forgiving. Lack of forgiveness is what makes vengeance seem necessary.

I don't think it's just hate that keeps someone from forgiving. Nothing is as simple as that. If one were to function under the idea that love is what makes people forgive and the opposite of love is what keeps them from forgiving, then it isn't hate. It's indifference. You can't hate without having loved, so it's an emotion that's there to some degree. The complete lack of emotion toward someone is what makes them not care what happens to another. Sirius wanted Peter dead and it's understandable that he wanted Peter dead. He didn't care how Peter died or who did it, since he was willing to hand Peter to Dumbledore or the dementors. I know it's obvious that Sirius hates Peter, so you don't have to point it out to me. But I think it's also obvious that Sirius doesn't care about Peter or what happens to him. If Sirius were that bent on getting to Peter, he wouldn't have kept himself safe and in hiding in Goblet of Fire, nor would he have only left Grimmauld Place three times in Order of the Phoenix

And Sirius is playing judge and jury. I'm not saying it isn't human nature or understandable. However, it isn't legal or exactly full of mercy either.

Well, it isn't like the situation Sirius was in. He knew the whole story, unlike Crouch. A trial would have only proved he was right. Peter confessed. It wasn't just Sirius deciding Peter was guilty based on circumstancial evidence. It's easy to say what should have been done when looking at it from an outsider's perspective. It's not so easy when in the middle of that sort of emotional turmoil.

I believe they saw it as a way to prevent more innocent lives from being lost at Peter’s hand – he certainly proved to both of them (and to readers) that he was more than capable of taking innocent lives.

I agree. I don't think there was any way Peter was going to go the entire way to the castle without trying something to save himself. He's very opportunistic and he would take anything that even resembled a chance to escape or harm his captors.

This also shows considerable restraint on Sirius' part, because after all, he was absolutely itching to kill Peter for 12 years now, and after Harry intervenes, he is willing to drop his 12-year vendetta and do what Harry says.

I agree. Sirius could easily have ignored Harry and cast Avada kedavra or something else on Peter and hope Harry would be able to forgive him. Instead, he puts aside his own will an follows someone else's.

I’m sorry, but I don’t remember that as being part of what she said

I apologize. I thought my saying that motive had to be considered would at least imply that Sirius actions have to be viewed in light of the situation and in that situation, it was understandale that Sirius wanted to take vengeance on Peter.

What if Barty Crouch Sr was right about the “suspects” being guilty 99.99999% of the time and had ironclad proof (essentially, Sirius was the only mistake)?

But we know Crouch Sr. wasn't always right. We also know Sirius was.

Quote from Subtle Science:
One can be filled with hatred and yet not have it directed at a specific target, whether it is Cedric or a spider. Both Pettigrew and Crouch Junior are DEs--a profession which in and of itself seems to require a degree of hate. And, as I said before, Pettigrew seems filled with hate; Crouch Junior obviously feels tremendous hatred towards his father.
But this raises another question in my mind. Did Dumbledore allow Crouch Jr. to perform the Unforgivable Curses in front of the students and on them? The books seem to imply that Dumbledore gave his nod to it (it fits perfectly with my reading of Dumbledore). Then doesn't Dumbledore believe that Moody has it in him to use the Unforgivables as well? Dumbledore's nobility seems not to extend to stopping others from teaching it to students under his care.

I've always heard "Revenge is a dish best served cold." I've always attributed the quote to James Bond (or Ian Fleming, I suppose).I think it's an old Sicilian proverb, actually. The first time I ever encountered it was in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country where they claim it to be a Klingon proverb :rolleyes:. Quentin Tarantino quoted it in Kill Bill, but also gave it Klingon origins. :D

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.I've been thinking about this for a while, trying to figure out how it works. The way I'm seeing it, while you can control someone when they are under the Imperius Curse, you can't pass on your skills to that person. It's about a transfer of control, not a transfer of talent. So, to use a silly made-up and convoluted example, if Ludo Bagman were to use the Imperius Curse on Crabbe or Goyle, he could control them to the extent of saying things like "Fly left" or "Hit that bludger at Potter" or "Get out of Malfoy's way, you great oaf" but he couldn't actually make them better Quidditch players just because he himself had a particularly high degree of skill in the Quidditch department. So, in my interpretation of it, Fake Moody is giving Krum the direction to perform the Cruciatus Curse on Cedric, but the skill necessary to perform it comes from Cedric.

But I'm not sure that anger is the power behind a successful Avada Kedavra curse. We have never seen it used by someone who is in an intensly emotional, angry state. Voldemort was quite calm when he killed James, and only mildly annoyed when he killed Lily. Wormtail didn't appear to turn a hair as he AK'd Cedric, who he can't possibly have been angry with. Bellatrix tells Harry that his Cruciatus curse won't do much damage because he is using 'self - righteous anger', which isn't good enough to fuel an Unforgiveable Curse. :tu: Interesting that in Bellatrix's description of using the Unforgiveables she says nothing of an emotional state -- just that you have to "mean" them. What does that even mean? Blast her for being so vague! "Meaning" to do something doesn't always require emotion, I don't think. I "mean" to eat this piece of pie -- and so I did. (Yum!) Granted, killing someone is a shade different from eating pie :rolleyes:, but perhaps if you were cold and calculating enough like Voldemort or even Wormtail, you can mean it without feeling it? (I apologize if someone already mentioned that, I had a lot of posts to read through.) It's almost as if the attitude is a really harsh version of "you gotta do what you gotta do". Didn't Peter use the Imperius Curse on Bertha Jorkins to bring her to Voldemort? (Actually, I'm not sure it says, but let's pretend for a moment it does.) I'm sure Peter doesn't have a great deal of emotional feelings about Bertha*, and yet he is able to control her -- out of necessity. In our eyes, it doesn't seem like a "necessity" for Voldemort to have killed James or Lily or Bertha or Frank Bryce, but for him it was -- he meant to kill them beacuse he needed to kill them.

*Unless he's somehow related to the whole "Who did Bertha see kissing?" thing

Also, Fake Moody is the opposite of forthcoming on information as to what kind of strength / emotion is needed to muster up an Unforgiveable.

Also: some lovely discussion on vengeance and stuff, although I think I'll steer clear of that one this time round. ;)

But this raises another question in my mind. Did Dumbledore allow Crouch Jr. to perform the Unforgivable Curses in front of the students and on them? The books seem to imply that Dumbledore gave his nod to it (it fits perfectly with my reading of Dumbledore). Then doesn't Dumbledore believe that Moody has it in him to use the Unforgivables as well? Dumbledore's nobility seems not to extend to stopping others from teaching it to students under his care.

Faux Mad Eye Moody didn't teach any student an Unforgivable Curse. He showed them what they were and the effects of them. However, there was never a time when he asked the students to perform an Unforgivable.

Quote from HermioneLuna:
Faux Mad Eye Moody didn't teach any student an Unforgivable Curse. He showed them what they were and the effects of them. However, there was never a time when he asked the students to perform an Unforgivable.
Sorry about that...Moody never taught the curses simply showed their effects (isn't that still risky? Hermione has shown herself to do a lot of independent research and what about other students?) .

Still Dumbledore has no problem asking a teacher under him to use the Unforgivables even if it was on spiders. Seems a little odd to me :huh: .

Sorry about that...Moody never taught the curses simply showed their effects (isn't that still risky? Hermione has shown herself to do a lot of independent research and what about other students?) .

Still Dumbledore has no problem asking a teacher under him to use the Unforgivables even if it was on spiders. Seems a little odd to me :huh: .

For some reason, I just don't see Hermione running off to the library to see exactly how to cast a spell that causes unbearable pain on someone. And I don't think many of the other students would want to do that either. Yes, I know there are more Unforgivables than the Cruciatus Curse. I was simply using that as an example.

Besides, I doubt there's any books in the Hogwarts libraries that teach students how to cast Unforgivables. There's no reason an eleven year old would need to know something like that.

The reason Dumbledore asked Moody to teach the Unforgivables is explained in the books. Dumbledore wanted the students to know what spells like the Imperious Curse felt like. I doubt very much that he'd ask Moody to perform the Cruciatus or Avada Kedavara on any student. And remember, he didn't know it was Crouch Jr. doing the teaching. He trusted Moody not to cross a line in his lessons.

Also, I think it's better that Dumbledore allow his students to know that those types of curses exist rather than let them wander into the Second War blind. It's better that they know about the dangers, rather than be oblivious to them.

Besides, I doubt there's any books in the Hogwarts libraries that teach students how to cast Unforgivables. There's no reason an eleven year old would need to know something like that.If there is a book on it, I imagine it's locked up tight in the Restricted Section and only NEWT level DADA students would be allowed access to it (pure speculation, of course).

The reason Dumbledore asked Moody to teach the Unforgivables is explained in the books. Dumbledore wanted the students to know what spells like the Imperious Curse felt like. I doubt very much that he'd ask Moody to perform the Cruciatus or Avada Kedavara on any student.Yup, the only Unforgiveable that Faux Moody performed on the students was the one that is probably easiest to fight and doesn't cause permanent damage -- the Imperius Curse. For the Cruciatus and AK he demonstrated on an engorged spider, not the students (well, obviously).

The difference is that Crouch, unlike Sirius, didn't know for sure that suspects where guilty and the emotional factor. Sirius had just escaped 12 years in Azkaban and was face to face with the person who was responsible for the death of his best friend, his wife and the attempted murder of Sirius' godson. It is normal to react differently when in a personal situation than sitting in an office talking about hypothetical suspects. That's why police and legal forces exist - because human beings often fail to act in a rational way in these situations. 'The system' is supposed to be above such over-riding emotion.The thing is, though, that it's not Crouch Sr who would be performing the Unforgivable curses, but the Aurors in the field. The Aurors might experience emotion or fear associated with the suspects. It's hard for me the believe that most of the Aurors wouldn't have personally lost friends, family, or colleagues due to the Death Eaters. The Aurors might feel that they have ironclad proof of the suspects' guilt, as well--maybe even a gloating confession. I don't see that as being any different from Sirius's position in the Shrieking Shack, yet Sirius disapproves. BTW, I'm sure Sirius is one in a million, but it is fairly unlikely that the Ministry rounded up that many suspected Death Eaters! ;) Too many decimal places, huh? :lol:Harry's intervention might have prompted Sirius to change his mind, but Harry didn't force Sirius to spare Peter. It was his choice - if Sirius had really wanted to kill Peter anyway, Harry wouldn't have been able to stop him. Sirius and Remus chose to spare Peter at Harry's request. Crouch's orders to the Aurors left no room for listening to pleas for clemency.No, I don't think that's true. The Aurors would've had discretion over what spells they used. That's why Sirius can comment that Moody brought the suspects back alive "whenever possible." I'm not sure about the origins of the phrase, but I've always thought it meant dispassionately, not in the heat of the moment.I tried to google the phrase. An online phrase dictionary didn't have it, but had a discussion forum in which most people interpreted the phrase the same as you. (They were all British, too.) A dictionary site traces the phrase back to the French story "Les Liaisons Dangereuses."Perhaps what is actually needed to successfully perform an Unforgiveable Curse is actually a lack of emotion? Bellatrix talks about anger not being sufficient, that it is necessary to enjoy causing pain to carry out the Cruciatus Curse. Voldemort and Wormtail both use Avada Kedavra without any visible display of emotion.This seems reasonable. :tu:I'd probably say the first one about Dumbledore being to moral to use them, I haven't really seen any love of humanity from him (did I miss that?). No? Dumbledore is described as noble and is the "wise mentor" to Harry (fulfilling the role of Gandalf or Obi Wan Kenobi). He is a hero who defeated the most evil wizard before Voldemort. He is very forgiving and known for giving people second chances (most notably Snape). I just think that there aren't characters like that who don't also have a love for humanity.I never said Sirius would be right in killing someone. There's a difference between understanding and condoning. I think it's understandable that Sirius wanted to kill Peter. If you don't think so, well that's your right, but I don't see how you can't see that. Just because I say someone can't be blamed for saying killing is wrong, but still killing doesn't mean I condone it. There are some situations where it is plainly, simply, and purely unavoidable. I'm not saying Sirius killing Peter was unavoidable, but I definitely think it's understandable.I already addressed all of these issues in post #418.I don't think it's just hate that keeps someone from forgiving. I never said it was. It's impossible for one to forgive, though, when one is holding on to the hate. It's a fine distinction from what you said.

Look at Snape. Do you think he could forgive James or Harry as long as he hates them? I don't.If one were to function under the idea that love is what makes people forgive and the opposite of love is what keeps them from forgiving, then it isn't hate.I never said that love is what makes one forgive either. Indifference could allow one to forgive as easily as love.You can't hate without having loved, so it's an emotion that's there to some degree.This is a cliche. Hate can exist without love and vice versa.I know it's obvious that Sirius hates Peter, so you don't have to point it out to me. But I think it's also obvious that Sirius doesn't care about Peter or what happens to him. I don't believe it's obvious at all. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Sirius had tried to kill Peter, if Peter had crossed his path. Just because Sirius didn't go out searching for Peter doesn't mean that he no longer desires revenge. For all any of us know, Sirius was keeping an ear out for news of Peter during GoF.I apologize. I thought my saying that motive had to be considered would at least imply that Sirius actions have to be viewed in light of the situation and in that situation, it was understandale that Sirius wanted to take vengeance on Peter.No. . .just because you bring up motive doesn't make me think that you're making a distinction between understanding something and condoning it. Such a distinction would need to be explicitly stated. Otherwise, it's just as reasonable to presume that you would condone Sirius killing Peter based on his circumstances and motivation as it is to guess that you would simply understand Sirius's desire to kill Peter.I've been thinking about this for a while, trying to figure out how it works. The way I'm seeing it, while you can control someone when they are under the Imperius Curse, you can't pass on your skills to that person. It's about a transfer of control, not a transfer of talent. So, to use a silly made-up and convoluted example, if Ludo Bagman were to use the Imperius Curse on Crabbe or Goyle, he could control them to the extent of saying things like "Fly left" or "Hit that bludger at Potter" or "Get out of Malfoy's way, you great oaf" but he couldn't actually make them better Quidditch players just because he himself had a particularly high degree of skill in the Quidditch department. So, in my interpretation of it, Fake Moody is giving Krum the direction to perform the Cruciatus Curse on Cedric, but the skill necessary to perform it comes from Cedric.Good argument--unfortunately what we really need is more information from JKR! :grumble:

I never said it was. It's impossible for one to forgive, though, when one is holding on to the hate. It's a fine distinction from what you said.

I never claimed you said it was. I was making a general statement. I think it's possible to forgive without forgetting. And while one may not hold the offense against the offender, I still think it's possible that bitterness might creep up from time to time. Not constantly, but occassionally.

I never said that love is what makes one forgive either. Indifference could allow one to forgive as easily as love.

I know you never said it. Again, I was making a general statement, which is why I said "one" and not "you" when making my point. If one doesn't feel anything towards another person, I see no reason why they would feel the need to forgive that person.


This is a cliche. Hate can exist without love and vice versa.

I don't think that because something is said quite often, it is automatically a cliche, even if you feel that way. No one is born with hatred in their hearts. It has to come from somewhere. I don't understand how one just decides to start hating someone. There has to be a catalyst for it. One may be able to exist without the other, that's true. Voldemort is filled with hate and has no room for love. But I don't believe it's always been that way. Hate grows our of love of something. Perhaps in Voldemort's case it's simply love for himself; to ensure his future and to make certain his goal is carried out.

I don't believe it's obvious at all. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Sirius had tried to kill Peter, if Peter had crossed his path. Just because Sirius didn't go out searching for Peter doesn't mean that he no longer desires revenge. For all any of us know, Sirius was keeping an ear out for news of Peter during GoF.

And for all we know, he wasn't. And I agree that Sirius would have killed Peter had he seen him again. My point, though, was that if Sirius wanted Peter killed a specific way, he would have been stubborn enough to persue that until one of their deaths. He wanted to kill Peter in PoA, but I don't recall him harping on it after the events of that book. Also, if Sirius were willing to allow the dementors to take Peter, he was indifferent to how Peter died, as long as he died. Maybe not completely in Prisoner of Azkaban. But perhaps afterwards.


No. . .just because you bring up motive doesn't make me think that you're making a distinction between understanding something and condoning it. Such a distinction would need to be explicitly stated. Otherwise, it's just as reasonable to presume that you would condone Sirius killing Peter based on his circumstances and motivation as it is to guess that you would simply understand Sirius's desire to kill Peter.

Which is why I apologized. While some people seemed to be able to figure it out, I guess it just wasn't clear enough. Now you know what I meant and it's clear that no person on this thread condones Sirius' actions, even if they are understandable.

Quote from Chievrefueil:
No? Dumbledore is described as noble and is the "wise mentor" to Harry (fulfilling the role of Gandalf or Obi Wan Kenobi). He is a hero who defeated the most evil wizard before Voldemort. He is very forgiving and known for giving people second chances (most notably Snape). I just think that there aren't characters like that who don't also have a love for humanity.
Just arguing over details :blush: . Love of humanity just seems like a vague term....as Snape would say it lacks subtly. Actually I agree with you 100% (except for the most evil wizard before Voldemort which is speculation that I hope to see cleared up in the next two books).


Quote from HermioneLuna:
Besides, I doubt there's any books in the Hogwarts libraries that teach students how to cast Unforgivables. There's no reason an eleven year old would need to know something like that.

The reason Dumbledore asked Moody to teach the Unforgivables is explained in the books. Dumbledore wanted the students to know what spells like the Imperious Curse felt like. I doubt very much that he'd ask Moody to perform the Cruciatus or Avada Kedavara on any student. And remember, he didn't know it was Crouch Jr. doing the teaching. He trusted Moody not to cross a line in his lessons.
Crouch Jr. apparently didn't cross the line either. I understand why Dumbledore lets the Unforgivables be taught it just seems odd if he disapproves so strongly to them. Maybe the hands-on Dark Arts in later years is the reason old Snape hasn't got the job? (Aside from some vague comment about it bringing out the worse in him)

And really how hard do you it is to teach yourself the Unforgivables? I bet if you gave Harry a jar of spiders and that one class by Crouch Jr. he would figure it out pretty quick though experimentation (not implying that he would but in theory and DADA is the one class that he’s better in then Hermione). Is this how it started with Snape...a little Dark Arts here and a little there?

I never claimed you said it was. I was making a general statement. I think it's possible to forgive without forgetting. And while one may not hold the offense against the offender, I still think it's possible that bitterness might creep up from time to time. Not constantly, but occassionally.This has nothing to do with the effect of hate on forgiveness, which is what the original discussion was about. :huh:I know you never said it. Again, I was making a general statement, which is why I said "one" and not "you" when making my point. If one doesn't feel anything towards another person, I see no reason why they would feel the need to forgive that person.Well, if someone was wronged by someone else, they might need to forgive that person. They wouldn't be able to do it while they were still harboring hatred for the past wrong; however, once they moved into the indifference stage, they would probably be able to forgive that person. Whether they would forgive or not is irrelevant because my argument was simply that the hatred would have to be lost first. I don't think that because something is said quite often, it is automatically a cliche, even if you feel that way.I don't think it's a cliche because it's said often, I just think it's a cliche. (In fact, I haven't heard it all that much.)No one is born with hatred in their hearts. It has to come from somewhere. I don't understand how one just decides to start hating someone. There has to be a catalyst for it. One may be able to exist without the other, that's true. Voldemort is filled with hate and has no room for love. But I don't believe it's always been that way. Hate grows our of love of something. Perhaps in Voldemort's case it's simply love for himself; to ensure his future and to make certain his goal is carried out.Hate doesn't grow out of love (if that's what you were trying to say). Does Snape's hatred for Harry in OotP have anything to do with love? No.

If a child is raised in a loveless environment, that child can learn to hate everything--much like Voldemort. And for all we know, he wasn't. And I agree that Sirius would have killed Peter had he seen him again. My point, though, was that if Sirius wanted Peter killed a specific way, he would have been stubborn enough to persue that until one of their deaths. He wanted to kill Peter in PoA, but I don't recall him harping on it after the events of that book. Also, if Sirius were willing to allow the dementors to take Peter, he was indifferent to how Peter died, as long as he died. Maybe not completely in Prisoner of Azkaban. But perhaps afterwards.I don't see what the manner in which Peter dies has to do with it. Your previous post said that Sirius was indifferent to Peter's fate--"Sirius doesn't care about Peter or what happens to him." That's what I was responding to. Perhaps you meant to say that Sirius doesn't care how Peter is killed? The meaning of that statement is quite different to what you actually said.

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

Darn good question!

i don't see how bellatrix used a counter curse to stop harry's cruciaticus. the book quote you gave said nothing of her stopping the curse. it's because he didn't enjoy inflicting pain on her that the curse didn't last. then she got up and said that she'd show him how it's really done. she never uttered a counter curse for the crucio.

It still leaves a major problem with Avada Kedavra, as Wormtail surely didn't hate Cedric did he? :huh:

It's interesting about Cedric, because I think he is sort of a composite of all the Marauders, at least in the way he looks and acts. He has grey eyes, like Sirius, and he's sort of the quiet type like Lupin, and he's a Quidditch star like James. He's everything that Peter isn't.

But that isn't why Peter kills him so easily. I think you were right when you wrote:

Perhaps what is actually needed to successfully perform an Unforgiveable Curse is actually a lack of emotion? Bellatrix talks about anger not being sufficient, that it is necessary to enjoy causing pain to carry out the Cruciatus Curse. Voldemort and Wormtail both use Avada Kedavra without any visible display of emotion.

I'm thinking of a couple of sayings about evil - 'the banality of evil' and evil being defined as 'lack of empathy'. The thought behind these notions is that evil isn't the result of overwhelming emotion, quite the opposite, it is about a lack of human emotion. If Unforgiveable Curses require the caster to be cold, calculating and unemotional that implies a degree of evil in them. Unforgiveables are not 'crimes of passion' which is why they are unforgiveable, as well as for their consequences. A wizard might cause pain or even death in other ways, particularly in the heat of battle or an emotional moment and though this is still wrong, it is forgiveable, or potentially forgiveable. It is the difference between killing or causing pain in anger - a lapse in judgement and killing for the pleasure of it, not caring who the victim is. It isn't that the former is OK, just that the latter is even more wrong, and sinister.

That's right. Peter seems to have no empathy, even for the son of his old best friend, James. I think the only reason he asks Voldemort to use another wizard instead of Harry as "the enemy" is that he owes Harry for sparing his life.

Empathy is what separates the psychopaths from the semi-normal folks who understand what others are feeling.

Also, in order to "enjoy" giving someone pain, you have to see them as objects, and not as a creature similar to yourself. You can't really be human and not feel the pain of the world, and that is why evil is so often called "inhuman."

Much agreement here, silver ink pot. It's the placement of self above others that marks the deviant minds of such as Pettigrew and Voldemort. They don't have any empathy with others; their concern is solely with their own welfare. At best, they regard others with contempt; their prevailing attitude seems to to be hate. Occasionally it flares into an anger--but most of the horror of the ending of GoF comes from the casually, coldly hateful actions.

One of the best examples of all of the above is Voldemort's requiring Pettigrew to cut off his hand: first, that act was the subject of a sick first-chapter joke, and then Voldemort continues to mock Pettigrew at the end of the novel for his fear and pain. Not only does Voldemort require such an extreme act--life-threatening, one might even venture to say--just to preserve his own existence, but he acts as though it is only to be expected: he is worthy of such. Interesting piece of trivia: Voldemort's first spell after his new incarnation? Crucio.

A stark contrast to this is the interaction between Dumbledore and Snape at the very end, when Dumbledore sends Snape off on his mission to reinitiate contact with Voldemort and the DEs. Whereas Voldemort merely demands Pettigrew's hand by reciting the incantation (and refers to him only as Wormtail, stripping him further of humanity, during the rebirth and its aftermath), Dumbledore couches his as a request: "'Severus,' said Dumbledore, turning to Snape, 'you know what I must ask you to do. If you are ready...if you are prepared...' 'I am,' said Snape" (p. 713, US paper). He addresses Snape by first name and he gives Snape the option of turning the mission down; and Snape states clearly his agreement. A complete reversal: the emphasis is on Snape as a person, an equal, who cannot be ordered and who has a will of his own, who deserves an address that is respectful.

It isn't a far stretch to interpret the mission as Snape's first contact with Voldemort, to go back and resume his role as spy by pretending to be a loyal DE--albeit one who was slow to respond to the Dark Mark summons (no, I don't believe Snape was in the graveyard; but that's for another discussion on another thread). This, too, is a life-threatening mission--hence Dumbledore's apprehension and wish of "Good luck." As I've mentioned over on Dev Of Sev: Snape better be prepared to produce the best Occlumency of his life--or he won't have a life. At the least, he's going to get what the other DEs got for their lack of loyalty, according to Voldemort: Crucio. Everything about the scene is a reversal of the interaction between Voldemort and Pettigrew and speaks volumes about the difference between Dumbledore and Voldemort as leaders.

This post is already way long (sorry), but I had to run off to GoF for the passages about teaching the UC's.

"but you're behind--very behind--on dealing with curses," said Moody. "So I'm here to bring you up to scratch on what wizards can do to each other" (p. 211).

"Curses. They come in many strengths and forms. Now, according to the Ministry of Magic, I'm supposed to teach you countercurses and leave it at that. I'm not supposed to show you what illegal Dark curses look like until you're in the sixth year. You're not supposed to be old enough to deal with it till then. But Professor Dumbledore's got a higher opinion of your nerves, he reckons you can cope, and I say, the sooner you know what you're up against, the better. How are you supposed to defend yourself against something you've never seen? A wizard who's about to put an illegal curse on you isn't going to tell you what he's about to do...." (pp. 211-212).

"[I]Avada Kedavra 's a curse that requires a powerful bit of magic behind it--you could all get your wands out now and point them at me and say the wrods, and I doubt I'd get so much as a nosebleed. But that doesn't matter. I'm not here to teach you how to do it" (p. 217).

To me, it sounds as though Dumbledore's planning for the imminent return of Voldemort and speeding up the curriculum, assuming the disguised DE is speaking the truth about Dumbledore's wishes. Dumbledore, of course, has known all along that Voldemort's on his way back--it's just been a matter of time. I wonder if the events at the Quidditch World Cup (in addition, obviously, to PoA) served as an alert that the time was at hand. His own personal barometer--Snape and his Dark Mark--will confirm it, but only after Moody's been hired and halfway through the academic year....

SIP, when I said Snape's anger had chilled, I didn't mean he wasn't still angry. He actually reminded me forcible of myself in the last part of the book. My anger is the worst when it is cold. My family and friends know this, and tread warily, those who don't, well, they are often surprised.


I've been thinking about this for a while, trying to figure out how it works. The way I'm seeing it, while you can control someone when they are under the Imperius Curse, you can't pass on your skills to that person. It's about a transfer of control, not a transfer of talent. So, to use a silly made-up and convoluted example, if Ludo Bagman were to use the Imperius Curse on Crabbe or Goyle, he could control them to the extent of saying things like "Fly left" or "Hit that bludger at Potter" or "Get out of Malfoy's way, you great oaf" but he couldn't actually make them better Quidditch players just because he himself had a particularly high degree of skill in the Quidditch department. So, in my interpretation of it, Fake Moody is giving Krum the direction to perform the Cruciatus Curse on Cedric, but the skill necessary to perform it comes from Cedric.
This is getting too far down the path of speculation. (Well, it was before when I posted, I just didn't realize how speculative I was getting :blush: ) I think we've wandered into the realm of "I really have no idea" :p


I'm thinking of a couple of sayings about evil - 'the banality of evil' and evil being defined as 'lack of empathy'. The thought behind these notions is that evil isn't the result of overwhelming emotion, quite the opposite, it is about a lack of human emotion. If Unforgiveable Curses require the caster to be cold, calculating and unemotional that implies a degree of evil in them. Unforgiveables are not 'crimes of passion' which is why they are unforgiveable, as well as for their consequences. A wizard might cause pain or even death in other ways, particularly in the heat of battle or an emotional moment and though this is still wrong, it is forgiveable, or potentially forgiveable. It is the difference between killing or causing pain in anger - a lapse in judgement and killing for the pleasure of it, not caring who the victim is. It isn't that the former is OK, just that the latter is even more wrong, and sinister.

I heard something once when I was younger, and it has always stuck with me. The worst vice a human being can have is apathy. To not care what others are feeling/have gone through. I strongly believe this, to this day. And I think you nailed it here. The DE's that we've seen, including Voldemort, don't have the capacity to understand human suffering. They are completely and utterly indifferent to other's pain, whether caused by them or not.


Empathy is what separates the psychopaths from the semi-normal folks who understand what others are feeling.
It is awful that you can put in one sentence what I struggle through four trying to say. :sad: Do you give lessons?


Subtle, I think that Voldemort's reaction could depend on what Snape brings with him. Dumbledore could have planned for Snape to have some "vital" piece of information, just to make sure that Voldemort wouldn't decide, off-hand, to kill Snape. I think Cruciatus Curse is the worst you could use on Snape, though. The whole lack of control thing.

SIP, when I said Snape's anger had chilled, I didn't mean he wasn't still angry. He actually reminded me forcible of myself in the last part of the book. My anger is the worst when it is cold. My family and friends know this, and tread warily, those who don't, well, they are often surprised.

You are my long-lost cousin, I just know it! :lol:

I heard something once when I was younger, and it has always stuck with me. The worst vice a human being can have is apathy. To not care what others are feeling/have gone through. I strongly believe this, to this day. And I think you nailed it here. The DE's that we've seen, including Voldemort, don't have the capacity to understand human suffering. They are completely and utterly indifferent to other's pain, whether caused by them or not.

"Apathy" means "without pathos," or "feeling." "Empathy" means "in pathos." Here are the definitions:
pathos
"quality that arouses pity or sorrow," 1668, from Gk. pathos "suffering, feeling, emotion," lit. "what befalls one," related to paskhein "to suffer," and penthos "grief, sorrow;" from PIE base *kwenth- "to suffer, endure" (cf. O.Ir. cessaim, Lith. kenciu "suffer").

empathy
1903, translation of Ger. Einfühlung (from ein "in" + Fühlung "feeling"), coined 1858 by Ger. philosopher Rudolf Lotze (1817-81) from Gk. empatheia "passion," from en- "in" + pathos "feeling" (see pathos). A term from a theory of art appreciation. Empathize (v.) was coined 1924; empathic (adj.) is from 1909.

apathy
1603, "freedom from suffering," from Fr. apathie, from L. apathia, from Gk. apatheia "freedom from suffering, impassability," from apathes "without feeling," from a- "without" + pathos "emotion, feeling, suffering" (see pathos). Originally a positive quality; sense of "indolence of mind, indifference to what should excite" is from c.1733.

Looking at the etymologies of those words, I am struck by the prominence of the word "suffering" in the definitions. If we care about others, we are going to suffer emotionally. That is why Harry tells Dumbledore he doesn't "want to be human," because it hurts too much when we lose someone.

Clearly, Peter is apathetic about Cedric's death, meaning he doesn't "suffer" from any sense of guilt, shock, or upset of any kind. I think of it as an "absence" of feeling of any kind.

Empathy is the opposite, in which you feel all sorts of anguish at seeing someone else in trouble, pain, or death. Some people even feel responsible when they can't do anything. But thank goodness we aren't all apathetic!

Just this morning I was looking at photos of the new earthquakes in Indonesia. There is almost nothing I can do to help those people there with one disaster after another, so in theory I should be able to distance myself from something on the other side of the world. Yet I find it almost unbearable to look at the pictures of the suffering, because I get such a helpless feeling. I think part of being empathetic lies in someone's imagination. You have to be able to imagine what it is like to watch your house collapse on top of your children, hear screams of panic as your town is destroyed, and then have sit there on a beach crying with no food, fresh water, or medicine for days. It is just horrendous! :upset:

There are lots of quotes about apathy and indifference:

"Indifference, to me, is the epitome of evil."
~ Elie Wiesel

"Because of indifference, one dies before one actually dies."
~ Elie Wiesel

"After the first blush of sin comes its indifference."
~ Henry David Thoreau

"The tragedy of love is indifference."
~ William Somerset Maugham

"Affection can withstand very severe storms of vigor, but not a long polar frost of indifference."
~ Sir Walter Scott

"Science may have found a cure for most evils, but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all — the apathy of human beings."
~ Helen Keller

There can be no transforming of darkness into light and of APATHY into movement without emotion.
~Carl Jung

If moderation is a fault, then indifference is a crime.
~Georg C. Lichtenberg

There is nothing harder than the softness of indifference.
~Juan Montalvo

Tolerance it a tremendous virtue, but the immediate neighbors of tolerance are APATHY and weakness.
~Sir James Goldsmith

"Indifferent" means:

indifferent
1387, "unbiased," from L. indifferentem (nom. indifferens) "not differing, not particular, of not consequence," from in- "not" + differens, prp. of differre "set apart" (see differ). Extended sense of "apathetic" first recorded 1519; that of "neither good nor bad" 1532.

Of course, we are all "indifferent" over small things, or even about people we meet. If you are a referee of a baseball game, or a judge, or a scientist, maybe a little indifference is a good thing. It isn't bad to be "unbiased," unless you are that way about everything, and especially about other people. A referee who looks the other way with cheating or watches a fight break out on the field, and doesn't try to stop it, a judge who takes bribes from both sides because he doesn't care about justice, or a scientist who allows dangerous drugs into the public so he can make alot of money - all of those are examples of the evil side of apathy and indifference.

Robert Louis Stephenson coined the word "amoral," I just discovered, which means "morally indifferent." I think that is what we are talking about with Voldemort, the DEs, Peter, etc.

amoral
"ethically indifferent," a hybrid formed from Gk. priv. prefix a- "not" + moral (q.v.), which is derived from L. First used by Robert Louis Stephenson (1850-94) as a differentiation from immoral.


It is awful that you can put in one sentence what I struggle through four trying to say. :sad: Do you give lessons?

:blush: You are sweet, but how can I teach something that happens only by accident on alternate Mondays in March? :p

This has nothing to do with the effect of hate on forgiveness, which is what the original discussion was about. :huh:

Well, it happens a lot in this thread. We don't just stay on one topic, but explore many different ones based on things that have arisen in various arguments. It's not so unusual I'm making a point on something related to the original discussion even if it isn't the original discussion.

Well, if someone was wronged by someone else, they might need to forgive that person. They wouldn't be able to do it while they were still harboring hatred for the past wrong; however, once they moved into the indifference stage, they would probably be able to forgive that person. Whether they would forgive or not is irrelevant because my argument was simply that the hatred would have to be lost first.

And I stand by my argument that it's possible to be indifferent or to forgive someone, but still have bitterness toward them. Everyone is affected by different things in their lives and I think it's perfectly likely to, for all intents and purposes, let go of hatred, yet still have it rise up at some point in the future. Do you really think that once someone has decided to no longer hold something against someone, it automatically erasing all present and future negative feelings? Forgiveness is a process; a process that most never fully complete. That is, if fully completing that processes means releasing all hatred and bittneress for the present and the future.


I don't think it's a cliche because it's said often, I just think it's a cliche. (In fact, I haven't heard it all that much.)

Here is the defintion of "cliche":

An overused expression or idea.

So how can you think it's cliche without thinking it's overused?


Hate doesn't grow out of love (if that's what you were trying to say). Does Snape's hatred for Harry in OotP have anything to do with love? No.

If a child is raised in a loveless environment, that child can learn to hate everything--much like Voldemort.

I guess it's a good thing that wasn't what I was saying, then. One does not simply feel hatred or feel love. If one never loves, how do they know what hate is? One needs both emotions and they can't have one without the other.

I don't see what the manner in which Peter dies has to do with it. Your previous post said that Sirius was indifferent to Peter's fate--"Sirius doesn't care about Peter or what happens to him." That's what I was responding to. Perhaps you meant to say that Sirius doesn't care how Peter is killed? The meaning of that statement is quite different to what you actually said.

Actually, what I said in context was:

The complete lack of emotion toward someone is what makes them not care what happens to another. Sirius wanted Peter dead and it's understandable that he wanted Peter dead. He didn't care how Peter died or who did it, since he was willing to hand Peter to Dumbledore or the dementors. I know it's obvious that Sirius hates Peter, so you don't have to point it out to me. But I think it's also obvious that Sirius doesn't care about Peter or what happens to him. If Sirius were that bent on getting to Peter, he wouldn't have kept himself safe and in hiding in Goblet of Fire, nor would he have only left Grimmauld Place three times in Order of the Phoenix.

I would think that reading that entire excerpt would make it obvious what I'm saying, but again maybe I'm seeing clearly what I mean where you aren't. And it happens. I think that after the events of Prisoner of Azkaban, Sirius most likely wants Peter dead and moreso after he discovers what Peter did in the Graveyard. However, I don't think Sirius is still as two track minded as he was in POA when his two goals were to protect Harry and get to Peter. Now, he's more concerned about protecting Harry. I don't recall him even discussing Peter after PoA.

Which leads me to my statement, Sirius may want Peter dead (and he certainly wouldn't mourn if Peter died a bloody, horrible, violent death and if he (Sirius) happened to be responsible, then such is life) but he isn't hellbent on getting to him to do that task. He doesn't care about Peter now that Peter has shown he is truly a rat. They are no longer friends and are on opposite sides of the war and Peter is just the same as any other Death Eater. Yes, I know a lot of this could not have possibly been obvious from that post, so you don't have to point it out. I'm adding to my point. I hope it's clear now.

HermioneLuna: I don't think we know all the things Sirius is thinking about in OotP. He keeps to himself alot with his "fits of the sulks." Don't you think that he might occasionally be thinking of how to get revenge on Peter? And he also knows that Peter is the "right-hand-man of Voldemort," so how could Sirius get to him anyway? What I mean is, there are lots of barriers between Sirius and Peter, but that doesn't mean that Sirius isn't still thinking of revenge. He just doesn't talk about it. Or maybe he talks to Lupin about it, the same way Lupin talks to him about Umbridge. Maybe they plot revenge when they are alone together?

And as far as GoF, don't you find it interesting that when Sirius is in the cave, he has been living on rats? :evil: And at Grimmauld Place in OotP, when they are cleaning the house, he comes downstairs with a "bag o' rats"? Oh, I believe he's thinking about Peter all the time!

I found this a while back when we were talking about Monty Python, and I'll just throw it out here since the "eating rats" image has just popped up. This is from the "Dead Bishop on the Landing" sketch:

http://wuzzle.org/bishop.html

Mother: (turning off radio) liberal rubbish! Klaus!
Klaus: Yeah?
M: Whaddaya want with yer jugged fish?
K: 'Alibut.
M: The jugged fish IS 'alibut!
K: Well, what fish 'ave you got that isn't jugged?
M: Rabbit.
K: What, rabbit fish?
M: Uuh, yes...it's got fins....
K: Is it dead?
M: Well, it was coughin' up blood last night.
K: All right, I'll have the dead unjugged rabbit fish.
voice over: one dead unjugged rabbit fish later:
K: (putting down his knife and fork) Well, that was really 'orrible.
M: Aaw, you're always complainin'!
K: Wha's for afters?
M: Rat cake, rat sorbet, rat pudding, or strawberry tart.
K: (eyes lighting up) Strawberry tart?
M: Well, it's got *some* rat in it.
K: 'Ow much?
M: Three. A lot, really.
K: Well, I'll have a slice without so much rat in it.

Silver Ink Pot, I made my thoughts on Sirius and the rats perfectly clear when we discussed it at length versions ago and they have not changed. Although, I'm not sure if I mentioned this then, but if Sirius hardly ever left Grimmauld Place, where did the rats come from? Someone else had to be bringing them for Buckbeak, and they were for Buckbeak. It wasn't as though Sirius were carrying bags of dead rats around for his own enjoyment, which you seem to be suggesting. And if someone else wasn't bringing them, then Grimmauld Place was infested with rats. And considering the state of it when Harry arrived, it isn't too much of a stretch to think that.

You're right about not knowing what Sirius was thinking in Order of the Phoenix, which makes your thoughts on the matter no more valid than mine.

Which leads me to my statement, Sirius may want Peter dead (and he certainly wouldn't mourn if Peter died a bloody, horrible, violent death and if he (Sirius) happened to be responsible, then such is life) but he isn't hellbent on getting to him to do that task. He doesn't care about Peter now that Peter has shown he is truly a rat. They are no longer friends and are on opposite sides of the war and Peter is just the same as any other Death Eater. Yes, I know a lot of this could not have possibly been obvious from that post, so you don't have to point it out. I'm adding to my point. I hope it's clear now.

That's what I said in my post. Not that Sirius wasn't ever considering revenge. He probably was, but he never acted on it, did he? His goals were different in Order of the Phoenix than they were in Prisoner of Azkaban. I don't see where you got the idea that I thought Sirius had released all thoughts of revenge against Peter simply because I said he wan't out actively searching for him. Sirius doesn't care about Peter. Do you think Sirius would be torn up if Peter were to face a horrible death? I don't because Sirius doesn't care about him.

OK, I don't have anything sensible to add to the Sirius Rat-Obsession debate, but if SIP's gonna post quotes from comedy shows on the subject, then so will I.

This is from Blackadder Goes Forth (and also from memory). Blackadder is a British Army Captain in WW1 and Baldrick is a private, dogsbody and cook. Baldrick is telling Blackadder what the choices are for dinner.

BR - Tonight it's Rat-au-Van, or Ratattwoee

BA - (Raises eyesbrows suspiciously) What's Rat-au-Van?

BR - Well, you take a rat, what's just been run over by a van. The you marinade it in a puddle for a while, cook it over a lightbulb, then you get within dashing distance of the latrine, and you gobble it all down. (Beams)

BA - (Looks revolted) And Ratattwoee?

BR - The same, but just a slightly larger rat...

:p

That's what I said in my post. Not that Sirius wasn't ever considering revenge. He probably was, but he never acted on it, did he? His goals were different in Order of the Phoenix than they were in Prisoner of Azkaban. I don't see where you got the idea that I thought Sirius had released all thoughts of revenge against Peter simply because I said he wan't out actively searching for him. Sirius doesn't care about Peter. Do you think Sirius would be torn up if Peter were to face a horrible death? I don't because Sirius doesn't care about him.

I agree with most of that post.... but, I absolutely do believe Sirius "cares" about Peter. Not in a positive way, but I believe he very much cares what happens to Peter. I agree also that Sirius wouldn't be torn up if Peter were to face a horrible death, but I suspect that Sirius would be more than willing to listen to the details of it. When I say I think he "cares" about Peter, I mean that he has a bit of a vested interested in following what happens to him. Peter is responsible for a lot of the hardships, most in fact, that Sirius has faced over the past 14 years. I think it is human nature for him to want to know what happens to him.

Chocolate anyone? :)

I agree with most of that post.... but, I absolutely do believe Sirius "cares" about Peter. Not in a positive way, but I believe he very much cares what happens to Peter. I agree also that Sirius wouldn't be torn up if Peter were to face a horrible death, but I suspect that Sirius would be more than willing to listen to the details of it. When I say I think he "cares" about Peter, I mean that he has a bit of a vested interested in following what happens to him. Peter is responsible for a lot of the hardships, most in fact, that Sirius has faced over the past 14 years. I think it is human nature for him to want to know what happens to him.

Chocolate anyone? :)

I agree. Perhaps it would be better if I said that Sirius doesn't care about Peter, but he does care about what happens to him when all is said and done.

Nice contrast between Voldemort and Dumbledore, subtle! :tu: To me, it sounds as though Dumbledore's planning for the imminent return of Voldemort and speeding up the curriculum, assuming the disguised DE is speaking the truth about Dumbledore's wishes. Dumbledore, of course, has known all along that Voldemort's on his way back--it's just been a matter of time. I wonder if the events at the Quidditch World Cup (in addition, obviously, to PoA) served as an alert that the time was at hand. His own personal barometer--Snape and his Dark Mark--will confirm it, but only after Moody's been hired and halfway through the academic year....I’m not convinced that Dumbledore was aware of Fake-Moody teaching about the unforgivable curses.

In addition to your list of all the signs pointing to Voldemort’s imminent return I’ll point out Trelawney’s second prophecy. Was that what you were alluding to in citing PoA or was there more? And I stand by my argument that it's possible to be indifferent or to forgive someone, but still have bitterness toward them. Everyone is affected by different things in their lives and I think it's perfectly likely to, for all intents and purposes, let go of hatred, yet still have it rise up at some point in the future. Do you really think that once someone has decided to no longer hold something against someone, it automatically erasing all present and future negative feelings?No, I think that if someone experiences “present and future negative feelings,” that person has not actually reached the point of forgiveness. Even if they “decided to no longer hold something against someone,” they wouldn't truly have forgiven until they no longer had any potential of experiencing “all present and future negative feelings.” Forgiveness is a process; a process that most never fully complete. That is, if fully completing that processes means releasing all hatred and bittneress for the present and the future.Well, isn’t this just what I’ve been arguing all along? I would just point out that this last part of the paragraph you wrote directly contradicts the first part, which is quoted above. Here is the defintion of "cliche":

An overused expression or idea.So it is. :blush: No one is born with hatred in their hearts. It has to come from somewhere. I don't understand how one just decides to start hating someone. There has to be a catalyst for it. One may be able to exist without the other, that's true. Voldemort is filled with hate and has no room for love. But I don't believe it's always been that way. Hate grows our of love of something. Perhaps in Voldemort's case it's simply love for himself; to ensure his future and to make certain his goal is carried out. Hate doesn't grow out of love (if that's what you were trying to say). Does Snape's hatred for Harry in OotP have anything to do with love? No.

If a child is raised in a loveless environment, that child can learn to hate everything--much like Voldemort.
I guess it's a good thing that wasn't what I was saying, then. One does not simply feel hatred or feel love. If one never loves, how do they know what hate is? One needs both emotions and they can't have one without the other. I guess so.

Previously, you said, ” You can't hate without having loved, so it's an emotion that's there to some degree.”, the statement with which I disagreed. Your last statement above is ”One needs both emotions and they can't have one without the other.“ You also say that one can’t recognize love or hate without recognizing the opposite emotion. Say this last statement is true. One can still feel hate or love as an emotion without recognizing it as such. If someone is raised from birth in a dark room, that person might not realize the room was dark (not having seen light), but would still be experiencing the darkness. Similarly, someone raised to hate might not realize they’re full of hate, but they would still be experiencing hate. I agree with most of that post.... but, I absolutely do believe Sirius "cares" about Peter. Not in a positive way, but I believe he very much cares what happens to Peter. I agree also that Sirius wouldn't be torn up if Peter were to face a horrible death, but I suspect that Sirius would be more than willing to listen to the details of it. When I say I think he "cares" about Peter, I mean that he has a bit of a vested interested in following what happens to him. Peter is responsible for a lot of the hardships, most in fact, that Sirius has faced over the past 14 years. I think it is human nature for him to want to know what happens to him. I agree. Perhaps it would be better if I said that Sirius doesn't care about Peter, but he does care about what happens to him when all is said and done.This is essentially what my point yesterday was, so I agree. :)

OK, I don't have anything sensible to add to the Sirius Rat-Obsession debate, but if SIP's gonna post quotes from comedy shows on the subject, then so will I.

This is from Blackadder Goes Forth (and also from memory). Blackadder is a British Army Captain in WW1 and Baldrick is a private, dogsbody and cook. Baldrick is telling Blackadder what the choices are for dinner.

BR - Tonight it's Rat-au-Van, or Ratattwoee

BA - (Raises eyesbrows suspiciously) What's Rat-au-Van?

BR - Well, you take a rat, what's just been run over by a van. The you marinade it in a puddle for a while, cook it over a lightbulb, then you get within dashing distance of the latrine, and you gobble it all down. (Beams)

BA - (Looks revolted) And Ratattwoee?

BR - The same, but just a slightly larger rat...

:p

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: That is fantastic! Blackadder and Monty Python! These are JKR's "sources," I just know it. Just the names could be chapter headings for future books! LOL. Two giant snakes and their rats, lol.


Silver Ink Pot, I made my thoughts on Sirius and the rats perfectly clear when we discussed it at length versions ago and they have not changed. Although, I'm not sure if I mentioned this then, but if Sirius hardly ever left Grimmauld Place, where did the rats come from? Someone else had to be bringing them for Buckbeak, and they were for Buckbeak. It wasn't as though Sirius were carrying bags of dead rats around for his own enjoyment, which you seem to be suggesting. And if someone else wasn't bringing them, then Grimmauld Place was infested with rats. And considering the state of it when Harry arrived, it isn't too much of a stretch to think that.
HermioneLuna: I am not saying that Sirius necessarily "enjoys" killing rats, but that he is unleashing some anger towards rats in general BECAUSE he hates Peter. That is what I am saying. The ex-friend who betrayed him was a "rat" for 12 years, and now he is killing rats all the time, plus he has a pet hippogriff who eats rats. That seems just too symbolic to ignore.

I just find that bag of rats to be odd. Sirius comes in carrying a bloodstained bag of rats, and Harry looks at him "inquiringly" as if to ask what he is doing with that bag of rats (as if he is as baffled as I am) and he quickly tells Harry that he has been upstairs feeding Buckbeak. So why (drumroll please) does he bring the bloody bag of rats back downstairs and into a room they are supposed to be "cleaning"? Maybe it just doesn't make anymore sense than the Python sketch?

No, I think that if someone experiences “present and future negative feelings,” that person has not actually reached the point of forgiveness. Even if they “decided to no longer hold something against someone,” they wouldn't truly have forgiven until they no longer had any potential of experiencing “all present and future negative feelings.”

When I read your post, I was thinking about forgiveness, and it occurred to me that it is just like that when you forgive yourself for something. We have all done things we regret, and beat ourselves up mentally, and some people abuse drugs and alcohol to forget the past. But eventually, you have to let go of it or it takes over your life. If you start thinking about it again, you negate the original path of forgiveness.

If Sirius had lived, I don't think he would ever have truly "forgiven" Peter, because I don't believe he ever really liked Peter in the first place. I believe he just thought Peter was loyal no matter how they treated him, like a door mat. But I realize I'm in the minority with that opinion.

No, I think that if someone experiences “present and future negative feelings,” that person has not actually reached the point of forgiveness. Even if they “decided to no longer hold something against someone,” they wouldn't truly have forgiven until they no longer had any potential of experiencing “all present and future negative feelings.”

Here's an example of what I'm trying to say:

Person A and Person B work together. Person A does something to ruin Person B's chances at a promotion/raise/some form of recognition and earns that recognition for themselves. Person A later feels guilty and apologizes to Person B. Person B forgives Person A. A few months later, Person B has the opportunity to advance in another department at work, but the trick or whatever that Person A pulled is still on record and ruins Person B's chances once again. Do you think that Person B will still be sunshine and roses about the situation?

This is my point. It's possible to forgive someone, yet still be bitter about whatever they did at some point in the future for whatever reason. There's no need to point out that Sirius and Peter are in quite a different situation, I was just hoping to illustrate my point better.

I would just point out that this last part of the paragraph you wrote directly contradicts the first part, which is quoted above.

No it doesn't. But I'd like to know why you think so.


Previously, you said, ” You can't hate without having loved, so it's an emotion that's there to some degree.”, the statement with which I disagreed. Your last statement above is ”One needs both emotions and they can't have one without the other.“ You also say that one can’t recognize love or hate without recognizing the opposite emotion.

It's impossible to hate without having some sort of love. All hatred stems from the love of something even if it's just love of self or survival or even pride. And I don't say that "one can't recognize love or hate without recognizing the opposite emotion."

If one never loves, how do they know what hate is?

That's what I said. And it's a valid question. If they just hate and feel no other emotion besides that hate, it's more likely that it's a normal emotion for them rather than hate. Meaning if they were asked how they felt toward something, they would explain it in plain and simple "normal" terms, rather than saying they "hate" it. They can't know what hate is unless they experience feelings not based in hatred.

Silver Ink Pot, it makes sense that he would bring the rats downstairs if he was done feeding Buckbeak. I don't see why he'd leave them where Buckbeak could get them if he was already fed. And it's Molly that removes them from the room, not Sirius. For all we know, Sirius made a detour to see Harry and the rest while on his way to another part of Grimmauld Place. It isn't as though he decided to bring a bag of rats into the room just to see how much blood they could drip before Molly yelled at him.

We've discussed that bag of dead rats in all possible ways at this point. For those of you who are new, I mean we've discussed it to death in previous threads. I don't think there's much that's new to say on the matter. You have your thoughts on it, and I have mine. They clash, and without new canon evidence to back it up, there's nothing new to debate about.

Quote from HermioneLuna:
It's impossible to hate without having some sort of love. All hatred stems from the love of something even if it's just love of self or survival or even pride. And I don't say that "one can't recognize love or hate without recognizing the opposite emotion."
Couldn't it be said then that to understand love you must have at least some sort of hate? :huh:

Quote from Chievrefueil:
I’m not convinced that Dumbledore was aware of Fake-Moody teaching about the unforgivable curses.
I'd be more surprised if he didn't given how quickly the stories from that class would have spread around the school and how closely he monitors Harry.

I am not saying that Sirius necessarily "enjoys" killing rats, but that he is unleashing some anger towards rats in general BECAUSE he hates Peter.I agree. I think that Sirius is sublimating his hatred for Peter into finding food for Buckbeak. :lol: Here's an example of what I'm trying to say:

Person A and Person B work together. Person A does something to ruin Person B's chances at a promotion/raise/some form of recognition and earns that recognition for themselves. Person A later feels guilty and apologizes to Person B. Person B forgives Person A. A few months later, Person B has the opportunity to advance in another department at work, but the trick or whatever that Person A pulled is still on record and ruins Person B's chances once again. Do you think that Person B will still be sunshine and roses about the situation?

This is my point. It's possible to forgive someone, yet still be bitter about whatever they did at some point in the future for whatever reason. There's no need to point out that Sirius and Peter are in quite a different situation, I was just hoping to illustrate my point better.Even though it is a result of the same "trick," I would classify the second missed promotion as a separate event requiring a separate apology and separate forgiveness. This is because Person B didn't foresee the second missed promotion as a possibility when Person B forgave Person A. If Person B did foresee this possibility and was still bitter toward Person A for it at the time of the second missed promotion, I would say that Person B never really forgave Person A. (Accepting an apology and truly forgiving someone are not the same thing.)I would just point out that this last part of the paragraph you wrote directly contradicts the first part, which is quoted above. No it doesn't. But I'd like to know why you think so.You started with: "And I stand by my argument that it's possible to be indifferent or to forgive someone, but still have bitterness toward them."

You ended with: "Forgiveness is a process; a process that most never fully complete. That is, if fully completing that processes means releasing all hatred and bittneress for the present and the future."

Those statements contradict one another. Either it's possible to "forgive someone, but still have bitterness toward them," or "fully completing that process [of forgiving someone] means releasing all hatred and bitterness for the present and the future." It seems pretty self-explanatory to me.And I don't say that "one can't recognize love or hate without recognizing the opposite emotion." If one never loves, how do they know what hate is?That's what I said. And it's a valid question.One is a statement, the other a question. Otherwise, I see no difference in meaning between the statement I bolded and your quoted original question. You can substitute the word "know" for "recognize," if you like--it means the same thing.If they just hate and feel no other emotion besides that hate, it's more likely that it's a normal emotion for them rather than hate. Meaning if they were asked how they felt toward something, they would explain it in plain and simple "normal" terms, rather than saying they "hate" it. They can't know what hate is unless they experience feelings not based in hatred.There's a difference between feeling the emotion and understanding what it is. Yes, hate may be a normal emotion for the person you describe. That person may feel that the hate is normal, never having felt love. That doesn't change what that person actually feels--in this case hate. Perhaps where this argument is getting hung up is that you're speaking in relative terms and I'm speaking in absolute terms. Relatively speaking, the person who has always hated may experience varying degrees of hate and only recognize the most extreme hatred as "hate" and less extreme hatred as something less. Absolutely speaking, though, it's all hate, regardless of the degree.

I'd be more surprised if he didn't given how quickly the stories from that class would have spread around the school and how closely he monitors Harry.Right. I meant beforehand--as in giving his permission.

I agree. I think that Sirius is sublimating his hatred for Peter into finding food for Buckbeak.
:lol:. Well said, cheiv!
If Person B did foresee this possibility and was still bitter toward Person A for it at the time of the second missed promotion, I would say that Person B never really forgave Person A.
But, maybe he did. As you said, it maybe just because B didn't foresee. If the same problem causes trouble again, he may decide to have second thoughts about the issue of forgiveness. It may not necessarily mean that he did not forgive A. Then, in the back of B's mind, there will be a feeling that A was the cause of the trouble. Not that it was A's fault, the second time.

But there is also that A must have done something that bad to cause the mess and did not deserve the pardon? Hmm....

Relatively speaking, the person who has always hated may experience varying degrees of hate and only recognize the most extreme hatred as "hate" and less extreme hatred as something less.
Thats right. "hate", "love", "happy","sad" are relative terms, each varying from person to person. I may not be happy with the money that i have got, but for another it may be just everything. Hatred is an emotion between two or mor people. The intensity varies.

I’m not convinced that Dumbledore was aware of Fake-Moody teaching about the unforgivable curses.

Me too. But also, there is a pssibility that he knew that moody was going to tell the class about it, not make hem experience it.

Even though it is a result of the same "trick," I would classify the second missed promotion as a separate event requiring a separate apology and separate forgiveness. This is because Person B didn't foresee the second missed promotion as a possibility when Person B forgave Person A. If Person B did foresee this possibility and was still bitter toward Person A for it at the time of the second missed promotion, I would say that Person B never really forgave Person A. (Accepting an apology and truly forgiving someone are not the same thing.)

If you want to nitpick, then consider the acceptance of the apology in my scenario to be true forgiveness. It's still possible for Person A to be upset by the original actions of Person B if they continue to affect Person A in the future. If Person B forsaw it or not is irrelavant. The scenario focuses on the feelings of Person A, not the thought process of Person B.


You started with: "And I stand by my argument that it's possible to be indifferent or to forgive someone, but still have bitterness toward them."

You ended with: "Forgiveness is a process; a process that most never fully complete. That is, if fully completing that processes means releasing all hatred and bittneress for the present and the future."

Those statements contradict one another. Either it's possible to "forgive someone, but still have bitterness toward them," or "fully completing that process [of forgiving someone] means releasing all hatred and bitterness for the present and the future." It seems pretty self-explanatory to me.

They do not contradict. In the first part, I merely say that the state of being is possible. In the second part I state why, if people define it differently, it's highly unlikely. They are separate thoughts. I thought it was obvious and self-explanatory, even out of context. Clearly, you don't see it that way.

One is a statement, the other a question. Otherwise, I see no difference in meaning between the statement I bolded and your quoted original question. You can substitute the word "know" for "recognize," if you like--it means the same thing.There's a difference between feeling the emotion and understanding what it is. Yes, hate may be a normal emotion for the person you describe. That person may feel that the hate is normal, never having felt love. That doesn't change what that person actually feels--in this case hate. Perhaps where this argument is getting hung up is that you're speaking in relative terms and I'm speaking in absolute terms. Relatively speaking, the person who has always hated may experience varying degrees of hate and only recognize the most extreme hatred as "hate" and less extreme hatred as something less. Absolutely speaking, though, it's all hate, regardless of the degree.

One is a statement you made, which was an interperation of a question I posed. There's a difference. Your statement is phrased to ephasize your point. I still have the question of how they know they're feeling hate. Or how do we know they're feeling hate for that matter? They wouldn't know it's hate because it's what they've always felt. Besides that, it rests on individual definitions. It's all relative, or as you would say, it's all semantics.

There is no possible way that someone can know they feel hate unless they have felt something different. And, as I've said before, all hate is based on loving something. Sirius hates Peter because Peter betrayed James, Lily and Harry, and Sirius loved them. He loved Peter. And he cared about their friendship. Lucius loves being a pureblood supremacist and all the qualities that come along with that, thus he hates the Weasleys because they are purebloods who reject those ideals.

The scenario focuses on the feelings of Person A, not the thought process of Person B.
Does it? It is B, who is feeling the hatred. A is the one who caused the problem. B is the one who has to forgive. Then how does it focus on A?

Does it? It is B, who is feeling the hatred. A is the one who caused the problem. B is the one who has to forgive. Then how does it focus on A?

You're right. It's still possible for Person B to be upset by the original actions of Person A if they continue to affect Person B in the future. If Person A forsaw it or not is irrelavant. The scenario focuses on the feelings of Person B, not the thought process of Person A.

If you want to nitpick, then consider the acceptance of the apology in my scenario to be true forgiveness. It's still possible for Person A to be upset by the original actions of Person B if they continue to affect Person A in the future. If Person B forsaw it or not is irrelavant. The scenario focuses on the feelings of Person A, not the thought process of Person B.Does it? It is B, who is feeling the hatred. A is the one who caused the problem. B is the one who has to forgive. Then how does it focus on A?You're right. It's still possible for Person B to be upset by the original actions of Person A if they continue to affect Person B in the future. If Person A forsaw it or not is irrelavant. The scenario focuses on the feelings of Person B, not the thought process of Person A.As I said in my last post, if unforseen consequences of the of the original action cause future problems for Person B, even if Person B has already forgiven Person A, Person B would feel it as a new event and it would require a separate forgiveness. I don't see that there is anything left to say on this subject. Anyone who has read this far in the discussion can decide for themselves.They do not contradict. In the first part, I merely say that the state of being is possible. In the second part I state why, if people define it differently, it's highly unlikely. They are separate thoughts. I thought it was obvious and self-explanatory, even out of context. Clearly, you don't see it that way.Even what you say here makes no sense to me. Everyone else can make up their own mind.One is a statement you made, which was an interperation of a question I posed. There's a difference. Your statement is phrased to ephasize your point. I see no difference. Actually, the statement I wrote was not phrased to emphasize my point. It was a statement to theoretically concede a portion of your argument in order to move on in the discussion. I'm sorry if you were not able to see that. I thought it was very clear. I still have the question of how they know they're feeling hate. Or how do we know they're feeling hate for that matter? They wouldn't know it's hate because it's what they've always felt. Besides that, it rests on individual definitions. It's all relative, or as you would say, it's all semantics. My argument was always that it doesn't matter what a person knows, it's what a person feels that's important. There And, as I've said before, all hate is based on loving something. Sirius hates Peter because Peter betrayed James, Lily and Harry, and Sirius loved them. He loved Peter. And he cared about their friendship. Lucius loves being a pureblood supremacist and all the qualities that come along with that, thus he hates the Weasleys because they are purebloods who reject those ideals.That's true for Sirius and may be true for Lucius, but just because love and hate often do exist in the same person doesn't mean that hate can never exist in one individual without love having been felt. I don't see there being any worth to discussing this issue further. As I said with the other aspects of the discussion, if anyone else is still reading this, they can make up their minds themselves.

Anyone who has read this far in the discussion can decide for themselves.
I agree. poor A & B...

Actually I think we have twisted the matter, a bit... lets go back to the original topic :evil: ;)

I agree. poor A & B...

Actually I think we have twisted the matter, a bit... lets go back to the original topic :wink: :evil:Good plan! :)

I don't see any need to discuss the forgiveness aspect any longer, either, since there is absolutely no canon that Sirius has "forgiven" Peter for anything. There is no canon that Harry has forgiven Peter - or that Lupin has - or anyone else, for that matter. It's a nice hope that Sirius had let go of all his anger before he died, but there really is no way of knowing. It died with him, and we'll probably never know, unless he told Lupin his true feelings and he may tell Harry in a future book.

My argument was always that it doesn't matter what a person knows, it's what a person feels that's important.

I just wanted to jump in and agree with this. While I understand the point HermioneLuna is trying to emphasize, I do believe what Chiev wrote is true. A person may be feeling emotions which are not recognized as hate, yet still be feeling the same things emotionally that someone who recognizes hate would feel. Hmmm, that doesn't sound clear. A person may feel "hate" inside, yet not recognize it as hatred. That wouldn't make the feelings any less valid because the person feeling the "hate" isn't able to label that emotion.

It's like people who fall in love for the first time. S/he may feel those butterflies, the funny feeling in the stomach, the constant thoughts of the person, etc, etc, yet not recognize the feelings as love. That doesn't mean that it isn't love the person feels, just that it isn't recognized as love for whatever reason. :)

Atherella: That's it! Thank you for putting that so clearly.

People don't always understand themselves or their emotions. And falling in love is a perfect example. People confuse all sorts of emotions with love. You can even think you are in love with someone, when really what you are feeling is sympathy or just friendship. Meanwhile, the person you really love makes you feel upset or angry. It happens all the time. We are full of contradictions.

So someone can say they are "over their anger," and they may believe it, but it may not be true.

We aren't mind readers, and fictional characters are always hard to understand until we see what they actually do. Just because Sirius didn't get a chance for revenge on Peter, doesn't mean he had given up the idea. He wasn't planning to die so soon.

I hope nobody minds me adding these thoughts on Sirius’s feelings toward Peter :scared: - I thought I’d have a look at the cannon to see how Sirius reacts to Peter at every step of the way:


In PoA, Sirius is after Peter (though we think he’s after Harry) to exact revenge for what he did by killing him. Everything Sirius does before we actually meet him face to face is concerned with getting to Peter and doing him in. When we meet him face to face, Sirius is very determined to kill Peter with his own hands in order to commit the murder he was imprisoned for.“We can explain afterwards!” snarled Black, trying to throw Lupin off. One hand was still clawing the air as it tried to reach Scabbers, who was squealing like a piglet, scratching Ron’s face and neck as he tried to escape. (349-350) “All right, then,” Black said, without taking his eyes off the rat. “Tell them whatever you like. But make it quick, Remus. I want to commit the murder I was imprisoned for….” (p390)

Sirius’s state of mind up to this point can be described as being impulsive, emotional and driven by vengeance- all of which have been enhanced by his stay in Azkaban. Even when Lupin convinces Sirius to wait, he keeps his eyes on Peter the whole time. When Snape enters, Sirius realizes that there would be no way for him to kill Peter; so at that point, he agrees to take Peter back up to the castle. Once Snape is incapacitated, Sirius realizes the opportunity for him to kill Peter himself has opened up again, and he wants to kill Peter again. After Harry intervenes, Sirius willingly defers and allows Peter to be brought to justice in another way. At this point, I do think that Sirius probably still wanted to kill Peter, but as has been mentioned before, he was able to put aside his desire for revenge for Harry:
“You’re the only person who has the right to decide, Harry,” said Black. “But think…think what he did….” (p376)

Later on, when Sirius is caught and must escape quickly on Buckbeak, there isn’t time to think about Wormtail and his betrayal. All Sirius says is, "You are -- truly your father's son, Harry. ..." (p415)

In GoF, I don’t think Sirius mentions Peter at all. But at the end when Harry is telling Dumbledore about what happened in the graveyard, Sirius keeps his mouth shut until Harry mentions Wormtail. It says that Sirius let out a vehement exclamation and Dumbledore stood up so quickly that Harry started. (p695-695) From that little outburst, I think it’s safe to assume that Sirius is outraged at what Wormtail did. I’m sure he also may have been thinking about all the pain that Harry could have been spared if Peter had not escaped. But this is only when Peter has been mentioned in connection with doing harm to Harry. I think during the rest of the book, Sirius was more preoccupied with Harry's safety and well-being than with thoughts of revenge toward Peter- though I'm sure the events of PoA were still prevalent in his mind.

In OotP, we do know that Sirius was a bit sulky and moody, but he never mentions Peter (as far as I can remember). Sure, he could have been thinking about Wormtail and his betrayal- that it's all his fault that he escaped, which made him a wanted man, which in turn caused him to have to remain locked up in Grimmauld Place. But I believe (and I know this is speculation) that Sirius was not preoccupied with Peter the way he was in PoA. Worrying about Harry has given something else that's very important for Sirius to think about. The same was likely true for most of GoF- Sirius did certainly express a lot of concern for Harry's well-being.

After looking at these events, I do think that Sirius doesn’t consider Peter to be just another Death Eater in Voldemort’s service. After being so obsessed with killing Peter and exacting revenge in PoA - and not to mention for 12 years in Azkaban - I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't see Peter in a different way than he sees other Death Eaters. This is especially so because Peter is closely tied to Harry's safety and well-being, which is something that Sirius is very conscious of. So I'd have to agree that Sirius “cares” about what happens to Peter the way atherella explains it. But despite these feelings, I don’t believe that Sirius continued to be obsessed with killing him or getting revenge on him after the events of PoA. After all, he doesn’t once mention Peter again in GoF (aside from the part where Harry is talking about Wormtail) or OotP (not that I can remember anyway). I'd also have to say that I don't think Sirius ever forgave Peter, though who knows what would have happened if Sirius had remained alive. :sad:


As a side note, I agree with Chievrefueil and atherella on the topic of emotions. I do think that at times it can be hard to identify exactly what you are feeling, especially if there are multiple emotions at work.

We aren't mind readers, and fictional characters are always hard to understand until we see what they actually do. Just because Sirius didn't get a chance for revenge on Peter, doesn't mean he had given up the idea. He wasn't planning to die so soon.So true.

I don't imagine for a minute that Sirius forgave Peter - why should he? I don't think many people would forgive what Peter has done, without punishment or remorse - as Peter didn't even beg forgiveness when his life depended on it I don't think he is the least bit sorry for what he did.

I'm not sure how much thought Sirius gives Peter after PoA - the fact that we never hear him mention Peter may be significant in itself, but maybe not. I would feel pretty confident in stating that if asked, Sirius would favour Peter coming to a very sticky end indeed. :evil:

My take on the rat symbolism is not so much that they represent Sirius' latent desire to break Peter's neck, more that it is a kind of ironic symbol - that Sirius is compelled to kill, and sometimes eat, any number of common-or-garden rats, precisely because he spared the life of The Rat.

Sirius might be annoyed at himself for agreeing to spare Peter, and thereby allow him to escape to add another murder victim to his tally, resurrect Voldemort and collaborate on another attempt on Harry' life.

As I said in my last post, if unforseen consequences of the of the original action cause future problems for Person B, even if Person B has already forgiven Person A, Person B would feel it as a new event and it would require a separate forgiveness. I don't see that there is anything left to say on this subject. Anyone who has read this far in the discussion can decide for themselves.

I agree. We're just going around in circles here. You're not making any sense whatsoever to me, and it's ridiculous to hash another "Snape's Worst Memory" type of discussion.

Even what you say here makes no sense to me. Everyone else can make up their own mind.

I actually ran those two sentences by a few people and asked them if they saw one sentence contradicting the other, and they didn't. So maybe I'm just not explaining it right for you, but it's clear to most others. It happens. Sometimes minds just don't meet.

Actually, the statement I wrote was not phrased to emphasize my point. It was a statement to theoretically concede a portion of your argument in order to move on in the discussion. I'm sorry if you were not able to see that. I thought it was very clear.

My argument was always that it doesn't matter what a person knows, it's what a person feels that's important. That's true for Sirius and may be true for Lucius, but just because love and hate often do exist in the same person doesn't mean that hate can never exist in one individual without love having been felt. I don't see there being any worth to discussing this issue further. As I said with the other aspects of the discussion, if anyone else is still reading this, they can make up their minds themselves.

What you did was augment what I actually said, and then you proceeded to say that I said it. It wasn't as simple as what you claim you did.

Let me ask you (and by "you" I mean anyone who has an opinion) what hate feels like. So many of you insist it's the feeling of hate that matters. Can you explain what that feeling is? I'd be interested to know, since my argument makes sense to me, but I don't understand how someone can feel hate without ever feeling something different.

Quote from shaggydogstail:
Sirius might be annoyed at himself for agreeing to spare Peter, and thereby allow him to escape to add another murder victim to his tally, resurrect Voldemort and collaborate on another attempt on Harry' life.
Yeah I've always wondered about that! Whenever people talk about the Shrieking Shack incident they praise Harry for saving Pettigrew, which seems flawed in my view. Hindsight is 20/20 of course but looking back on it I'd say Sirius had the right idea - kill Pettigrew. It was the surest way to deal with the threat. Instead Harry let him loose on the world to bring back Voldemort. Killing one person isn't moral but neither is allowing that person to go free and help cause perhaps hundreds of deaths before the war is over.

I know we discussed this pages ago, but I've been thinking about Voldemort recruiting werewolves and the debate we had on that. I don't think it matters that werewolves turn every full moon, since that's approximately 13 nights a year. They would still be useful other nights.

I think a comparison (though it's not 100%) can be made between Voldemort and the werewolves and Scar and the hyenas from The Lion King. Scar didn't think much of the hyenas, but he offered them something they wanted, and they joined his side in an instant. In their case it was food. Werewolves must want equality.

The only representation of that group that we really see is Lupin, and he know he doesn't like the status quo were werewolves are concerned. If Voldemort offered all those with lycanthropy the equality they want, they'd be inclined to join his side. Even if they'd be of little to no use on the full moon, Voldemort's army would be that much bigger, which gives his side the advantage.

I think a comparison (though it's not 100%) can be made between Voldemort and the werewolves and Scar and the hyenas from The Lion King. Scar didn't think much of the hyenas, but he offered them something they wanted, and they joined his side in an instant. In their case it was food. Werewolves must want equality.

The only representation of that group that we really see is Lupin, and he know he doesn't like the status quo were werewolves are concerned. If Voldemort offered all those with lycanthropy the equality they want, they'd be inclined to join his side. Even if they'd be of little to no use on the full moon, Voldemort's army would be that much bigger, which gives his side the advantage.Bingo. And its not just the werewolves. Voldemort is targeting other groups that have less than equal rights in the wizarding world - giants, goblins, other dark creatures for example. Every little bit helps.

Yeah I've always wondered about that! Whenever people talk about the Shrieking Shack incident they praise Harry for saving Pettigrew, which seems flawed in my view. Hindsight is 20/20 of course but looking back on it I'd say Sirius had the right idea - kill Pettigrew. It was the surest way to deal with the threat. Instead Harry let him loose on the world to bring back Voldemort. Killing one person isn't moral but neither is allowing that person to go free and help cause perhaps hundreds of deaths before the war is over.

Yeah, but that is why JKR has Harry ask Dumbledore about that dilemma at the end of OotP:

"But --" Harry looked at him, aghast. How could Dumbledore take this so calmly?

"But -- I stopped Sirius and Professor Lupin from killing Pettigrew! That makes it my fault if Voldemort comes back!"

"It does not," said Dumbledore quietly. "Hasn't your experience with the Time-Turner taught you anything, Harry? The consequences of our actions are always so complicated, so diverse, that predicting the future is a very difficult business indeed.... Professor Trelawney, bless her, is living proof of that.... You did a very noble thing, in saving Pettigrew's life."

"But if he helps Voldemort back to power

"Pettigrew owes his life to you. You have sent Voldemort a deputy who is in your debt.... When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it creates a certain bond between them... and I'm much mistaken if Voldemort wants his servant in the debt of Harry Potter."

"I don't want a connection with Pettigrew!" said Harry. "He betrayed my parents!"

"This is magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable, Harry. But trust me... the time may come when you will be very glad you saved Pettigrew's life."

Harry couldn't imagine when that would be. Dumbledore looked as though he knew what Harry was thinking.

"I knew your father very well, both at Hogwarts and later, Harry," he said gently. "He would have saved Pettigrew too, I am sure of it."

This is quite similar to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and Two Towers, in which Frodo suggests killing Gollum, and Gandalf the wizard tells him not to be in such a hurry to kill someone because they might have their part to play. Later, Sam wants to kill Gollum again for very good reasons, but Frodo spares him again.

LOL - I just can't imagine a wise old wizard telling his young "apprentice" to "Go for the jugular next time you see Pettigrew." :rotfl:

Dumbledore: "Listen, boy, you need to open up a can of whoop a** on that dirty rat next time you see him." :p

It's like people who fall in love for the first time. S/he may feel those butterflies, the funny feeling in the stomach, the constant thoughts of the person, etc, etc, yet not recognize the feelings as love. That doesn't mean that it isn't love the person feels, just that it isn't recognized as love for whatever reason.Yes, thank you. That’s a good representation of that part of the argument I was making. In OotP, we do know that Sirius was a bit sulky and moody, but he never mentions Peter (as far as I can remember). Sure, he could have been thinking about Wormtail and his betrayal- that it's all his fault that he escaped, which made him a wanted man, which in turn caused him to have to remain locked up in Grimmauld Place. But I believe (and I know this is speculation) that Sirius was not preoccupied with Peter the way he was in PoA. Worrying about Harry has given something else that's very important for Sirius to think about. The same was likely true for most of GoF- Sirius did certainly express a lot of concern for Harry's well-being.I think that’s it. Sirius has more important issues in GoF and OotP than finding Peter for vengeance. I wonder if the statement you quoted, ” "You are -- truly your father's son, Harry. ...,” is a turning point for Sirius? Until that time, his primary goal is vengeance. At that time, Harry came through for him, as James would have. Then, after that time, Sirius’s primary allegiance is to Harry. Did Sirius owe Harry a life-debt that he repaid in OotP? :huh: (I don’t mean to say that’s the reason Sirius went to the DoM to rescue Harry.) My take on the rat symbolism is not so much that they represent Sirius' latent desire to break Peter's neck, more that it is a kind of ironic symbol - that Sirius is compelled to kill, and sometimes eat, any number of common-or-garden rats, precisely because he spared the life of The Rat.This is an interesting interpretation. The only problem I have with it is the implication, then, that sparing Peter’s life was a bad thing to do. (“See what happens when you have mercy on someone? You just end up suffering!") Not that I would expect Sirius to necessarily be rewarded for it, but I wouldn’t expect an ironic punishment in the face of such mercy. Or are you thinking more along the lines of a self-inflicted punishment: Sirius might be annoyed at himself for agreeing to spare Peter, and thereby allow him to escape to add another murder victim to his tally, resurrect Voldemort and collaborate on another attempt on Harry' life. Yeah I've always wondered about that! Whenever people talk about the Shrieking Shack incident they praise Harry for saving Pettigrew, which seems flawed in my view. Hindsight is 20/20 of course but looking back on it I'd say Sirius had the right idea - kill Pettigrew. It was the surest way to deal with the threat. Instead Harry let him loose on the world to bring back Voldemort. Killing one person isn't moral but neither is allowing that person to go free and help cause perhaps hundreds of deaths before the war is over.That’s true, but Harry did the moral thing at the time. If he had allowed Sirius and Lupin to kill Peter, he would have been party to an immoral act. By preventing them from killing Peter, more people may die in the long run, but Harry can’t be held responsible for the immoral actions of Peter and Voldemort over which he has no direct control. It’s entirely possible that, if not Peter, some other Death Eater would have eventually found and restored Voldemort. If so, the war would not have been avoided. There’s also what Dumbledore says to Harry at the end of PoA:

”This is magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable, Harry. But trust me. . .the time may come when you will be very glad you saved Pettigrew’s life.”

I can’t believe that isn’t foreshadowing. Harry’s act of mercy may yet save lives, too. So maybe I'm just not explaining it right for you, but it's clear to most others.I would be extremely surprised if that was actually the case.

Dumbledore: "Listen, boy, you need to open up a can of whoop a** on that dirty rat next time you see him." :p:rotfl: Moody, maybe, but not Dumbledore!

I think that’s it. Sirius has more important issues in GoF and OotP than finding Peter for vengeance. I wonder if the statement you quoted, ” "You are -- truly your father's son, Harry. ...,” is a turning point for Sirius? Until that time, his primary goal is vengeance. At that time, Harry came through for him, as James would have. Then, after that time, Sirius’s primary allegiance is to Harry.Yes, this is really the heart of what I was getting at: the idea that Sirius's attentions were focused on more important things than revenge against Peter, but that there may have been times where he thought about it and wished things had happened differently. I do think that this quote may demonstrate a turning point for Sirius, one where he might have turned his attentions away from wanting revenge on Peter to focusing on Harry and Harry's well-being, and also his own well-being- ie, how he was going to manage his life on the run.

Did Sirius owe Harry a life-debt that he repaid in OotP? :huh: (I don’t mean to say that’s the reason Sirius went to the DoM to rescue Harry.)Hmm, I’ve never considered this. I have to say I’m not sure that Sirius owes Harry a life debt, because I believe that this magic is evoked when someone of good moral character saves the life of a traitor or an enemy without being obligated to do so. As in the case of Harry saving Peter, Harry didn’t have to spare his life – the life of a traitor of the worst kind – but he did so anyway. This is the kind of thing that I believe would evoke the life debt rather than the debt being evoked between people on the same side. After all, between friends, if one does something for the other, the "debt" is repayed by continued friendship. That's the way I see it, feel free to disagree. :)

I know we discussed this pages ago, but I've been thinking about Voldemort recruiting werewolves and the debate we had on that. I don't think it matters that werewolves turn every full moon, since that's approximately 13 nights a year. They would still be useful other nights.

I never said they wouldn't be useful, just that it would be unlikely to end up as a workable solution. Either Voldemort has to deny them their rights on the nights of the full moon, and risk irritating the werewolves and proving to them that their rights aren't important to him, or risk letting them wreak havoc on his own forces.

So maybe I'm just not explaining it right for you, but it's clear to most others.

Perhaps we're overanalyzing what you're saying, but I can't seem to follow your logic, either. Maybe we should table this discussion and bring it out again on some other version?

Avenged7fold, this thread is contentious enough, it doesn't need encouragement. Please try to be respectful.

RemusLupinFan, I love the way you put that. Continued friendship should be enough to equalize the debt. I had always thought that it wouldn't be considered a "favor" if it was a friend, because friendship, by its nature, should include such acts. I like the way you describe it better.

Bingo. And its not just the werewolves. Voldemort is targeting other groups that have less than equal rights in the wizarding world - giants, goblins, other dark creatures for example. Every little bit helps.

Exactly. That's why it's so likely that Lupin may be trying to convince the werewolves to join the side of the Order. Every soldier who joins Voldemort's side is one soldier fewer for the Order. I think that regardless of if someone agrees with Voldemort's basic ideals, if he can give them what they want, they will join him.

In OotP, we do know that Sirius was a bit sulky and moody, but he never mentions Peter (as far as I can remember). Sure, he could have been thinking about Wormtail and his betrayal- that it's all his fault that he escaped, which made him a wanted man, which in turn caused him to have to remain locked up in Grimmauld Place. But I believe (and I know this is speculation) that Sirius was not preoccupied with Peter the way he was in PoA. Worrying about Harry has given something else that's very important for Sirius to think about. The same was likely true for most of GoF- Sirius did certainly express a lot of concern for Harry's well-being.

I completely agree. In fact, I made this very same point, yet people felt the need to argue with it, though they are agreeing now.

I would be extremely surprised if that was actually the case.

Of all the people who have commented on it, you're the only one who has expressed confusion. Therefore, my statements are clear to most others who have taken the time to tell me what they think of it. I did think I might be making sense to me and no one else, which is why I asked the opinion of others. Therefore, while it's perfectly plausible that I'm just confusing in the way I express my thoughts, most others who I have spoken to about it are quite clear on my point.

clkginny, I saw your post after I typed out this response. Try this explanation:

In the first part, I merely say that being a person who has truly forgiven another is possible. In the second part I state why, if people define forgiveness differently, it's highly unlikely. They are separate thoughts.

I hope that helped.

I never said they wouldn't be useful, just that it would be unlikely to end up as a workable solution.

I never said you said that werewolves would be useless, but the idea was raised. Please don't take comments on discussions that you may have been part of as personal attacks. I didn't mention you specifically because I wasn't talking about you specifically.

Finally,about love and hate (this isn't directed at one person and if you're sick of it, feel free to ignore this): I was trying to emphasize the point that one can not feel hate without having felt something else. I know I said they wouldn't know they're feeling hate, and I think that's true, but the basic point was if they feel hate, then they feel hate and that's normal for them, it isn't hate. Hate can only be felt when some other emotion is experienced as well.

If you still don't see my point, I can't make it any plainer at the moment. Maybe at some point in the future I can explain it better.

I never said you said that werewolves would be useless, but the idea was raised. Please don't take comments on discussions that you may have been part of as personal attacks. I didn't mention you specifically because I wasn't talking about you specifically.

I didn't take it that way. :sigh: I refered to myself, because I was speaking to my own thoughts on the werewolf issue. I tend to try not to speak for others, or phrase it as if I am speaking for others, unless I feel that I have a pretty good idea what they meant. So, I was just trying to qualify my statement, as to my opinion. I admit that there is a good possibility that Voldemort could try to recruit werewolves, but if he does, there needs to be some explanation as to the logistics of such a situation.

Thank-you for the clarification, by the way. I don't neccessarily agree with it, but I think I understand what you're saying, now. It was a little fractured trying to follow it in your posts. :D

Quote from HermioneLuna:
Finally,about love and hate (this isn't directed at one person and if you're sick of it, feel free to ignore this): I was trying to emphasize the point that one can not feel hate without having felt something else. I know I said they wouldn't know they're feeling hate, and I think that's true, but the basic point was if they feel hate, then they feel hate and that's normal for them, it isn't hate. Hate can only be felt when some other emotion is experienced as well.
Couldn't that be said about every emotion? If a person constantly felt love then love would be normal for them and it wouldn't be love. But said person would have to grow up isolated because other humans help explain emotion to people. Voldemort has never felt love (from another) yet he understands it enough to use against Harry, Dumbeldore and co.

I think I was the one that brought up the idea of werewolves being useless to Voldemort (or perhaps of little true use) and that Lupin might not represent the average werewolf.

Hmm, I’ve never considered this. I have to say I’m not sure that Sirius owes Harry a life debt, because I believe that this magic is evoked when someone of good moral character saves the life of a traitor or an enemy without being obligated to do so. As in the case of Harry saving Peter, Harry didn’t have to spare his life – the life of a traitor of the worst kind – but he did so anyway. This is the kind of thing that I believe would evoke the life debt rather than the debt being evoked between people on the same side. After all, between friends, if one does something for the other, the "debt" is repayed by continued friendship. That's the way I see it, feel free to disagree. :)It's never occurred to me before that a life debt would only be incurred if the people involved were enemies. And you take it further to say that the one saving the other's life would need good moral character. Does this mean that you think Lupin wouldn't owe Peter a life debt if he was saved by Peter? (Peter lacks good moral character, of course.) What if the people involved didn't previously know each other? No life debt?

Couldn't that be said about every emotion? If a person constantly felt love then love would be normal for them and it wouldn't be love. But said person would have to grow up isolated because other humans help explain emotion to people. Voldemort has never felt love (from another) yet he understands it enough to use against Harry, Dumbeldore and co.

I think I was the one that brought up the idea of werewolves being useless to Voldemort (or perhaps of little true use) and that Lupin might not represent the average werewolf.

Yes it could be said about every emotion. I never said it couldn't. I just used the emotions pertinent to the debate. Meaning that an emotion such as depression would be unimportant.

I didn't take it that way. I refered to myself, because I was speaking to my own thoughts on the werewolf issue.

Reading your post as a response to that specific part of my post, it seemed like you were respnding to that entire section. Therefore when you said the part I quoted, I thought you were responding to the fact that I mentioned some people didn't think werewolves would be an advantage to Voldemort.

Thank-you for the clarification, by the way. I don't neccessarily agree with it, but I think I understand what you're saying, now.

I don't mind if you disagree. That seems to be the thing to do lately. :) As long as you understand my point, I'm happy.

What if the people involved didn't previously know each other? No life debt?

If they didn't know each other, they wouldn't be enemies, would they?

I think that RemusLupinFan's definition of what a life debt is is a good one. However, I don't think it's just between enemies. I think that the life debt comes into play when one person saves the life of another when they don't have to regardless of if their enemies or strangers.

I tend to agree that the debt is repaid between friends just by continuing to be friends. Sticking one's neck out for a friend is what friends do and there shouldn't be a system of checks and balances between friends.

If someone is being bullied or beaten to death, and a stranger sees it and steps in thereby saving the first person's life, there's a life debt. Of course, that's just my opinion.

If someone is being bullied or beaten to death, and a stranger sees it and steps in thereby saving the first person's life, there's a life debt. Of course, that's just my opinion.

Hey, we agree on something. :clap: :lol:

If they didn't know each other, they wouldn't be enemies, would they? One wouldn't think so.

This is quite similar to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and Two Towers, in which Frodo suggests killing Gollum, and Gandalf the wizard tells him not to be in such a hurry to kill someone because they might have their part to play. Later, Sam wants to kill Gollum again for very good reasons, but Frodo spares him again.

Very true. And Gollum does prove useful. It is a nice comparison. There, Gollum was the one who owed his life to frodo(though he didn't realise) and had some kind of odd respect for him. That did not at all change his feelings towards Sam, nor did Sam's towards him. Here, Peter owes his life to Harry(i don't know if he realises it yet). But I doubt that changed any other relation.

Gollum was pitiable, in some instances, and here peter is. Basically because, he is bound to people. He doesn't realise his existance as an independent man, and that was the very reason why he betrayed his friends. It happens at times. A person is very weak(physically, emotionally or mentally), the world looks down upon him, he feels unimportant. Then he can look at life in two ways... think that the world is wrong, and he is significant(this can often lead to the making of criminals andd idealists) or accept that the world is right, and he is not of any use. That is what happened with peter. That is what made him who he is, dependent, but without much loyalty. When i say loyalty, i don't mean he doesn't do what his master wants to, but that he will be willing to leave his master to serve a new more powerful master.(i guess we have discussed about his loyalty before, so lets leave it at that)

I wanted opinions on one thing... How did Lupin feel when James and Sirius did pranks? Did he support them? Or did he try to calm them, but still they did it? Or did he fight with them about it and didn't talk to them, like hermione, for some days?

Waiting....

I wanted opinions on one thing... How did Lupin feel when James and Sirius did pranks? Did he support them? Or did he try to calm them, but still they did it? Or did he fight with them about it and didn't talk to them, like hermione, for some days?
No problem, I'm full of opinions (and hot air, come to think of it).

I get the impression that Lupin didn't support them on their bullying. However, we have very little canon to go on with this. In SWM, he didn't interfere directly, and I doubt that he fought with them, although I'm sure he had some words for them about it. I would imagine that if it ever got to the point of an actual fight, then it was after the SS incident. I have trouble seeing Lupin take that laying down, even if it was one of his best friends that caused the situation. As a matter of fact, I commented before that I think Pettigrew exploited that situation as a way of driving a wedge between James/Sirius and Lupin.

I get the impression that Lupin didn't support them on their bullying. However, we have very little canon to go on with this. In SWM, he didn't interfere directly, and I doubt that he fought with them, although I'm sure he had some words for them about it.
Sirius says in OotP that Remus always managed to make them feel guilty for their behavior, so clearly he didn't support the bullying.

Sirius says in OotP that Remus always managed to make them feel guilty for their behavior, so clearly he didn't support the bullying.

He could still support them somewhat and make them guilty. When Harry speaks to Sirius and Lupin in the fire, Lupin said that James and Snape continued hexing each other, ever after James stopped bullying everyone else. I believe his words were something like, "Snape hexed James every chance he got. You couldn't expect James to take that lying down."

Lupin could have been partially supportive, but still made James guilty.

For example, he could have said, "I know you don't like Snape, and I don't blame you, but don't you think you're getting a little carried away?"

Perhaps I would have made my meaning clearer in my first post if I had said that I didn't think that Lupin fully supported the bullying. I don't think he seriously disagreed with them about it until the SS incident.

Sirius says in OotP that Remus always managed to make them feel guilty for their behavior, so clearly he didn't support the bullying.Actually, what Lupin and Sirius say is:

"Did I ever tell you to lay off Snape?" [Lupin] said. "Did I ever have the guts to tell you I thought you were out of order?"

"Yeah, well," said Sirius, "you made us feel ashamed of ourselves sometimes. . . .That was something. . ." (OotP, AmHC, p671)

So, Lupin definitely didn't support the bullying, but it sounds like he didn't do that much about it. Lupin's question implies that he never told James or Sirius to "lay off Snape" or that they were "out of order." Sirius's statement that Lupin made them feel ashamed of themselves sometimes implies that they knew of his disapproval. If Lupin never told them directly, I'm not sure how they would have known, though--perhaps by Lupin's non-participation or a disgusted expression? Sirius finished by saying, "That was something," which isn't really a ringing endorsement. That's not what I would have said, if I thought someone had done all they could to correct a wrong situation.

It's never occurred to me before that a life debt would only be incurred if the people involved were enemies. And you take it further to say that the one saving the other's life would need good moral character. Does this mean that you think Lupin wouldn't owe Peter a life debt if he was saved by Peter? (Peter lacks good moral character, of course.) What if the people involved didn't previously know each other? No life debt?I suppose I qualified my definition to extend to people of good moral character because I was thinking of the life debt as being something incurred mainly only by moral people- people who are naturally subject to performing such acts of mercy. What I mean to say is that Peter for example – being someone of poor moral character – would not be expected to save someone else’s life the way Harry saved his. It just doesn’t seem to fit with his nature. I suppose this is a generalization, but I don’t see someone with poor moral character committing such a moral and noble act. I suppose it could happen, but I see it as being very unlikely.

I agree with HermioneLuna that a stranger saving the life of someone who is about to be killed would probably evoke a life debt. It's possible these two people - the victim and the rescuer - could become friends, and their continuing friendship may fulfill the debt. It's also possible that the victim may perform a single act for the rescuer to fulfill the debt- perhaps saving the life of the rescuer in another situation. So I agree that there is more than one way to evoke the life debt and that there's more than one way of fulfilling it.

I wanted opinions on one thing... How did Lupin feel when James and Sirius did pranks? Did he support them? Or did he try to calm them, but still they did it? Or did he fight with them about it and didn't talk to them, like hermione, for some days?I am of the opinion that not all of the Marauders’ pranks were directed at Snape and that not all of the Marauders’ pranks were harmful to others. That said, I see Lupin as being the brains of the group, meaning that he had the most common sense of the bunch. I can see Lupin as the person to perfect the Marauders’ plans, so long as these plans weren’t directed at Snape or harmful to others. If they were, I can see Lupin not participating like he did in SWM and I think he would have reprimanded the Marauders after they had done what they were going to do. But like Chiev says, he may not have said anything every single time, but may have instead shown his disgust in a more subtle way some of the time.

Lupin could have been partially supportive, but still made James guilty.

For example, he could have said, "I know you don't like Snape, and I don't blame you, but don't you think you're getting a little carried away?"That seems like a plausible scenario at the point where James and Snape were mutually hexing one another. I believe someone on this thread gave the argument that Snape began to hex James instead of James one-sidedly hexing Snape at some point after SWM, perhaps when James’s head deflated a bit. At this point, James and Snape would have been exercising mutual bullying, since both of them were involved in hexing each other whenever they could. So I agree that Lupin probably tried to talk some sense into James to make him stop continuing to hex Snape, perhaps in the hopes that Snape might lay off James as well.

As a matter of fact, I commented before that I think Pettigrew exploited that situation as a way of driving a wedge between James/Sirius and Lupin.I agree with this and I’ve also noted that this incident was a very good way for Peter to play upon Lupin’s feelings during the “dark years”.

This may be a bit harsh, but do you think Lupin wasa bit, a very tiny bit scared to lose friends, and that is why, avoided stopping them? Maybe not, but we have seen in hermione's case that shefeels extremely lonely without harry and ron. But there is a contrast between Lupin and Hermione. Hermione is straight forward,kind of prim and proper, and does not stop herself from stopping harry. Not to mention,she was willing to be lonely, as long as she thought what she did was right, however hard it is on her. This is just a possibility, but lupin may, just may have been careful about it. I would say that is far more wise than hermione's method, because not only she is not able to solve the problem, but she herself feel lonely.

I am in no way saying that their relation was weak, but when too strong characters like james and siris are there, you need to think a bit more....

may have instead shown his disgust in a more subtle way some of the time.

This kind of sums up what i mean to say... what do you people think?

I suppose I qualified my definition to extend to people of good moral character because I was thinking of the life debt as being something incurred mainly only by moral people- people who are naturally subject to performing such acts of mercy. What I mean to say is that Peter for example – being someone of poor moral character – would not be expected to save someone else’s life the way Harry saved his. It just doesn’t seem to fit with his nature. I suppose this is a generalization, but I don’t see someone with poor moral character committing such a moral and noble act. I suppose it could happen, but I see it as being very unlikely.I don’t disagree that it would be very unlikely. Here’s a question, though. If Peter saved Lupin unintentionally, it probably wouldn’t qualify as the type of act that would incur a life-debt. What if Peter saved Lupin for selfish reasons, though? Would that qualify for a life-debt?

We’ve discussed James’s rescue of Snape many times. Usually, we’ve come to the group consensus that James’s reason for saving Snape had as much or more to do with keeping his friends out of trouble (expulsion for Sirius; “murder” for Lupin) than it did with actually saving Snape. We all think that Snape had a life-debt to James in the same way as Peter does to Harry, but perhaps he didn’t? This may be a bit harsh, but do you think Lupin wasa bit, a very tiny bit scared to lose friends, and that is why, avoided stopping them? Maybe not, but we have seen in hermione's case that shefeels extremely lonely without harry and ron. But there is a contrast between Lupin and Hermione. Hermione is straight forward,kind of prim and proper, and does not stop herself from stopping harry. Not to mention,she was willing to be lonely, as long as she thought what she did was right, however hard it is on her. This is just a possibility, but lupin may, just may have been careful about it. I would say that is far more wise than hermione's method, because not only she is not able to solve the problem, but she herself feel lonely.Yeah, we’ve also discussed the similarities between Lupin and Hermione in terms of their studiousness, but I don’t think we’ve looked at their similarities/differences in terms of their approach to their friends. Great observation! :tu:

I think you’re right that Lupin was concerned about losing his friends and that may be why he didn’t confront his friends about their behavior more forcefully. (I don’t think it’s harsh to say.) We also discussed at one time that his presumed personality type, INFP, would make him naturally wish to avoid conflict, which may also explain why he didn’t directly address his friends’ behavior.

If Lupin’s primary concern is losing his friends, then Hermione is really stronger than Lupin in that regard. She is willing to lose her friends to do what she believes is best for them—really that’s the best type of friend, isn’t it? (Assuming of course that what she believes is best is reasonable.) In PoA, she loses both Harry and Ron by reporting Harry’s gift of the Firebolt—she only did that out of concern for Harry’s safety. She was willing to lose Harry in order to protect him. We don’t really know of a similar situation for Lupin, but I could easily see Lupin making a different choice from Hermione.

Great points about Hermione and Lupin, Arivasthan and Chiev!

I think you’re right that Lupin was concerned about losing his friends and that may be why he didn’t confront his friends about their behavior more forcefully. (I don’t think it’s harsh to say.) We also discussed at one time that his presumed personality type, INFP, would make him naturally wish to avoid conflict, which may also explain why he didn’t directly address his friends’ behavior.

I've known people like that before - who hated confrontation so much that they wouldn't stand up to people. My husband has problems like that with his family members and some of his co-workers. It is a good thing and a bad thing. Good, in that people think of him as a "mediator" or "easy going" (alot like Lupin), but bad in that his family takes advantage of him, pulls him into arguments, and his co-workers push jobs onto him because he won't get angry about it (at least he pretends not to be angry about it till he comes home and talks about his frustration). This is why I oftn think Lupin is different from the way he appears - he is holding it all in, except with his closest friend - Sirius. We have a clue in that comment about his anger toward Umbridge that he never talks about in any scene, but only to Sirius in private, supposedly.

If Lupin’s primary concern is losing his friends, then Hermione is really stronger than Lupin in that regard. She is willing to lose her friends to do what she believes is best for them—really that’s the best type of friend, isn’t it? (Assuming of course that what she believes is best is reasonable.) In PoA, she loses both Harry and Ron by reporting Harry’s gift of the Firebolt—she only did that out of concern for Harry’s safety. She was willing to lose Harry in order to protect him. We don’t really know of a similar situation for Lupin, but I could easily see Lupin making a different choice from Hermione.

Me too, and this also reminds me of Neville, who has more to lose than Hermione, since he has even fewer friends and more problems. In OotP, when Harry is arguing with Seamus Finnegan about the stories in the Daily Prophet and about Dumbledore, Neville stands up for Harry and says he believes him. That is really important, since Seamus and Neville have always been friends and Neville hasn't been in the "trio" of course. He crosses a line for his friend. ( I just love Neville, :blush: isn't that clear?)

Quote from asrivathsan:
This may be a bit harsh, but do you think Lupin wasa bit, a very tiny bit scared to lose friends, and that is why, avoided stopping them? Maybe not, but we have seen in hermione's case that shefeels extremely lonely without harry and ron. But there is a contrast between Lupin and Hermione. Hermione is straight forward,kind of prim and proper, and does not stop herself from stopping harry. Not to mention,she was willing to be lonely, as long as she thought what she did was right, however hard it is on her. This is just a possibility, but lupin may, just may have been careful about it. I would say that is far more wise than hermione's method, because not only she is not able to solve the problem, but she herself feel lonely.
I've always wondered about this comparison...I've stated before that I have a lot of trouble with it and this point is one of the main reasons. Lupin seems a lot more like Ron then Hermione...several times during OotP Ron tells Hermione to be quiet rather then risk setting off Harry's temper.

I've always wondered about this comparison...I've stated before that I have a lot of trouble with it and this point is one of the main reasons. Lupin seems a lot more like Ron then Hermione...several times during OotP Ron tells Hermione to be quiet rather then risk setting off Harry's temper.And he backs off from reprimanding the twins for their "experiments" as well, and lets Hermione do all the heavy lifting.

One wouldn't think so.

I was being sarcastic.

I wanted opinions on one thing... How did Lupin feel when James and Sirius did pranks? Did he support them? Or did he try to calm them, but still they did it? Or did he fight with them about it and didn't talk to them, like hermione, for some days?

I think Lupin was an equal partner in the pranking. James and Sirius seem more the types to go by instincts or follow their impulses. Lupin seems to me the type to actually plan out their pranks so they wouldn't get caught. I'm sure there were times they did, but I think Lupin's involvment significantly decreased their chances of getting caught.

Lupin wasn't a little angel. On the Marauder's Map, he insults Snape just like the other three. I realize this isn't Lupin himself speaking, but he was one of the Map's creators and I think all the insults reflect the characters of the Marauders. Lupin's is polite, but still insulting.

I think that, while James and Sirius may have been the more extroverted pranksters, Lupin participated as well. I don't see how they could have been friends for seven years at Hogwarts and then continue their friendship once they left school if Lupin didn't support or agree with anything James and Sirius did.

About if Lupin was afraid to lose his friends. Considering that there are many people who do fear losing friendships in the best of circumstances, I wouldn't say this is unlikely. However, I think if it ever truly got serious, he would step in. I'm aware he didn't interfere in the portion of Snape's Worst Memory that we saw, but he might have.

Even if he didn't, I think that Lupin's learned from his past mistakes. In Order of the Phoenix, Lupin tells Harry that he has to go back to Snape and demand that they finish Occlumency lessons, despite the fact that this is the last thing Harry wants to hear. I think Lupin has matured in the regard that he's no longer afraid of losing people close to him by standing up to them. Now, he tells them what they need to hear, even if there's a chance it will make him unpopular. Harry doesn't hold it against Lupin, but there was a chance he could have and Lupin must have known that.

We all think that Snape had a life-debt to James in the same way as Peter does to Harry, but perhaps he didn’t?
I think life debt is more like a self fulfilling prophesy: Wizards believe in life debts, therefore they fulfil them. Perhaps Snape only thinks he has a life debt to James. But as long as he thinks it, it works the same way as if it had been something magical. (Just speculating :) )

I think Lupin was an equal partner in the pranking. James and Sirius seem more the types to go by instincts or follow their impulses. Lupin seems to me the type to actually plan out their pranks so they wouldn't get caught. Hm, here's a new view of Lupin that I haven't heard before. Thanks. Could you elaborate on why you think so? Was Lupin the mastermind behind the more cruel "pranks" as well?

I can imagine Lupin as a person who would participate in breaking school rules, but not as one who would participate in bullying. If for example James, Sirius and Peter were to sneak out of school at night to explore the forbidden forest, or something, I think Lupin would come. But if they were planning for example to hex Snape's broom so that he would fall off it in flying class, I don't think Lupin would participate. The reason I think this, is: 1) As you said, he must have enjoyed the others' company, so he must have liked some of the things they did, --> he could have liked to go out on adventures, but 2) being a werewolf, he knows what it's like to be an outcast, so I don't think he would do something that would deliberately hurt another person, nor contribute to making that person an outcast. Also, this doesn't fit with his peace loving personality type.

I think Lupin is an adventurer, like the rest, but not a bully.

I agree, Norbertha.

I can imagine Lupin getting into mischief. Breaking rules that don't involve hurting anyone (either physcially or emotionally). That is just my opinion, of course. I suppose that teen Lupin may not have been as sensitive as he is as adult-Lupin, but I guess I just figure him to always have been sensitive to other's feelings due to his own issues and knowing how it feels to be a bit "different".

Well here is my idea on how the Marauders compare to Harry and his friends:

James / Harry Potter: They are both seekers adn break rules. Yet they prove to be valianty and courageous in ways of saving peoples' lives. James saved Snape's while harry has experienced almost every year of Hogwarts some kind of adventure and saves lives in the end. They are also more of the leaders in their groups.

Sirius Black / Fred & George Weasley: These three are very much alike. They both hide thier intelligents in an excellent way. They are also the mischievous pranksters and always landing themselves in dentetions.

Remus Lupin / Hermione Granger: They are both the people in the group who are more intelluctual advanced. They are strict about getting in trouble but do it in a while. They have reputations to hold up to yet they at times don't really care. They care about those close to them but fear rejection because of how they are. When they first came to Hogwarts they feared lonliness because of different reasons. But they made friends and grew a strong relationship that would take ages to break down.

Peter Pettigrew/Ginny Weasley: They are both the quiet ones that are extremely shy around new people. They have small voices and belevie that no one listens to them and eager for acknowledgement that they are there. But unlike Peter, Ginny is not a triator but we still do not know what'll happen yet so we can't be sure.

So that was my perspective on how each Marauder has a significant comparision between Harry and his friends.

In OotP, when Harry is arguing with Seamus Finnegan about the stories in the Daily Prophet and about Dumbledore, Neville stands up for Harry and says he believes him. That is really important, since Seamus and Neville have always been friends and Neville hasn't been in the "trio" of course. He crosses a line for his friend. Neville definitely stands up for Harry there, but is he really risking losing Seamus's friendship? I always got the impression that Seamus and Dean Thomas were a pair and Neville was actually closer to the trio. Of course, Neville does stand up against Harry, possibly risking his future friendship, in PS/SS.( I just love Neville, :blush: isn't that clear?)I never knew you were a fangirl! :p I was being sarcastic. I know. So was I. :rolleyes: :evil:However, I think if it ever truly got serious, he would step in. I'm aware he didn't interfere in the portion of Snape's Worst Memory that we saw, but he might have.Right, because the portion of SWM we saw wasn't serious. :rolleyes: *sarcasm*I think life debt is more like a self fulfilling prophesy: Wizards believe in life debts, therefore they fulfil them. Perhaps Snape only thinks he has a life debt to James. But as long as he thinks it, it works the same way as if it had been something magical. (Just speculating :) )That would be amusing. :lol:

Dumbledore describes it to Harry as "magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable," though. I don't think Dumbledore would have said that, if there wasn't some sort of actual "physical" magical bond.

Hm, here's a new view of Lupin that I haven't heard before. Thanks. Could you elaborate on why you think so? Was Lupin the mastermind behind the more cruel "pranks" as well?

James and Sirius were more reckless, Lupin was more the type to think things out and be logical. To avoid repeating myself further, can you tell me what you didn't understand?


I know. So was I. :rolleyes: :evil:

Well, with you misunderstanding me on so many things, I thought I'd just be sure. I actually left out the eye rolling similie from my original post cause I thought you'd take that the wrong way as well.

Right, because the portion of SWM we saw wasn't serious. :rolleyes: *sarcasm*

It was mean, for sure. But I don't think it was serious. I think that if James or Sirius had lifted Snape hundreds of feet into the air and then just dropped him to the ground, that would be serious. But casting scourgify, petrificus totalis, the spell that flipped Snape upside down which as been speculated to be Wingaurdium Leviosa, and causing Snape to fall a few feet, I don't see that as serious.

Most of the spells James used are taught to first years, how dangerous could they be? I just don't think it was serious, so much as just plain mean. You're free to disagree, but it's my opinion.

Semantics. Some of us would consider 'plain old mean' to be serious. :D

Hm, here's a new view of Lupin that I haven't heard before. Thanks. Could you elaborate on why you think so? Was Lupin the mastermind behind the more cruel "pranks" as well?James and Sirius were more reckless, Lupin was more the type to think things out and be logical. To avoid repeating myself further, can you tell me what you didn't understand?I don't mean to speak for Norbertha, but I'd say her comment contained more sarcasm than confusion. :evil:Well, with you misunderstanding me on so many things, I thought I'd just be sure. I've never misunderstood any of your coherent posts. :angel: Most of the spells James used are taught to first years, how dangerous could they be?It's not so much the spells themselves as what James & Sirius do with them. Semantics. Some of us would consider 'plain old mean' to be serious. :DHear, hear! :tu:

It's obvious that SWM was Snape's own fault. He must have been doing something to the marauders in order for them to do what they did. I mean, if Sirius would back off from Pettigrew just because Harry told him to, I'm sure he would have done the same for anyone else.

It's obvious that SWM was Snape's own fault. He must have been doing something to the marauders in order for them to do what they did. I mean, if Sirius would back off from Pettigrew just because Harry told him to, I'm sure he would have done the same for anyone else.But Snape was just minding his own business! It's not his fault he wasn't paying any attention to where he was walking. Why should he have to constantly be on his guard or constantly on the lookout for the Marauders? Not. Snape's. Fault.

But Snape was just minding his own business! It's not his fault he wasn't paying any attention to where he was walking. Why should he have to constantly be on his guard or constantly on the lookout for the Marauders? Not. Snape's. Fault.

Of course it was Snape's fault! The horrible little spider had been following them around for years, trying to get them expelled! He had it coming. And really, they let him off too easy. I hope they really did take off his pants at the end of the memory. He deserves it for how mean he is to Harry and Neville and Hermione.

But Snape was just minding his own business! It's not his fault he wasn't paying any attention to where he was walking. Why should he have to constantly be on his guard or constantly on the lookout for the Marauders? Not. Snape's. Fault.

It's perfectly obvious that Snape must have been doing the same or worse to the Marauders. They wouldn't attack him unless he had instigated it. We just didn't see that part in the pensieve.

It's perfectly obvious that Snape must have been doing the same or worse to the Marauders. They wouldn't attack him unless he had instigated it. We just didn't see that part in the pensieve.
Agreed. From the text it sounds like right from the start there was no love lost between Snape, Sirius and James. Snape was already experienced in dark arts, I doubt he missed a chance to hex his rivals, just as they never lost a chance to torment him.

Agreed. From the text it sounds like right from the start there was no love lost between Snape, Sirius and James. Snape was already experienced in dark arts, I doubt he missed a chance to hex his rivals, just as they never lost a chance to torment him.

Especially when you consider that Sirius has demonstrated his forgiving nature by not killing Pettigrew when he had the chance. So, if he is still holding a grudge against Snape, then it stands to reason the Snape must have done something pretty bad.

It's perfectly obvious that Snape must have been doing the same or worse to the Marauders. They wouldn't attack him unless he had instigated it. We just didn't see that part in the pensieve.

We know that the Marauders were good guys. They wouldn't just do something like that for no reason. Plus, we have no way of knowing if that Pensieve memory is even accurate. It was Snape's memory, after all. Snape isn't known for his goodwill. I'm sure his memories reflect this.
Also, I think it's important to note that it was really only James who did anything to Snivellus, anyway. Sirius was just standing by in a support role.

Also, in the part that we saw, Snape did something much worse than the Marauders. Snape drew blood, while all James did was teach Snape how to do cartwheels with magical assistance. It's not like being upside-down hurt Snape. Besides, why would Sirius, Lupin, and Pettigrew stand around and do nothing if James was out of line. Lily was the only one who thought that it wasn't warranted, and I'll bet she only intervened because she thought that would be a good opportunity to flirt with James.

But Snape was just minding his own business! It's not his fault he wasn't paying any attention to where he was walking. Why should he have to constantly be on his guard or constantly on the lookout for the Marauders? Not. Snape's. Fault.How can it not be his fault he wasn't paying attention to where he was walking? That's like saying it's not someone's fault that they crash into a tree while they're not paying attention to their driving. And, I would also point out that the tree would be minding it's own business and not at all at fault for someone crashing into it; therefore, the Marauders can't be held responsible for what happens.Of course it was Snape's fault! The horrible little spider had been following them around for years, trying to get them expelled! He had it coming. And really, they let him off too easy. I hope they really did take off his pants at the end of the memory. He deserves it for how mean he is to Harry and Neville and Hermione.I totally agree. That would really teach him not to bully his students!Besides, why would Sirius, Lupin, and Pettigrew stand around and do nothing if James was out of line. Lily was the only one who thought that it wasn't warranted, and I'll bet she only intervened because she thought that would be a good opportunity to flirt with James.:tu: Don't forget that all the other students were laughing, too, so they must have thought Snape deserved it. If anyone thought it was bad, I'm sure they would have gotten a teacher. If no one there thought it was a bad thing to do, why should we? :huh:

Don't forget that all the other students were laughing, too, so they must have thought Snape deserved it. If anyone thought it was bad, I'm sure they would have gotten a teacher. If no one there thought it was a bad thing to do, why should we?
You know, in light of the current evidence, I'm inclined to think that Snape actually is spying against Dumbledore for Voldemort, and just pretending that he is on the side of the Order. It is apparent that Snape was sabotaging the Occlumency lessons. After all, why else would Harry have been more sensitive to Voldemort after the lessons if that wasn't the case? Snape also took the fist oppotunity he could to throw Harry out and discontinue the lessons. I'm sure that Lupin must have told Snape to beging the lessons again, because nothing was more important than Harry learning Occlumency. So, why didn't Snape resume the lessons? Easy, he obviously wanted Harry to be lured into the DOM.

We know that the Marauders were good guys. They wouldn't just do something like that for no reason. Plus, we have no way of knowing if that Pensieve memory is even accurate. It was Snape's memory, after all. Snape isn't known for his goodwill. I'm sure his memories reflect this.
Also, I think it's important to note that it was really only James who did anything to Snivellus, anyway. Sirius was just standing by in a support role.

You are so right, Ravenfeather! Sirius didn't "force" James to do anything to Snape. I mean, James has free will, too, and he must have been really mad at Snape over something important.

I bet Snape got them in trouble THAT VERY DAY, so they were retaliating.

Still, Sirius is innocent. :tu: If he had ever done anything really bad, he would have told Harry. That is what being a father is all about, isn't it? Sharing past memories with the son you love? Not to mention the fact that Snape deserved it for hexing them all the time and sneaking around in that "way" he has.

It was mean, for sure. But I don't think it was serious. I think that if James or Sirius had lifted Snape hundreds of feet into the air and then just dropped him to the ground, that would be serious. But casting scourgify, petrificus totalis, the spell that flipped Snape upside down which as been speculated to be Wingaurdium Leviosa, and causing Snape to fall a few feet, I don't see that as serious.

Most of the spells James used are taught to first years, how dangerous could they be? I just don't think it was serious, so much as just plain mean. You're free to disagree, but it's my opinion.

:clap: Great Post! We know from Book One that Wingardium Leviosa can be done by eleven year olds, so it can't be any big deal. Snape must be an idiot not to fight that spell, you know?

And he must have fallen over his own feet lots of times, anyway, since all that hair was down in his eyes. He walks like a spider - isn't that in the canon? His hair is like a big web covering his face all the time - what are a few more bumps and bruises.

It got Lily's attention, though. That is the important thing. Who knows? If James and Lily hadn't flirted that day, they wouldn't have started dating about two years later, and then they might not have gotten married, and Harry wouldn't have been born. It's fate, and Snape is just playing his minor, comic role in the whole scheme of things. :agree: No big whoop.

If it was really bad, Lupin would have stopped them. He always knew when they were going too far and stopped them. I'm sure of it. He would have done the right thing if it was just bullying, but Lupin knew Snape deserved it.

You know, in light of the current evidence, I'm inclined to think that Snape actually is spying against Dumbledore for Voldemort, and just pretending that he is on the side of the Order. It is apparent that Snape was sabotaging the Occlumency lessons. After all, why else would Harry have been more sensitive to Voldemort after the lessons if that wasn't the case? Snape also took the fist opportunity he could to throw Harry out and discontinue the lessons. I'm sure that Lupin must have told Snape to beging the lessons again, because nothing was more important than Harry learning Occlumency. So, why didn't Snape resume the lessons? Easy, he obviously wanted Harry to be lured into the DOM.

:eyebrows: Don't forget the "missing time" when Snape was "supposedly" searching the forest. Yeah, right - like he cared what happened to Hermione and Harry! He probably just went to the dungeon and disemboweled toads for a few hours, whistling the whole time!

He probably just thinks of Dumbledore as "that treacle-tart eating old fool."

If it was really bad, Lupin would have stopped them. He always knew when they were going too far and stopped them. I'm sure of it. He would have done the right thing if it was just bullying, but Lupin knew Snape deserved it.
Lupin? No, he was totally supportive of the Marauders. But that is beside the point, because the Marauders were in the right. Besides, Lupin is totally honest, he would have told Harry if the Marauders were in the wrong. Lupin never fudges the truth.

He probably just thinks of Dumbledore as "that treacle-tart eating old fool."

Yes, exactly. Snape has no loyalty to anyone.

Lupin? No, he was totally supportive of the Marauders. But that is beside the point, because the Marauders were in the right. Besides, Lupin is totally honest, he would have told Harry if the Marauders were in the wrong. Lupin never fudges the truth.

Yes, he's such a great contrast to some of Harry's "other" teachers! :evil:

You know, in light of the current evidence, I'm inclined to think that Snape actually is spying against Dumbledore for Voldemort, and just pretending that he is on the side of the Order. It is apparent that Snape was sabotaging the Occlumency lessons. After all, why else would Harry have been more sensitive to Voldemort after the lessons if that wasn't the case? Snape also took the fist oppotunity he could to throw Harry out and discontinue the lessons. I'm sure that Lupin must have told Snape to beging the lessons again, because nothing was more important than Harry learning Occlumency. So, why didn't Snape resume the lessons? Easy, he obviously wanted Harry to be lured into the DOM.

This is really insightful! :tu:
You know, those Occlumency lessons have always bothered me. It's obvious that Snivellus wasn't helping Harry at all. He never even told Harry how to block the spell! The poor kid never stood a chance.
And then, of course, your excellent point about Harry being more open to LV's thoughts after the lessons. This is a pretty clear indication that Snivellus was actively opening Harry's mind to the DL's intrusion. Why would he do that? The only answer is the one you've laid out: he's still working for Voldemort.

Thank-you Raven

I also believe that Snape set up the distraction which afforded Harry the opportunity to look in the pensieve (which is obviously biased to Snape). Using his skills with Occlumency, he knew what the twins were up to, and he set up his student to take the fall. He probably knew exactly when that boy would return, and requested the Draco inform him when it happened. Then he set up the Occlumency lessons to coincide with the expected return of said student, thus providing himself with an excuse to leave Harry alone with the Pensieve. The pensieve which, by the way, he used in plain sight of Harry, tempting the boy to look in it. I'm sure that Dumbledore told Snape about the pensieve dive that Harry did with Dumbledore's pensieve, thus giving Snape this idea. Although, Snape deserved to have his memories violated, the bullying git.

Occlumency really brought out Snape's total hatred toward Harry. He didn't act like a teacher at all, but more like a torturer! I bet he loved it that Harry fell down over and over, and that his Scar was burning. What does Snape care? After all, he has a scar, too, so he probably just sees Harry as a big cry baby who can't deal with the pain. He was a DE so he probably likes pain, just like Peter and Bella.

Snape probably slips some kind of befuddlement draught into Dumbledore's brandy every now and then. That's why everyone from Voldemort to Barty Crouch, Jr., can just walk into the castle and start trying to kill Harry.

Having Snape the ex-DE in the castle, is like leaving a key under the doormat for all the bad guys. That's why Sirius never trusted him, and he was totally right, as usual!

Having Snape the ex-DE in the castle, is like leaving a key under the doormat for all the bad guys. That's why Sirius never trusted him, and he was totally right, as usual!
Don't forget mature!

Sirius has always had Harry's best interests at heart, because Sirius doesn't have a selfish bone in his body. Sirius should have cursed Snape at Grimmauld Place, because Snape was sooo out of line, degenerating Harry's godfather like that with no provocation.

Don't forget mature!

Sirius has always had Harry's best interests at heart, because Sirius doesn't have a selfish bone in his body. Sirius should have cursed Snape at Grimmauld Place, because Snape was sooo out of line, degenerating Harry's godfather like that with no provocation.

clkginny: Yes! And Snape knows what Sirius has suffered through the dark years in Azkaban, an innocent soul sitting there in the dark, his best friends dead and everyone blaming him. And Snape knows that Sirius is basically a prisoner in his own home, trapped with the picture of his foul mother screeching at him! I don't even understand why Dumbledore would allow Snape to bother Sirius in his own kitchen.

Why couldn't Sirius give Harry Occlumency lessons? That would have been perfect, wouldn't it! They could have spent more quality time together, and seen eachother's memories. No cockroaches would ever have been thrown at the boy, and that can only be a good thing, you know?

I think Snape actually staged the whole Snape's Worst Memory thing, to cast a bad light on James and Sirius. I bet it never really happened. It's so contradictory to everything else we know about the characters. We know James and Sirius are good guys. Snape, on the other hand, is a horrible person. JKR said so herself. If there is such a thing in the magical world as a Memory Charm, wouldn't it be logical that there is a way to plant fictive memories in somebody's head too? Snape created this memory and put it in the Pensieve for Harry to see. He wanted Harry to lose his faith in his father and godfather, to prepare him for joining the Dark side. I think Snape secretly works for the dark side still. The Occlumency lessons are part of his plan to make Harry open for Voldemort's influence.

I think Snape actually staged the whole Snape's Worst Memory thing, to cast a bad light on James and Sirius
I don't think so. Sirius/lupin accepted it right?

Lupin seems a lot more like Ron then Hermione...several times during OotP Ron tells Hermione to be quiet rather then risk setting off Harry's temper.
But Ron is kind of reckless, at times. He sometimes fails to understand others'(mostly girls:) ) feelings, and not too mature... It is quite probable lupin is, and he did understand his friends more, and thats why kept his mouth shut, when he had to...Hmm... an alloy...

anyway, characters are far too complex to be directly matched. No one is an exact copy of any other persons. Maybe just similar in some aspect. Character comparisons, will always have some dissimilarity.
One can't say Harry=James....

Originally posted by SIP
Snape knows what Sirius has suffered through the dark years in Azkaban, an innocent soul sitting there in the dark, his best friends dead and everyone blaming him. Sirius Black - innocent? Pull the other one. I think you are forgetting that Sirius tried to murder Snape when he was 16, so by rights he should have gone to Azkaban years ago. Everyone should blame Sirius, as it was his fault entirely that Lily and James died, for carrying on like an arrogant, egoistic idiot. Sirius deserves all he gets.
Originally posted by SIP
Why couldn't Sirius give Harry Occlumency lessons? That is a good point. Why did Sirius never even offer to teach Harry Occlumency? (Though I suspect the boy's suffered enough trauma without having to witness the sordid workings of Black's mind). If Sirius is such a loving, devoted godfather, why not teach the boy himself? Either it is because Sirius really is a Death Eater after all (I suspect that veil is just a portkey to Voldemort's secret HQ) or it's because Sirius isn't clever enough to know Occlumency himself, unlike Snape. It would be just typical of Sirius to whine on about Snape teaching Harry, just because he is jealous about Snape being so much cleverer than him.
Originally posted by Chiev
Don't forget that all the other students were laughing, too, so they must have thought Snape deserved it. If anyone thought it was bad, I'm sure they would have gotten a teacher. If no one there thought it was a bad thing to do, why should we? What choice did they have? Sirius, James and Lupin tyranised the entire school with their vicious and mendacious campaign of hate. Notice the way students were watching them in the DADA exam? Sirius probably thought they were eyeing him up, the big-headed twerp :rolleyes: (I mean, what sort of a dunderhead would fancy that unwashed show-off?) No-one dared turn their back on the Marauders for a second, for fear of getting hexed. The reason no-one got a teacher is that they were scared of having a werewolf set on them too.

I think it is terrible that James and Sirius got off scot-free with their appalling behaviour. It is all their fault that Snape and Pettigrew joined the Death Eaters - you can only push people so far. :evil: So in a way, they both caused their own deaths, which is probably not such a bad thing, as Harry is better off without the pair of them.

Snape has done more for Harry than either his father or his godfather, and it is about time the spoilt little brat realised it, and showed some respect and appreciation for a change.

Why couldn't Sirius give Harry Occlumency lessons? That would have been perfect, wouldn't it! They could have spent more quality time together, and seen eachother's memories. No cockroaches would ever have been thrown at the boy, and that can only be a good thing, you know?
I don't understand it either, but Dumbledore must've had his reasons. Perhaps he was worried that it would be easier for certain unpleasant toad-resembling women to gain information about Sirius' whereabouts?

Everyone should blame Sirius, as it was his fault entirely that Lily and James died, for carrying on like an arrogant, egoistic idiot. Sirius deserves all he gets.
Ooooooh. I have to disagree. Sirius didn't know that Pettigrew was working for Voldemort. He only convinced Lily and James to choose Pettigrew because it would seem much less likely for them to choose him over Sirius. I don't think that's arrogant or egotistic; it's true, and I think he was only trying to save his friends' lives. Unfortunately, we all know that that was a mistake, but not one that was caused by Sirius' vanity.

That is a good point. Why did Sirius never even offer to teach Harry Occlumency? (Though I suspect the boy's suffered enough trauma without having to witness the sordid workings of Black's mind). If Sirius is such a loving, devoted godfather, why not teach the boy himself? Either it is because Sirius really is a Death Eater after all (I suspect that veil is just a portkey to Voldemort's secret HQ) or it's because Sirius isn't clever enough to know Occlumency himself, unlike Snape. It would be just typical of Sirius to whine on about Snape teaching Harry, just because he is jealous about Snape being so much cleverer than him.
Did sirius know occlumency that well?

Anything HP is supposed to take a backseat for me till June (blas-phe-my *ducks bludgers*), but couldn't resist a serious post today. :p

Although, Snape deserved to have his memories violated, the bullying git.

What ? This is preposterous. Snape's never been and never will be a bullying git; he showers love on his students regularly, nil hate at all. Tell the wind and fire where to stop loving, but not Severus, no no ... no :no:. Severus's our dearest mild-mannered royal prince, ever since that fatefully beautiful day when half-blood activist Umbridge, the prettiest Toad alive, planted a big wet kiss on Snape's lips and he blossomed into a fluffy prince.

Prince Snake erm Snape has royal manners; he never bullies; never will you hear him hiss commands such as these,


Royal Whipping Boy Potter, for each hare-brain mistake Malfoy makes, you get a whip.

Royal Seamstress Granger, weave me clothes that only Know-It-Alls can see.

Royal Page Longbottom, catch the bottom of my long black cloak while I billow it around.

Royal Nutcracker Weasley, either use your Great Seal or Longbottom's thick skull for the nut-cracking.

Royal Headmaster Dumbledore, off with your head !


:p

Severus's our dearest mild-mannered royal prince, ever since that fatefully beautiful day when half-blood activist Umbridge, the prettiest Toad alive, planted a big wet kiss on Snape's lips and he blossomed into a fluffy prince.Fluffy, Mild-mannered royal prince, for sure, but you missed out handsome. Perhaps it was so obvious that you didn't feel it needed saying? :eyebrows:

Fluffy, Mild-mannered royal prince, for sure, but you missed out handsome. Perhaps it was so obvious that you didn't feel it needed saying? :eyebrows:

Naturally so, as the mirrors on the wall would exclaim, "the fairest of them all !"

Shaggy, Skyph, can you not see it? Snape's handsome exterior is fooling us: It keeps us from seeing what a truly evil man he is on the inside. Yes, I agree he is handsome. But please, see past that, and you will see a man who was born evil, a man who has no human feelings, but fully supports Voldemort's reign of terror.

Shaggy, Skyph, can you not see it? Snape's handsome exterior is fooling us: It keeps us from seeing what a truly evil man he is on the inside. Yes, I agree he is handsome. But please, see past that, and you will see a man who was born evil, a man who has no human feelings, but fully supports Voldemort's reign of terror.

But Norbertha, we do we do, we think Severus's fair from inside out.

Why couldn't Sirius give Harry Occlumency lessons? That would have been perfect, wouldn't it! They could have spent more quality time together, and seen eachother's memories. No cockroaches would ever have been thrown at the boy, and that can only be a good thing, you know?Wow! That's a really great idea! Then, Harry could have seen what really happened during SWM. We all know that Snape's version must be so biased, none of it can be believed.I think Snape actually staged the whole Snape's Worst Memory thing, to cast a bad light on James and Sirius. I bet it never really happened. It's so contradictory to everything else we know about the characters. We know James and Sirius are good guys. Snape, on the other hand, is a horrible person. JKR said so herself. If there is such a thing in the magical world as a Memory Charm, wouldn't it be logical that there is a way to plant fictive memories in somebody's head too? Snape created this memory and put it in the Pensieve for Harry to see. He wanted Harry to lose his faith in his father and godfather, to prepare him for joining the Dark side. I think Snape secretly works for the dark side still. The Occlumency lessons are part of his plan to make Harry open for Voldemort's influence.I don't think so. Sirius/lupin accepted it right?Harry didn't have much time in the fireplace, so he probably skipped a lot of the details in the story when he told Sirius and Lupin what he saw. Snape could have made it seem a lot worse than it really was--which is a kind of fiction. I don't think Sirius and Lupin really understood what Harry saw. If they knew, they could have told Harry it wasn't true.Sirius Black - innocent? Pull the other one. I think you are forgetting that Sirius tried to murder Snape when he was 16, so by rights he should have gone to Azkaban years ago.But, Snape wasn't hurt and Sirius wouldn't try to murder someone. Snape has to blame someone for his stupidity, so he blames Sirius. Snape should have known not to trust something Sirius told him. If he went to the Shrieking Shack when Lupin was a werewolf, he deserved to be bitten. Maybe then he'd turn into a werewolf too and know what it feels like for poor Lupin. Heh, if that happened, I hope that someone would start to follow him around to see where he went--see how he likes that!Either it is because Sirius really is a Death Eater after all (I suspect that veil is just a portkey to Voldemort's secret HQ) or it's because Sirius isn't clever enough to know Occlumency himself, unlike Snape. It would be just typical of Sirius to whine on about Snape teaching Harry, just because he is jealous about Snape being so much cleverer than him.I won't even respond to the idea that Sirius would be a Death Eater. As if! :rolleyes: Sirius is a loyal member of the Order. Snape is the one who's always sneaking about.

It's just not true that Snape is cleverer than Sirius. Everyone says how smart James & Sirius were in school. They don't mention Snape at all. Sirius could be a better Occlumens than Snape any day! I mean, he learned how to be an animagus, very advanced magic, without any help from a teacher. Even if Sirius doesn't already know, I'd bet he could learn it in a day. He's got to be a better teacher than Snape (the greasy git)! Snape doesn't do anything to teach Harry.Sirius probably thought they were eyeing him up, the big-headed twerp :rolleyes: (I mean, what sort of a dunderhead would fancy that unwashed show-off?)Sirius was the best looking in the school! Sure, he didn't get a chance for a shower while he was in Azkaban,* but you can't deny how good-looking he must be under all that dirt. :love: :love: :love:

*I'm sure Snape somehow helped set this up, too (the vengeful git!)--I just haven't figured out how yet.No-one dared turn their back on the Marauders for a second, for fear of getting hexed. The reason no-one got a teacher is that they were scared of having a werewolf set on them too.Why were they all laughing then?

James and Sirius never would have done anything to betray Lupin! No one knew he was a werewolf!I think it is terrible that James and Sirius got off scot-free with their appalling behaviour. It is all their fault that Snape and Pettigrew joined the Death Eaters - you can only push people so far. :evil: So in a way, they both caused their own deaths, which is probably not such a bad thing, as Harry is better off without the pair of them.Snape and Pettigrew made their own decisions--James and Sirius can't be blamed for that. Snape was up to his ears in the Dark Arts from the beginning--he was always going to join the Death Eaters. See it all comes down to choices. Look at what a horrible home life Sirius had with Ma Black screaming at him all the time. He even had to run away from home! :sad: But, even with such an underprivileged background, he still joined the Order. Snape could have chosen to join the Order, too, but he didn't--he chose the Death Eaters (the evil git)!

As for Peter, he was their beloved friend! They felt sorry for him, protected him, helped him finish school, and helped him learn all kinds of difficult magic. What more could friends do? It was Peter who betrayed them, not the other way around!Snape has done more for Harry than either his father or his godfather, and it is about time the spoilt little brat realised it, and showed some respect and appreciation for a change.This is just simply not true. Sirius sent Harry a Firebolt. When has Snape ever given Harry a broom? :huh: Snape would never give Harry a broom, since he will do anything to have his house win at Quidditch! Sirius gave his life for Harry when he went save him at the DoM. Snape is too selfish to give his life for anyone. I suspect he is only working with Voldemort until he can learn all of Voldemort's life-prolonging secrets--his ultimate plan, of course, is to overthrow Voldemort and the MoM so he can rule the world forever.


****
anyway, characters are far too complex to be directly matched. No one is an exact copy of any other persons. Maybe just similar in some aspect. Character comparisons, will always have some dissimilarity.
One can't say Harry=James....I think this is absolutely right. :tu:

I can't see why some people think it's such a horrible thing that James and Sirius flipped Snape upside down and all that. I mean, does he have no sense of humour? This scene makes me laugh so much. If Snape had any sense of humour, he would have seen how funny is was. Come on - soap suds! :rotfl: Pink soap suds! He was known as a greasy git, dressed in black, and they give him pink soap! Luckily James and Sirius and Peter have a better sense of humour than Snape has. And it's his own fault that he forgot to wear trousers under his robes. James couldn't possibly know that.

You know, those Occlumency lessons have always bothered me. It's obvious that Snivellus wasn't helping Harry at all. He never even told Harry how to block the spell! The poor kid never stood a chance. Harry should have known how to do it. Snape told him that he knew of Harry's experiences with the Imperius Curse; Harry should obviously have been able to transfer the experience to trying to do Occlumency. He's got to be able to figure some stuff out on his own, Snape can't hand all the information to him on a silver platter. What's the kid going to do in a situation where he finds himself without the much coveted protection of Severus Snape? He needs to be able to think for himself, and that's exactly what Snape's allowing him to do. He's much better at his job than his actions let on. It's all Harry's fault, he wasn't trying at all. What's Snape supposed to do?

Sirius has always had Harry's best interests at heart, because Sirius doesn't have a selfish bone in his body. Sirius should have cursed Snape at Grimmauld Place, because Snape was sooo out of line, degenerating Harry's godfather like that with no provocation.I must object to this. Sirius did nothing but absolutely provoke Snape into an argument. Surely Sirius should have seen that as Harry's godfather, asking to stay during Snape's meeting with the boy would cause huge astronomical problems? The nerve! And after, Snape was leaving the kitchen when Sirius called him back; Snape's a busy guy and obviously he could tell that "wait a moment" really meant "Snape, we're going to throw down" so he cut to the chase and insulted Sirius's obvious and excessive amounts of leisure time. (I mean really, what's the guy doing all day?) And I've never heard a more provocative sentence then "I'll get to the point"; I can completely understand Snape's apprehension at that moment and why he immediately balled his fist around his wand as Sirius said that. I know I'd be scared of attack if someone said that to me.

Snape and Pettigrew made their own decisions--James and Sirius can't be blamed for that. Snape was up to his ears in the Dark Arts from the beginning--he was always going to join the Death Eaters. See it all comes down to choices. Look at what a horrible home life Sirius had with Ma Black screaming at him all the time. He even had to run away from home! :sad: But, even with such an underprivileged background, he still joined the Order. Snape could have chosen to join the Order, too, but he didn't--he chose the Death Eaters (the evil git)!I have to agree with shaggy on this one: clearly their experiences with the Marauders pushed Snape and Pettigrew down the wrong path. Peter's subservient attitude to James and his toady behaviour obviously prepared him for life with Voldemort; he's just replacing one "biggest bully on the playground" with another. Ther parallels are obvious. We have no proof that Snape was up to his eyeballs in dark arts; we only have what Sirius tells us and his word isn't trustworthy (he's a former criminal!). The only time we ever see Snape and the Dark Arts in the same context is at the Defense Against the Dark Arts exam! I think if James and Sirius hadn't so mercilessly tortured Snape (and I have a strong feeling that more incidents exactly like SWM or worse ocurred weekly, if not daily) that he wouldn't have had to turn to Voldemort for support. He clearly was on the same anti-dark arts kick as James and Sirius, and if they had left him alone they might have found themselves on the same side working for the Order when they left Hogwarts.

This is just simply not true. Sirius sent Harry a Firebolt. When has Snape ever given Harry a broom? :huh: Snape would never give Harry a broom, since he will do anything to have his house win at Quidditch! Snape is just trying to remain professional, and he seems to be the only teacher able to do so. Even McGonagall bought Harry a broom in Philosopher's Stone! Snape makes a point of not crossing the line in a student/teacher relationship, and obviously not sending Harry a broom is in keeping with that. I bet if Lupin had the money, he would have bought Harry a broom too.

Fluffy, Mild-mannered royal prince, for sure, but you missed out handsome. Perhaps it was so obvious that you didn't feel it needed saying? :eyebrows:Sugar and spice and everything nice, that's what Severus Snape is made of! :love:

I can't see why some people think it's such a horrible thing that James and Sirius flipped Snape upside down and all that. I mean, does he have no sense of humour? This scene makes me laugh so much. If Snape had any sense of humour, he would have seen how funny is was. Come on - soap suds! :rotfl: Pink soap suds! He was known as a greasy git, dressed in black, and they give him pink soap! But the soap suds were choking Snape! He could have died! He could have been killed! Yet another incident where the Marauders reveal their obvious and not-so-subtle attempts to rid the earth of Severus Snape. And they're so cocky and arrogant that they try to commit murder in front of the entire school! And to add insult to injury, James and Sirius must have known that pink isn't Snape's colour!

I think the main reason the Marauders came together was a mutual decision to murder Snape. No other reason could have bonded the four of them together; James and Sirius, pureblood princes, would never have otherwise hung out with a spineless, stupid toady like Peter and a half-blood werewolf like Lupin unless they all possessed the same questionable ideological fanatacism against Snape.

Luckily James and Sirius and Peter have a better sense of humour than Snape has. And it's his own fault that he forgot to wear trousers under his robes. James couldn't possibly know that.Wow, even I can't argue with that one! :lol:

I hope Lupin flips Snape upside-down again. That would be perfect. You know, Snape can't hide his loyalty to Voldemort forever, soon everyone will see how evil he really is. I'm sure that Lupin will arrange to bite him on purpose, after all, that is right in keeping with Lupin's character. I'm sure he wants revenge for what Snape did to all his friends.

Ther parallels are obvious. We have no proof that Snape was up to his eyeballs in dark arts; we only have what Sirius tells us and his word isn't trustworthy (he's a former criminal!). The only time we ever see Snape and the Dark Arts in the same context is at the Defense Against the Dark Arts exam! I think if James and Sirius hadn't so mercilessly tortured Snape (and I have a strong feeling that more incidents exactly like SWM or worse ocurred weekly, if not daily) that he wouldn't have had to turn to Voldemort for support. He clearly was on the same anti-dark arts kick as James and Sirius, and if they had left him alone they might have found themselves on the same side working for the Order when they left Hogwarts.
Come on, it's obvious that Snape like the Dark Arts! Why else would he obsess over an exam. The Marauders didn't. Normal People don't. Besides, Snape has tried to kill Harry so many times, he just keeps failing. And he needed his mouth washed out, saying the kinds of things he was. To bad they didn't wash his dirty underpants while they were at it.

It would be nice to see peter, come to dumbledore's side, don't you think? He would have a lot of information about voldy....

Sirius did nothing but absolutely provoke Snape into an argument. Surely Sirius should have seen that as Harry's godfather, asking to stay during Snape's meeting with the boy would cause huge astronomical problems?
exactly. Sirius at times, still acts like a spoilt brat....snape was quite right to treat harry as he did, after being provoked by sirius....

I think the main reason the Marauders came together was a mutual decision to murder Snape.
I really like that. And I would say, there was just about 10% chance of that happening, because marauders, at times, went berserk with their plans...

I hope Lupin flips Snape upside-down again.
That would be wonderful!

Snape wasn't hurt and Sirius wouldn't try to murder someone.
I think, you are wrong there :huh: , Sirius is certainly capable of murdering.

Sirius was the best looking in the school! Sure, he didn't get a chance for a shower while he was in Azkaban,* but you can't deny how good-looking he must be under all that dirt. :love: :love: :love:The only people who thought that were the ones Sirius had hexed with a powerful befuddledment charm. Sirius is dirty from the inside out, whereas the love-light of purity shines through from the very essence of Snape's soul!
Originally posted by Chiev
*I'm sure Snape somehow helped set this up, too (the vengeful git!)--I just haven't figured out how yet.I hope Snape did frame Sirius and have him sent to Azkaban - it was about time someone taught the arrogant git a lesson. It would serve Sirius right for being such an utter rotter.
Originally posted by Chiev
James and Sirius never would have done anything to betray Lupin! No one knew he was a werewolf!Sirius betrayed Lupin by trying to use him to kill Snape - that's not exactly friendly. If Lupin had any backbone he'd have bitten Sirius himself, but oh no, he continued to follow his friends around like the pathetic, spineless coward that he is. I suppose he thought no-one would put up with him, because he is so BORING!

Snape, on the other hand, kept Lupin's dirty little secret for over twenty years, getting no thanks in return. That is what real moral fibre is about, not the empty gestures and pathetic grandstanding the Marauders liked to indulge in!
Originally posted by Chiev
Snape was up to his ears in the Dark Arts from the beginning--he was always going to join the Death Eaters. We only have Sirius' word that Snape was always into the Dark Arts, and he isn't exactly a reliable witness is he? 'Oh, of course we can trust Pettigrew', 'Don't use Dumbledore as secret-keeper', 'I saw the Dementors bury Crouch Jnr at Azkaban.' Yeah, tell us another one genius. :rolleyes:

If anyone was always going to be a Death Eater, it is Sirius - look at the family he came from. You know what they say, the apple never falls far from the tree. Especially a rotten apple. :evil:
Originally posted by Chiev
Sirius sent Harry a Firebolt. When has Snape ever given Harry a broom? :huh: Snape would never give Harry a broom, since he will do anything to have his house win at Quidditch!No, Snape has never given Harry a broom, just saved his life when his broom was jinxed. It was totally irresponsible for Sirius to send Harry a firebolt anonymously - he gave Hermione a terrible fright, and made the boys fall out with her. Just like Sirius to concentrate on showing off by giving Harry a flashy broom, instead of spending his money on something sensible, like some soap.

Besides, Harry probably wouldn't have needed a new broom if Sirius hadn't scared him off his old one, lurking around the Quidditch pitch like a foul-smelling death omen.
Originally posted by Chiev
Sirius gave his life for Harry when he went save him at the DoM. Sirius shouldn't have even been there! If he'd done the sensible thing and stayed at home to wait for Dumbledore like Snape told him to do, he'd still be alive. But oh no, Sirius just couldn't resist showing off, prancing around the place getting himself killed, never mind how Harry might feel about it. Sirius going to the DoM that night is the most selfish thing I have ever heard of. Snape would never desert someone like that, and certainly wouldn't lose in a fight to a girl. :p
Originally posted by skyph
But Norbertha, we do we do, we think Severus's fair from inside out.Why yes. Darling Severus, as cute as a fluffy bunny, as sweet as a little kittle, noble as the greatest oak tree with a heart as pure as the driven snow. What more could a girl ask for? :love: :love: :love: :love:

I think, you are wrong there ; , Sirius is certainly capable of murdering.
No he's not. Sirius is mentally sharp, selfless, and sweet. Mind you, it would've done some people good if Sirius was, but he's a lovable puppy. Now, Lupin would be quite capable of murder, he is selfish and cruel, not to mention very immature. I'm sure that darling Sirius was the glue that kept the Marauders together all those years. It drives me nuts that Sirius plays a harmless joke on Snape (he should've been bit, the slimy git!) and everyone gets all upset.

But, Snape wasn't hurt and Sirius wouldn't try to murder someone. Snape has to blame someone for his stupidity, so he blames Sirius. Snape should have known not to trust something Sirius told him. If he went to the Shrieking Shack when Lupin was a werewolf, he deserved to be bitten. Maybe then he'd turn into a werewolf too and know what it feels like for poor Lupin. Heh, if that happened, I hope that someone would start to follow him around to see where he went--see how he likes that!
I think they're both to blame - Sirius was wrong to send Snape down to the Willow [ you must admit, even though Snape wasn't hurt, he could have been ], and Snape was wrong in that he was stupid enough to do something Sirius suggested! He shown have known better.

James and Sirius never would have done anything to betray Lupin! No one knew he was a werewolf! Sirius did, and Snape does.
Sirius used Remus' greatest weakness as a tool in a prank, and in doing so reveaked his darkest secret to a person who hated him. He might not have meant it as a cruelty, I doubt he even thought much of it at the time, but it really was rather heartless.

Sirius is mentally sharp, selfless, and sweet.
oh no! he is extremely vicious, not at all helpful. Remember the way he treated dear pettigrew? do you think that incidence shows even a single good quality?

I can't see why some people think it's such a horrible thing that James and Sirius flipped Snape upside down and all that. I mean, does he have no sense of humour? This scene makes me laugh so much. If Snape had any sense of humour, he would have seen how funny is was. Come on - soap suds! :rotfl: Pink soap suds! He was known as a greasy git, dressed in black, and they give him pink soap! Luckily James and Sirius and Peter have a better sense of humour than Snape has. And it's his own fault that he forgot to wear trousers under his robes. James couldn't possibly know that.

It reminds of the time some friends of mine held another friend under in the pool until he turned blue. We still laugh about it. :lol: Or the time another friend was run over by a motorcycle "accidentally on purpose." Of course, like all good friends, it was all in fun ;) :D and there are no hard feelings now that we are grown-ups. Snape is just so immature to hold a grudge after all these years.

Besides, we know his teeth are yellow! Those soap suds were James way of reminding him to brush and floss now and then. Imagine the bad breath the little oddball must have had! :p

I hope Lupin flips Snape upside-down again. That would be perfect. You know, Snape can't hide his loyalty to Voldemort forever, soon everyone will see how evil he really is. I'm sure that Lupin will arrange to bite him on purpose, after all, that is right in keeping with Lupin's character. I'm sure he wants revenge for what Snape did to all his friends.

I think the "flipping over" scene is proof that Snape is bad. You never see the Marauders "hanging upside down" like a bat, and they are the "epitomy of good." Didn't JKR say that herself? I'm sure there is a quote somewhere.

Lupin will eventually have to fight with Snape about Harry's future. No way that Lupin is going to forget that Snape is responsible for all these deaths, and I'm hoping Gentle Lupin can help Harry defeat Snape before it is too late!

Come on, it's obvious that Snape like the Dark Arts! Why else would he obsess over an exam. The Marauders didn't. Normal People don't

Isn't that the truth! Normal teenage boys don't obsess over books and tests like a bunch of nerds. Snape just has nothing else in his life except school, since it is clear that he has hexed everyone in the class and has no social skills.

He is pathetic, and how sad that he has been allowed to keep his same bad hygiene all the years he has taught. Especially that "snake oil" or whatever he puts on his hair - YUCK! At least the Marauders and Harry all have "good hair." That's clearly why they are so popular and everyone loves them. Plus James is good at Quidditch - great reflexes! :love: Wasn't he cute?

Harry should have known how to do it. Snape told him that he knew of Harry's experiences with the Imperius Curse; Harry should obviously have been able to transfer the experience to trying to do Occlumency. He's got to be able to figure some stuff out on his own, Snape can't hand all the information to him on a silver platter. What's the kid going to do in a situation where he finds himself without the much coveted protection of Severus Snape? He needs to be able to think for himself, and that's exactly what Snape's allowing him to do. He's much better at his job than his actions let on. It's all Harry's fault, he wasn't trying at all. What's Snape supposed to do?

I'm baffled by this! Snape is a grown man and Harry is just a kid. Harry can't be expected to know all this "dark magic." After all, he is James's son, and he always hated dark magic, remember? And Snape pushes him too far!

That awful man should never be around children, and I bet we see him get the sack in the next book for what he has done to children all these years! All those creepy experiments and confusing essays! What good are those? He should go around helping the kids more, maybe giving Neville some kind advice about how to "stir clockwise" instead of just slapping it up on the board and expecting these poor bewildered students to sink or swim. He helps his own Slytherins, doesn't he? Besides, all those melting cauldrons are a dangerous health hazard!

It's just not true that Snape is cleverer than Sirius. Everyone says how smart James & Sirius were in school. They don't mention Snape at all. Sirius could be a better Occlumens than Snape any day! I mean, he learned how to be an animagus, very advanced magic, without any help from a teacher. Even if Sirius doesn't already know, I'd bet he could learn it in a day. He's got to be a better teacher than Snape (the greasy git)! Snape doesn't do anything to teach Harry.

If Snape was so great, why isn't his name on a trophy in JKR's trophy room? Even Bella managed to get one, so Snape must really have been clueless to be passed over by her!

Sirius would have made a much better teacher! For one thing, he has a great sense of humor! At least he would have given Harry some sort of reward for working hard, and that might have encouraged him more than Snape just blabbing about "clearing his mind." Bosh! A butterbeer and some chocolate at bedtime would have helped Harry more!

Sirius probably would have shown Harry some of the "fun" memories about the Marauders, when they gave people love potions or sent magical flowers to girls! I bet they sent some to Lily! :love:

Their charm is probably what made Lily fall in love with James - it must have been like hanging around with the Beatles, you know? Like the Beatles without all the drinking, drugs, and temper tantrums. And of course, without the music, lol. (Of course, Sirius really IS Stubby Boardman! So maybe they really were musicians and travelled all over England having a blast!)

Sirius was kind to Pettigrew. I feel sorry for Pettigrew, obviously he was fooled by Snape into being a patsy. Of course, Pettigrew is too stupid to know the difference.

Their charm is probably what made Lily fall in love with James - it must have been like hanging around with the Beatles, you know? Like the Beatles without all the drinking, drugs, and temper tantrums. And of course, without the music, lol. (Of course, Sirius really IS Stubby Boardman! So maybe they really were musicians and travelled all over England having a blast!)
Well, of course he is. Sirius can't be dead. It would ruin the whole story. I bet Snape was there in the background under an invisibility cloak, and he trapped Sirius under the veil. I hope Sirius can escape. I'm sure he will, he's perfect.

Well, of course he is. Sirius can't be dead. It would ruin the whole story. I bet Snape was there in the background under an invisibility cloak, and he trapped Sirius under the veil. I hope Sirius can escape. I'm sure he will, he's perfect.

Just one push from Snape, and our Sirius was taken away forever! :upset:

But I agree, JKR wouldn't be so cruel. She'll send him back to us - we just have to have faith. No writer would kill off a main character - I mean "totally" kill them. That would be such a waste of the most handsome man in all these books! And Harry needs his "father figure" to come back and teach him all the things James would have wanted him to know about girls, and life, and Quidditch, and how to be Head Boy! :angel:

But I agree, JKR wouldn't be so cruel. She'll send him back to us - we just have to have faith. No writer would kill off a main character - I mean "totally" kill them. That would be such a waste of the most handsome man in all these books! And Harry needs his "father figure" to come back and teach him all the things James would have wanted him to know about girls, and life, and Quidditch, and how to be Head Boy! :angel:What about Remus? He was James' friend too, don't forget, and he's the only Marauder left who's not six feet under or deserves to be.

What about Remus? He was James' friend too, don't forget, and he's the only Marauder left who's not six feet under or deserves to be.

:huh: Are you implying that Remus is better looking than Sirius or what? Maybe you should have another look at the canon?

Or are you saying that Remus could be as good of a father-figure as Sirius? Well, if that is true, why wasn't Lupin made the godfather/spiritual advisor, the way Sirius was? Obviously, Sirius had much better traits than Lupin, or James and Lily wouldn't have chosen him?

What about Remus? He was James' friend too, don't forget, and he's the only Marauder left who's not six feet under or deserves to be.
Lupin? He doesn't care. Look at the whole PoA fiasco. That happened because Lupin didn't care if he endangered someone by becoming a werewolf. He's very selfish, and he just encouraged Sirius to put himself in danger. He was only helping Harry to gain Harry's trust. That, and I wonder if he was trying to fatten Harry up for eating with all that chocolate. I have to admit, though, that it is too bad he didn't manage to bite Snape.

Just one push from Snape, and our Sirius was taken away forever! :upset: If Snape can make his own choices, so can Sirius. Sirius chose to step up on to that dais, he chose to keep fighting Bellatrix long after the action stopped. I'm beginning to wonder if he chose to fall through the veil! We know he's irresponsible and that he didn't really mean it when he asked Harry to come live with him in PoA, so maybe this was a really extreme way to get out of his godfatherly responsibilities?

But I agree, JKR wouldn't be so cruel. She'll send him back to us - we just have to have faith. No writer would kill off a main character - I mean "totally" kill them. SIP, I think you just have to accept the fact that Sirius is deader than a doornail. *hands you a box of tissues and a tuna casserole*

That would be such a waste of the most handsome man in all these books! Nope, cause' Snape's still alive to claim that title. ;)

Now, Lupin would be quite capable of murder, he is selfish and cruel, not to mention very immature. Thank-you, clkginny, at last someone is prepared to say something sensible about Remus Lupin (if that is his name) That man is downright creepy.

What is the first thing all parents tell their children when they first go out at alone? Never accept sweets from strangers! And up turns Lupin, asleep on the train (probably drunk) and starts handing out chocolate left right and centre! And notice he doesn't allow the children to save the chocolate until later - oh, no, they have to eat it right away. Why is that? Exactly what is in this so-called chocolate, eh? :evil:

I don't think it is insignificant that JKR says Hermione's parents are dentists - they would be horrified if they knew their daughter was being practically force-fed sugary snacks between meals! Lupin clearly wants everyone to have teeth that are as rotten as his jailbird friend's!

He hasn't grown up in the slightest since he left school, and is still pursuing his pathetic vendetta against Snape. What a contrast the two of them make - Snape diligently brewing the extremely difficult wolfsband potion so Lupin doesn't 'accidentally' turn into a werewolf and 'accidentally' go tearing around the castle 'accidentally' murdering students in their beds. And what does he get in return? Lupin plays yet another childish prank on him, in that absurd boggart scene! Will the man never grow up? :rolleyes:

Everyone knows that werewolves are evil, dark creatures and Lupin is no exception. The kids only trust him because he buys their friendship with chocolate and playing absurd pranks on more resectable members of the teaching faculty, but they'll rue the day, you mark my words!
Originally posted by WoodenCoyote
What about Remus? He was James' friend too, don't forget, and he's the only Marauder left who's not six feet under or deserves to be.That is a matter of opinion. :evil: :p :huh:

:huh: Are you implying that Remus is better looking than Sirius or what? Maybe you should have another look at the canon? Oh deffinantly. Don't you know grey hair and premature wrinkles are a dead turn-on? :p

Or are you saying that Remus could be as good of a father-figure as Sirius? Well, if that is true, why wasn't Lupin made the godfather/spiritual advisor, the way Sirius was? Obviously, Sirius had much better traits than Lupin, or James and Lily wouldn't have chosen him?Sirius was, as has been repeatedly stated, James' best friend, and that's why he got the job [ That doesn't mean he's the better father-figure, mind you. Being someone's close friend doesn't automatically qualify a person for child-rearing - I love my friend Cristina to bits, but I wouldn't trust her with my kids even if she came down from heaven in a chorus of trumpets ]
What I meant was that, of the Marauders, Remus is the only qualified father-figure left. Why can't he be the one to watch over Harry, instead of everyone waiting around for Sirius to pop back up from the land of the dead?

Why can't he be the one to watch over Harry, instead of everyone waiting around for Sirius to pop back up from the land of the dead?
Sirius is not dead. Dumbledore is the only one resposible enough to take care of Harry until Sirius comes back, unless Pettigrew admits that Snape set him up. We can always hope for that. Pettigrew is such a nice man, he's just misunderstood.

If Snape can make his own choices, so can Sirius. Sirius chose to step up on to that dais, he chose to keep fighting Bellatrix long after the action stopped. I'm beginning to wonder if he chose to fall through the veil! We know he's irresponsible and that he didn't really mean it when he asked Harry to come live with him in PoA, so maybe this was a really extreme way to get out of his godfatherly responsibilities?

You are just so insensitive! http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage05/17.gifSirius was brave and was fighting for Harry, don't you understand???

SIP, I think you just have to accept the fact that Sirius is deader than a doornail. *hands you a box of tissues and a tuna casserole*

:upset: JKR is a good writer, and I know she will find a way to give Sirius back to us!

Quote:
Originally Posted by silver ink pot
That would be such a waste of the most handsome man in all these books!
Nope, cause' Snape's still alive to claim that title. ;)

:scared: Yeah, if you like arrogant potions masters with delusions of grandeur! But who ever could? Plus, imagine touching that hair pomade? It's like he sticks his head in a grease bucket every day, and according to Sirius, he was leaving greasy streaks on his papers back in the day! Disgusting!

Plus he always wears black, like a mortician! What's that all about? No wonder all the kids are afraid of him and they never learn anything useful. Potions is about as important to Harry's education as Divination! :grumble:

Sirius is not dead.He's dead, Jim.
Dumbledore is the only one resposible enough to take care of Harry until Sirius comes backWhy? And what makes you think he's coming back when JK and every character in the book says he can't?

You are just so insensitive! http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage05/17.gifSirius was brave and was fighting for Harry, don't you understand??? Sirius didn't have to die at all! If he had just listened to Snape, he could have been alive. "Fighting for Harry's life" doesn't just have to be about barging into the DoM and hexing a few Death Eaters; there are different ways of helping out, and Sirius' contribution would have been to stay home! Even so, he could have been a little more cautious at the DoM, I mean really, who wanders up to an ominous looking veil and thinks "Hmm, this looks like a good place to battle!"? Sirius was being reckless, and while it wouldn't be the first time that had happened, it was most certainly the last. :evil:

Plus, imagine touching that hair pomade? It's like he sticks his head in a grease bucket every day, and according to Sirius, he was leaving greasy streaks on his papers back in the day! Disgusting! Greasy hair was very chic in the 1950s, Snape just has to learn how to style it properly, only he doesn't because he doesn't want anyone to think he should get the lead in the Hogwarts production of Grease. He wants to get the part fair and square based on his acting abilities, not whether or not he looks the part.

Plus he always wears black, like a mortician! What's that all about? No wonder all the kids are afraid of him and they never learn anything useful.Johnny Cash, the man in black. I rest my case.

Just one push from Snape, and our Sirius was taken away forever! :upset:
Don't remind me! :upset: :upset: :upset: Oh, our dear boy! :upset:

JKR said that people who are properly dead can't come back (sorry, don't have the exact quote there), but we have no proof that Sirius is properly dead. I mean, that horrible Bellatrix didn't AK him or anything. It was just a stun spell. Remember what Luna said about them just waiting on the other side of the veil. Mark my words, Sirius will be back! :clap:
And when he does come back, we'll learn all about Snivellus' loyalties and so will Dumbledore. Then we'll be rid of that evil creep forever. He'll never bully another student. Oh! wouldn't it be great if Neville was the one who killed him? :agree: :lol:

Oh no! sirius is not dead!

Potions is about as important to Harry's education as Divination!
No, I think potions is exteremely important:). Snape is a super teacher, and I would say the best in hogwarts. Even Mc.gonagal can't match him! Harry should certainly continue learning divination and potions, auror or not. Just take trelawney's case, do you think anyone matches her in her skills. She probably knows much more about tea leaves than any living witch or wizard

:huh: Are you implying that Remus is better looking than Sirius or what? Maybe you should have another look at the canon?Maybe you should take another look at the potions master, if you want to see what a real man looks like.

Lupin and Black are a right pair of gargoyles. :p

He'll never bully another student.
Oh! Sure!

If he had just listened to Snape, he could have been alive.
I agree and as i said before, snape is the most intelligent and the best of all the hogwarts teachers!

No, I think potions is exteremely important:). Snape is a super teacher, and I would say the best in hogwarts. Even Mc.gonagal can't match him! Harry should certainly continue learning divination and potions, auror or not. Just take trelawney's case, do you think anyone matches her in her skills. She probably knows much more about tea leaves than any living witch or wizardExcellent point, well said. Trelawney is excellent at her job. The fact that she made THE Prophecy, the one about the Dark Lord's eventual (hopefully!) destruction, is a clear indication of her skills. Clearly she's the best woman for the job, or else Dumbledore would have fired her long ago. And obviously no one is a better teacher than Snape. Dumbledore just doesn't have a history of hiring terrible teachers, he always gets the best!

Maybe you should take another look at the potions master, if you want to see what a real man looks like.

Pfft!A real man looks like some unholy cross between a spider, a bat, and big ball of grease??? Please.
Canon states that Sirius was the best looking. And near canon (JKR interview) says that he was sexy :drool:. You really can't argue with the author on this point without looking like a pathetic fangirl.

Excellent point, well said. Trelawney is excellent at her job. The fact that she made THE Prophecy, the one about the Dark Lord's eventual (hopefully!) destruction, is a clear indication of her skills. Clearly she's the best woman for the job, or else Dumbledore would have fired her long ago. And obviously no one is a better teacher than Snape. Dumbledore just doesn't have a history of hiring terrible teachers, he always gets the best!

Yes, indeed! just see the list.... a person with LV in his head(that itself shows the great quality), a person who taught so much about pixies, a werewolf who was the better one(not the best... thats snape), a DE, who gave so much information about the unforgiveable curses and last, definietely not the least, a person who taught so very nicely, that they didn't have to perform a single spell. In my opinion there can be no better teachers! They always kept hogwarts busy, didn't they. We underestimate them in the books, but what they did was great!

And near canon (JKR interview) says that he was sexy :drool:. You really can't argue with the author on this point without looking like a pathetic fangirl.Raven, you know very well that that was a misquote. JKR has repeatedly told us that what she actually said was that Sirius was 'vexing' and so he is.

Any you might want to mop up that puddle of drool before you start flinging the term 'fangirl' around. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... :p

I think you'll find that canon makes no mention of Saucy Sevvie looking like a spider - unless you are willing to produce a quote mentioning Severus having eight legs I suggest you retract that outrageous slur on his manly good-looks.

so he cut to the chase and insulted Sirius's obvious and excessive amounts of leisure time. (I mean really, what's the guy doing all day?)So, you admit Snape clearly started it? Snape, of course, went for the low blow right away. Poor Sirius spent 12 years in Azkaban for crimes he didn’t commit, lived off rats and garbage for a year, and was trapped in a house he hated. He would have been out actively fighting for the Order if he didn’t acquiesce to Dumbledore’s decision. He didn’t stay in the house because he was afraid—he stayed there because it was the best thing for Harry. We have no proof that Snape was up to his eyeballs in dark arts; we only have what Sirius tells us and his word isn't trustworthy (he's a former criminal!).There’s no evidence that Sirius ever lied about anything. In fact, I’d say he’s trustworthy to a fault. The only time we ever see Snape and the Dark Arts in the same context is at the Defense Against the Dark Arts exam!What do you call the hex that slashed James’s face, then? That clearly has no good, ordinary purpose. It was obviously dark magic. Also, when he tried to get his wand, he muttered a bunch of curse words and hexes—I bet it was more than any of the rest of them knew. I have a strong feeling that more incidents exactly like SWM or worse ocurred weekly, if not dailyThat doesn’t make any sense! If worse memories occurred all the time, why would that have been Snape’s Worst Memory? If Snape had any good in him at all, that wouldn’t be his worst memory anyway—it just shows how self-centered and humorless he is. I agree with Norbertha. I don’t see why Snape couldn’t see how funny a prank it was. The man just has no sense of humor! I mean, his knickers were showing! :rotfl: So, it’s not even that bad a thing to have happened and it’s Snape’s worst? :huh: What about all the poor people he tortured as a Death Eater? You’d think he could have some thought for them. . . :no: Snape is just trying to remain professional, and he seems to be the only teacher able to do so. Even McGonagall bought Harry a broom in Philosopher's Stone! Snape makes a point of not crossing the line in a student/teacher relationship, and obviously not sending Harry a broom is in keeping with that. I bet if Lupin had the money, he would have bought Harry a broom too.Well, I don’t see that there’s anything wrong with it. Harry’s such a good Quidditch player, he deserves a good broom! If Snape had any character, he’d see that it’s more important to encourage talent than to keep a strict teacher-student relationship (which he doesn’t really do anyway—I mean he picks on Harry, Neville, and Hermione all the time in an unprofessional manner). Plus, McGonagall used Harry’s money, not hers! Sugar and spice and everything nice, that's what Severus Snape is made of! :love:Where’s a vomiting smiley when I need one? :no: Sirius betrayed Lupin by trying to use him to kill Snape - that's not exactly friendly.Sirius never intended for Snape to be seriously hurt—he just wanted to scare him. Can you blame him after years of being shadowed by that freak? Lupin and Sirius were such good friends, Lupin would have understood. They were the Marauders! I suppose he thought no-one would put up with him, because he is so BORING!You don’t have to like Lupin, but please don’t call him BORING! There are so many facets to his personality; he is NOT BORING! How could such a handsome werewolf ever be BORING? :love: Unlike, Snape whose constant bitter spouting becomes very tedious to read. We only have Sirius' word that Snape was always into the Dark Arts, and he isn't exactly a reliable witness is he? 'Oh, of course we can trust Pettigrew', 'Don't use Dumbledore as secret-keeper', 'I saw the Dementors bury Crouch Jnr at Azkaban.' Yeah, tell us another one genius. :rolleyes:Those were mistakes—everyone makes mistakes. Sirius never lied! If anyone was always going to be a Death Eater, it is Sirius - look at the family he came from. You know what they say, the apple never falls far from the tree.That’s why he’s such a good contrast to Snape, who did become a Death Eater, for demonstrating the importance of choices. :agree: No, Snape has never given Harry a broom, just saved his life when his broom was jinxed.That doesn’t really count because Harry wouldn’t have died, if he’d fallen off the broom. Maybe he would have broken some bones, but we know how easy those are to fix in the wizarding world. It was totally irresponsible for Sirius to send Harry a firebolt anonymously - he gave Hermione a terrible fright, and made the boys fall out with her.He couldn’t very well sign his name while he was being hunted like a rabbit. It was very clever of him to figure out how to send Harry such a nice gift after Harry’s other broom was destroyed—selfless, too! He put himself at risk for being caught in order to do something nice for his godson. Just like Sirius to concentrate on showing off by giving Harry a flashy broom, instead of spending his money on something sensible, like some soap.Why would Sirius want to send Snape a gift? :evil: Besides, Harry probably wouldn't have needed a new broom if Sirius hadn't scared him off his old one, lurking around the Quidditch pitch like a foul-smelling death omen.Harry didn’t fall off the broom because of Sirius, it was because of the Dementors! (The fact that Harry fell off in this match and didn’t die bolsters the argument that Snape didn’t really save Harry’s life by reversing the jinx on Harry’s broom.) If he'd done the sensible thing and stayed at home to wait for Dumbledore like Snape told him to do, he'd still be alive.That’s just the kind of guy Sirius is—his own safety means nothing when the lives of those he loves are in danger. :love: the love-light of purity shines through from the very essence of Snape's soul!Still no vomiting smiley? Da*n! :p It reminds of the time some friends of mine held another friend under in the pool until he turned blue. We still laugh about it. :lol:That’s a good one! I wish I’d been there to see it! :tu: :rotfl: Snape is just so immature to hold a grudge after all these years.So true! I mean, it wasn’t even a big deal to begin with, but he at least should have gotten over it and moved on at the very moment they all graduated! :agree: I'm baffled by this! Snape is a grown man and Harry is just a kid. Harry can't be expected to know all this "dark magic." After all, he is James's son, and he always hated dark magic, remember? And Snape pushes him too far!

That awful man should never be around children, and I bet we see him get the sack in the next book for what he has done to children all these years! All those creepy experiments and confusing essays! What good are those? He should go around helping the kids more, maybe giving Neville some kind advice about how to "stir clockwise" instead of just slapping it up on the board and expecting these poor bewildered students to sink or swim. He helps his own Slytherins, doesn't he? Besides, all those melting cauldrons are a dangerous health hazard!I think you just said it all, SIP. I have nothing more to add. :tu:

You don’t have to like Lupin, but please don’t call him BORING! There are so many facets to his personality; he is NOT BORING! How could such a handsome werewolf ever be BORING? Unlike, Snape whose constant bitter spouting becomes very tedious to read.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Lupin is, by far, the most interesting character in the entire series. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't reading properly! shaggydogstail how could you even think about calling him boring!? I just don't like that kind of talk. It's bad enough that you say that Sirius isn't sexy, but to say that Lupin is boring is just going too far. :sad:

JKR said that people who are properly dead can't come back (sorry, don't have the exact quote there), but we have no proof that Sirius is properly dead. You're so right! Sirius isn't dead after all! :) That makes so much sense because no one with any intelligence would kill off the sexiest character! :drool:

I've never misunderstood any of your coherent posts. :angel:

If everyone else is understanding it, and you're not, draw your own conclusion. :evil:


It's not so much the spells themselves as what James & Sirius do with them.

At least we agree on this. James and Sirius were totally out of line in attacking Snape. The poor guy was just trying to read over his O.W.L. results and he was ambushed by arrogant berks who should have known better. What's right about flipping someone upside down in front of a crowd of onlookers? I hope some sweet Slytherin (Bellatrix maybe?) attacked James and Sirius and gave them a taste of their own medicine.

And what was Lupin thinking? Just reading when he could have done something. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to sit and do nothing. Lupin was an enabler in that scene. No question about it.

If everyone else is understanding it, and you're not, draw your own conclusion. :evil:Poor form to bring this up among the rest of the jokes. Since you bring it up, though, I don't think that other people find your frequent less-than-coherent posts any clearer than I do. They're just too kind to say so, whereas by the end of our last discussion that you so adeptly drove in circles, I no longer cared.

Poor form to bring this up among the rest of the jokes. Since you bring it up, though, I don't think that other people find your frequent less-than-coherent posts any clearer than I do. They're just too kind to say so, whereas by the end of our last discussion that you so adeptly drove in circles, I no longer cared.

Better to bring it up now than to wait a day. Since you choose to make a rather rude crack about my posts in public, I chose to respond in kind. It's interesting that you bring that up though. It would seem that only one other person expressed confusion, and after I explained, she too understood. She didn't agree, but she understood. If no one understands me except me, how are they actually responding to my posts and the actual points made in them? You're the only one who responds to things I didn't say. And I suppose you didn't notice, but I did take part in the joke. Especially since I was one of the people who thought of it.

Anyway, this is really off topic. If you wish to consider this, you can owl me. If not, and I would prefer this, we could just drop it and let bygone be bygones.

And obviously no one is a better teacher than Snape. Dumbledore just doesn't have a history of hiring terrible teachers, he always gets the best!

Exactly! :tu: Snape is only hard on Harry and his friends because he knows that Harry has to know that not everyone will like him. And who cares that it seems like Snape is unfair and biased? He saved Harry's life once. And he doesn't pick on Harry. He only "unfairly" humiliated Harry on his first day of classes because he always does that with every first year class. He does it to prove his authority! The fact that he's teaching isn't enough to show he's in charge. He has to be mean, too. It's obvious.

Better to bring it up now than to wait a day. Since you choose to make a rather rude crack about my posts in public, I chose to respond in kind. It's interesting that you bring that up though. It would seem that only one other person expressed confusion, and after I explained, she too understood. She didn't agree, but she understood. If no one understands me except me, how are they actually responding to my posts and the actual points made in them? You're the only one who responds to things I didn't say. And I suppose you didn't notice, but I did take part in the joke. Especially since I was one of the people who thought of it.

Anyway, this is really off topic. If you wish to consider this, you can owl me. If not, and I would prefer this, we could just drop it and let bygone be bygones.Actually, it would have been better not to respond at all once the opportunity (yesterday) had passed. You've spent days implying that I'm stupid for not being able to understand you, so don't preach to me about being rude!

I did notice you took part in the joke and I was aware of your part in initiating it, since grrliz told me.

I'm perfectly happy to let this drop here, as well. It should have been dropped days ago when I said I was done with the discussion and everyone could decide for themselves about who had the better argument.

Actually, it would have been better not to respond at all once the opportunity (yesterday) had passed. You've spent days implying that I'm stupid for not being able to understand you, so don't preach to me about being rude!

I did notice you took part in the joke and I was aware of your part in initiating it, since grrliz told me.

I'm perfectly happy to let this drop here, as well. It should have been dropped days ago when I said I was done with the discussion and everyone could decide for themselves about who had the better argument.

My first opportunity to respond was today, since I didn't see the post until a few minutes before I responded. I haven't implied anything. At least not intentionally. I think you're just reading too far into my posts. And I wasn't preaching, I was explaining. If you thought I was out of line before, perhaps you should have mentioned it before today. We aren't having this argument over that discussion, anyway. It's because I was being sarcastic and you missed it or something because you responded with "I know. I was being sarcastic as well. :rolleyes: :evil:" It isn't because of the hate/love/forgiveness discussion.

*Norbertha makes a brave attempt to bring back the silliness by putting a cheering charm on HermioneLuna and Chiev*

You never see the Marauders "hanging upside down" like a bat,

Thank for bringing this up, Silver! A bat! This is further proof that he is an illegal bat animagus!
It reminds of the time some friends of mine held another friend under in the pool until he turned blue. We still laugh about it. Or the time another friend was run over by a motorcycle "accidentally on purpose." Of course, like all good friends, it was all in fun and there are no hard feelings now that we are grown-ups. Snape is just so immature to hold a grudge after all these years.
That's so funny :rotfl: What Snape doesn't understand, is that boys will be boys, and that he shouldn't take himself so seriously. Only people who take themselves too seriously get hurt by a couple of pranks!
What do you call the hex that slashed James’s face, then? That clearly has no good, ordinary purpose. It was obviously dark magic.

:agree: I wonder how many Plastic Charms he needed before he got back his stunning looks?
Sirius never intended for Snape to be seriously hurt—he just wanted to scare him. Can you blame him after years of being shadowed by that freak?

Exactly. Snape followed them around constantly, trying to get them expelled for no reason. Would you expect them to take this lying down?

*hem hem* Can we stop the bickering in the thread please? If there is a problem that needs addressing and doesn't involve deconstructing, take it to owls please. :angel:

shaggydogstail how could you even think about calling him boring!? I just don't like that kind of talk. Well, I'm sorry if it troubles you Raven, but Lupin is boring. That is canon. This thread is called Demolish...I mean Deconstructing the Marauders, Not 'Mindlessly fangirling over those egoistical fools whilst glossing over their many faults'. If there is any fangirling to be done round here, it should at least be directed towards a more worthy recipient - namely Severus Snape.
Originally posted by Chiev
That makes so much sense because no one with any intelligence would kill off the sexiest character! Naturally JKR would never dream of doing such a thing. Which is why Sevvie is still very much alive and well. :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love:
Originally posted by Chiev
What about all the poor people he tortured as a Death Eater? You’d think he could have some thought for them. . . What evidence is there that Snape ever tortured anyone (other than the legions of female admirers who were broken-hearted that he was too busy studying to date, and he always let them down gently. He really is the perfect gentleman. :love: ) I think it is terribly unfair the way people keep using the fact that Snape was a Death Eater against him. Give the poor man a break! :eyebrows:

Thank for bringing this up, Silver! A bat! This is further proof that he is an illegal bat animagus!

That's so funny :rotfl: What Snape doesn't understand, is that boys will be boys, and that he shouldn't take himself so seriously. Only people who take themselves too seriously get hurt by a couple of pranks!You're brilliant, Norbertha! What would be a good reason that Snape doesn't understand that "boys will be boys?" He's clearly not a boy! Instead of being an illegal bat animagus, he must be an bat that is an illegal humamagus! I just don't know why I never saw it before--it's so obvious! :rolleyes:What evidence is there that Snape ever tortured anyone (other than the legions of female admirers who were broken-hearted that he was too busy studying to date, and he always let them down gently. He really is the perfect gentleman. :love: ) I think it is terribly unfair the way people keep using the fact that Snape was a Death Eater against him. Give the poor man a break! :eyebrows:Well, what do you think he was doing while the rest of the Death Eaters were out torturing and killing half-bloods & muggles? Fixing Voldemort a sandwich? Puleese! :rolleyes:

*Norbertha makes a brave attempt to bring back the silliness by putting a cheering charm on HermioneLuna and Chiev*

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I don't know why, but that cracks me up.


That's so funny :rotfl: What Snape doesn't understand, is that boys will be boys, and that he shouldn't take himself so seriously. Only people who take themselves too seriously get hurt by a couple of pranks!

I wholeheartedly disagree. James and Sirius had let their egos inflate way too much. Poor Severus was minding his own business, reading and walking, and then, out of nowhere, he's cursed and humiliated. That is not just "boys will be boys" behavior. It's cruel and there is no justification for it. It shouldn't be commended or understood, because it's beyond understanding. There is absolutely no excuse for such abysmal behavior. The only "reason" those boys had was to abuse and demean a fellow human being. Though appearently, they don't veiw people outside of their inner circle that way.

*Norbertha makes a brave attempt to bring back the silliness by putting a cheering charm on HermioneLuna and Chiev*

Let me! Let me! A charm full of Sirius love! :love:

http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/fairy.gif

Thank for bringing this up, Silver! A bat! This is further proof that he is an illegal bat animagus!

You're brilliant, Norbertha! What would be a good reason that Snape doesn't understand that "boys will be boys?" He's clearly not a boy! Instead of being an illegal bat animagus, he must be an bat that is an illegal humamagus! I just don't know why I never saw it before--it's so obvious!

"Humamagus." That's a tongue-twister! :lol: Sounds like something in a compost pile, which seems fitting!

Well, whatever he is, bat or "humamagus," it must be on the Dark Side! In fact, I think Snape may have three or four dark sides that we haven't discovered yet! If Lupin has the "dark side" of being a werewolf, then being a bat must really be darker, and if he's a vampire or one of the Nosferatu/Living Dead, then you can bet he is really the "right hand man" to Voldemort, isn't he? Snape's probably the one who taught Peter how to "milk" a snake in the first place, lol. :p

"The black bat taught the brown rat to milk the green snake."

That's so funny :rotfl: What Snape doesn't understand, is that boys will be boys, and that he shouldn't take himself so seriously. Only people who take themselves too seriously get hurt by a couple of pranks!

The Marauders were just in "high spirits. All kids are like that when exams are almost over. They get spring fever, you know? I don't know why Snape had to ruin their nice day in the sunshine by galloping over and pulling his wand out. Didn't he hear James's warning to stop? Why did he pick that moment to attack? The sunshine probably "brings out the worst" in Snape!

That was probably the last time he ever got in one good shot at James, since they really taught him a lesson!

:agree: I wonder how many Plastic Charms he needed before he got back his stunning looks?

Madame Pomfrey probably fixed him up right away, while Snape was serving his detention for troublemaking!

Exactly. Snape followed them around constantly, trying to get them expelled for no reason. Would you expect them to take this lying down?

Look, the Marauders had a code, and Snape crossed them too many times. They had no choice! It is like the Three Musketeers (or was it four musketeers?). Or it is like the movie "Stand by Me." The Marauder's were such close friends and wanted to helpe each other from the time they met. That is why they were all so popular and funny, like Fred and George. They stuck together, and Snape was trying to disrupt all their good times together, the little snitch! I just hate a tattletale, and that's all he was - another Malfoy out to get people in trouble, as Sirius said.

I wholeheartedly disagree. James and Sirius had let their egos inflate way too much. Poor Severus was minding his own business, reading and walking, and then, out of nowhere, he's cursed and humiliated. That is not just "boys will be boys" behavior. It's cruel and there is no justification for it. It shouldn't be commended or understood, because it's beyond understanding. There is absolutely no excuse for such abysmal behavior. The only "reason" those boys had was to abuse and demean a fellow human being. Though apparently, they don't veiw people outside of their inner circle that way.

I don't think you and I are reading the same book, or something! :upset: James and Sirius aren't cruel at all! I don't see that what they did was all that bad!

The Marauders had everyone on their side! No one except Lily took up for Snape, and that was because Lily hadn't learned to "loosen up" and "have fun." Hermione has the same problem. She needs to learn to laugh at a joke, and not be such a goody-two shoes!

You're brilliant, Norbertha! What would be a good reason that Snape doesn't understand that "boys will be boys?" He's clearly not a boy! Instead of being an illegal bat animagus, he must be an bat that is an illegal humamagus! I just don't know why I never saw it before--it's so obvious!

A humamagus! That's what he is! :clap: This explains why he's always up at night: He's nocturnal because of his true identity as a humamagus bat!
if he's a vampire or one of the Nosferatu/Living Dead,

He can't be a Nosferatu, because the Nosferatu are ugly and disgusting. No, he must be one of the Camarilla, or whatever they're called, the ones that look almost like human beings, except whiter and slightly unhealthier looking. You must admit that Severus is sexy? Are you not a member of Velvet Voice?
The Marauders had everyone on their side! No one except Lily took up for Snape, and that was because Lily hadn't learned to "loosen up" and "have fun." Hermione has the same problem. She needs to learn to laugh at a joke, and not be such a goody-two shoes!
You mustn't forget that Lily and Snivellus were secret lovers. Just think of all the times they met in secret behind greenhouse 2 - when it wasn't occupied by Florence and Peter, of course.

He can't be a Nosferatu, because the Nosferatu are ugly and disgusting. No, he must be one of the Camarilla, or whatever they're called, the ones that look almost like human beings, except whiter and slightly unhealthier looking. You must admit that Severus is sexy? Are you not a member of Velvet Voice?

I beg your pardon? :huh: There's only one sexy guy for me, and he isn't a bat! His four feet are firmly on the ground (at least they will be when he comes back from the dead, lol).

You mustn't forget that Lily and Snivellus were secret lovers. Just think of all the times they met in secret behind greenhouse 2 - when it wasn't occupied by Florence and Peter, of course.

Wow! I've never heard that theory before! So Snape loved Lily - that just puts the last piece in the puzzle, doesn't it! Snape was jealous of James, so he attacked him all the time, but we know who "got the girl," don't we? :evil:

I beg your pardon? :huh: There's only one sexy guy for me, and he isn't a bat! His four feet are firmly on the ground (at least they will be when he comes back from the dead, lol).

Silver, I think you need to accept the fact that Sirius is quite dead. And sexy? Hardly. I don't find being a bullying, arrogant, self involved git to be remotely attractive.

I beg your pardon? :huh: There's only one sexy guy for me, and he isn't a bat! His four feet are firmly on the ground (at least they will be when he comes back from the dead, lol).Admittedly Sirius makes a better dog than man (rather a theme with the Marauders don't you think? :evil: ). However I hardly consider a flea ridden, unkempt, mangy old mutt to be attractive, or desirable in any way at all. :huh:
Originally posted by SIP
Wow! I've never heard that theory before! So Snape loved Lily - that just puts the last piece in the puzzle, doesn't it! Snape was jealous of James, so he attacked him all the time, but we know who "got the girl," don't we? :evil:As if a man with Sevvie's good looks and charm would ever look twice at that flame-haired floosie. :rolleyes:

If Lily did chose James over Severus it just goes to show she may not be the saintly figure we have been led to believe. I think serious doubts must be raised about the judgement of a woman who would choose an arrogant, egotistcal, charmless bully whose pathetic attempts to bolster his supposed 'Alpha Male' status involved petty thieving and harrassing better students, over our own sweet, sensitive, thoughtful Severus.
Originally posted by HermioneLuna
James and Sirius had let their egos inflate way too much. Poor Severus was minding his own business, reading and walking, and then, out of nowhere, he's cursed and humiliated. That is not just "boys will be boys" behavior. It's cruel and there is no justification for it. It shouldn't be commended or understood, because it's beyond understanding. There is absolutely no excuse for such abysmal behaviorAin't that the truth! :tu: Each of those bullying like toe-rags had an ego the size of Russia, and it was amazing they could fit their swollen heads through doorways!

James and Sirius should have been expelled or even sent to prison for what they did to poor Snape, no-one has ever suffered as much as Snape and it is all their fault! But oh no, they get to swank around the school like some sort of all-conquering heroes, rather than being properly ridiculed for the vain, bullying, arrogant, ugly, murderous freaks that they really were! :evil:

It is not so much 'boys will be boy' with James & Sirius as 'bullies will be bullies'. They were just plain mean! :p

Let me! Let me! A charm full of Sirius love! :love:

http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/fairy.gif Mmm. . .Siriuslove! *dreamy* :love:Snape's probably the one who taught Peter how to "milk" a snake in the first place, lol. :p :rotfl: That must be it!The Marauders were just in "high spirits. All kids are like that when exams are almost over. They get spring fever, you know? I don't know why Snape had to ruin their nice day in the sunshine by galloping over and pulling his wand out. Didn't he hear James's warning to stop? Why did he pick that moment to attack? The sunshine probably "brings out the worst" in Snape! Exactly! He should have known that he could never beat James & Sirius--they're the most brave, loyal, smart, and good-looking boys in the school. Of course, Snape was going to lose--I mean he's just a greasy oddball. It just goes to show that you shouldn't pick a fight that you can't win! :no: But, since he had it coming anyway, for following them around all the time and hexing James whenever he could, I don't feel bad at all. I don't think you and I are reading the same book, or something! :upset: James and Sirius aren't cruel at all! I don't see that what they did was all that bad!I'm with you, SIP. I don't have any idea where all these crazy ideas come from! :rolleyes:This explains why he's always up at night: He's nocturnal because of his true identity as a humamagus bat!Absolutely. It all fits together now!You must admit that Severus is sexy?Ewwwww! :p Are you not a member of Velvet Voice?What's that? A society devoted to Sirius's lovely baritone? :evil: There's only one sexy guy for me, and he isn't a bat! His four feet are firmly on the ground (at least they will be when he comes back from the dead, lol).I don't find being a bullying, arrogant, self involved git to be remotely attractive.I'm sorry, were you describing Sirius or Snape?* :evil:


*all in good fun :)

However I hardly consider a flea ridden, unkempt, mangy old mutt to be attractive, or desirable in any way at all.How could you not love a big, friendly dog? He's obviously supposed to represent all the good qualities of a dog or JKR wouldn't have picked that as his animagus form. :huh:James and Sirius should have been expelled or even sent to prison for what they did to poor Snape, no-one has ever suffered as much as Snape and it is all their fault! Oh yeah? What about all the suffering Snape puts his students through? Poor Neville, Harry, Hermione, and Ron. He even made them do homework for Easter Break! I bet he secretly told the Slytherins that they didn't have to do the assignment. That'd be just like him to favor his own house!But oh no, they get to swank around the school like some sort of all-conquering heroes, rather than being properly ridiculed for the vain, bullying, arrogant, ugly, murderous freaks that they really were!They weren't any of those things. They just got the recognition they deserved for being so cute and clever! :love:

James and Sirius should have been expelled or even sent to prison for what they did to poor Snape, no-one has ever suffered as much as Snape and it is all their fault! But oh no, they get to swank around the school like some sort of all-conquering heroes, rather than being properly ridiculed for the vain, bullying, arrogant, ugly, murderous freaks that they really were! :evil:

It is not so much 'boys will be boy' with James & Sirius as 'bullies will be bullies'. They were just plain mean! :p

:rolleyes: Purr-lease! No one, and I mean NO ONE, is "meaner" than Snape.

Look, you can't really call what James and Sirius did "bullying" by any definition I know about! They were just fifteen and "high on life," while Snape is almost forty years old and he picks on children!

All fifteen-year-olds pick on other people now and then, don't they? James and Sirius were popular and they had their reputations to think of. They couldn't let someone as ugly and weird as Snape make them look ridiculous, could they? In high school, being clever, handsome, athletic and rich are all that matters, so Snape can't compare in any way and so he was always acting jealous and trying to get them into trouble.

What I don't understand about Lily is why she went for James? :huh: She could have chosen Sirius, whom JKR said was the best looking of the Marauders and more of a rebel. Sigh . . . if only she had chosen more wisely, Harry might be even better looking (no big glasses) and I think she would have been alot happier. But that's just me. :angel:

:rolleyes: Purr-lease! No one, and I mean NO ONE, is "meaner" than Snape.

Snape is not mean. He's just misunderstood. There's a lot of backstory we don't know.

Look, you can't really call what James and Sirius did "bullying" by any definition I know about! They were just fifteen and "high on life," while Snape is almost forty years old and he picks on children!

But Snape is justified. Harry acts arrogant around him all the time. So naturally he thinks Harry is as stuck up as James. Snape has never done anything out of line. He just doesn't give Harry or his friends special treatment.

But Snape is justified. Harry acts arrogant around him all the time. So naturally he thinks Harry is as stuck up as James. Snape has never done anything out of line. He just doesn't give Harry or his friends special treatment.
Snape is justified? He has never done anything out of line?

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. Why does Snape get special priveleges to favor Slytherin and despise the other students? A little arrogance certainly doesn't justify any of that. Knowing that a student knocked over Harry's potion and then giving him a zero is a bit much for what you perceive as Harry's arrogance. Taking points from a kid for not knowing an answer on the first day of school while knowing he has the most horrible relatives possible seems a bit out of line to me. Bullying poor Neville is another matter. Granted he may think it's "toughening him up," but any mildly intelligent person would see that's not what it's doing after 5 whole years. This does not seem to be equal treatment at all.

I believe Snape will come through in the end but that does not mean he has been justified and in line for his actions throughout the books.

Snape is justified? He has never done anything out of line?

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. Why does Snape get special priveleges to favor Slytherin and despise the other students? A little arrogance certainly doesn't justify any of that. Knowing that a student knocked over Harry's potion and then giving him a zero is a bit much for what you perceive as Harry's arrogance. Taking points from a kid for not knowing an answer on the first day of school while knowing he has the most horrible relatives possible seems a bit out of line to me. Bullying poor Neville is another matter. Granted he may think it's "toughening him up," but any mildly intelligent person would see that's not what it's doing after 5 whole years. This does not seem to be equal treatment at all.

I believe Snape will come through in the end but that does not mean he has been justified and in line for his actions throughout the books.

Snape doesn't give Slytherin any advantage. His students do well when he's around, therefore he rewards him, just as other teachers reward their students.

Snape didn't take points away from Harry for not knowing an answer. He took points away because Harry was rude to him. Most teachers do that, so Snape shouldn't be condemned as a bad guy for it.

Snape treats his students equally, but Harry has this "hero" complex and thinks that he can do anything because most of the Wizarding World cuts him copious amounts of slack.

Snape has his shortcomings, sure. But he's an innocent in all of this. He's just playing his part in destiny. Yes, it may seem as though Snape is holding onto the past and picking on Harry for being James' son, but in reality, he's just being fair and preparing Harry for life.

Snape has his shortcomings, sure. But he's an innocent in all of this. He's just playing his part in destiny. Yes, it may seem as though Snape is holding onto the past and picking on Harry for being James' son, but in reality, he's just being fair and preparing Harry for life.

Snape? Fair? :evil:

I'm glad you and I can finally agree, Hermione Luna!

Actually he IS FAIR! :clap:

April Fool's, Everybody!

My polyjuice potion is finally wearing off, and I can shed these Sirius FanGirl delusions and go back to my usual opinions, which are in the opposite direction! I must say I enjoyed today (Loved all the avatars and sigs! :p )

Say good-bye to "Siriusly Cute" and "Special Delivery," because at midnight, Sirius turns into a pumpkin, and then back into my usual stuff, lol.

:rotfl: I've had a blast - the funnest thing I've ever done on April Fool's Day! Thanks for all the laughs, and great job staying "in character" all day!

This was fun! :lol: I enjoyed last night and this morning. I hope everybody else had as much fun as I did. I think I gigled until I cried. :rotfl: :upset:

:clap: Happy April Fool's Day :clap:

:clap: Cheers to Grrliz for contacting all of us!

And Bravo to whomever came up with the idea in the first place! It was hilarious! :D

I'm sad to see it over. I was getting used to the idea that Sirius might actually be sexy! (But, not quite. ;) )

I'm going to miss "Siriusly Cute," "I love Sev, OMG," and the Snape Valentine!

Thanks for a great time everyone!

I'm sad to see it over. I was getting used to the idea that Sirius might actually be sexy! (But, not quite. )


Steady, there, Chiev! Snap out of it! :lol: I'll let you borrow my Siriusly Cute avatar, if it will make you feel better - I won't be needing it anymore, I assure you, lol. :p

Maybe we should explain for those who are just joining us - we all switched "sides" for the day as an April Fool's Joke. ;) Basically, we had "Opposite Day."

:clap: Cheers to Grrliz for contacting all of us!

And Bravo to whomever came up with the idea in the first place! It was hilarious! :DAfter being privy to the MSN conversation that started it all, I have discovered it was originally ravenfeather who came up with the idea and was encouraged by HermioneLuna who told me about it a couple of months ago. The best part is that I actually thought "What if the thread isn't still around in April?" What was I thinking?! :lol:

But yes, I'd like to thank everyone who participated, it was all in good fun and I actually found it quite therapeutic! Congrats to all! Especially to the creative types who made some pretty great avatars and signatures; I particularly enjoyed SIP's and shaggy's!

I may just keep ol' I Heart Sev for a while, he's kinda grown on me. :p

Well I read a couple of posts and was momentarily confused, but since it was April Fools Day it was obvious pretty fast. Because I am a lover of comic books (duh!), it was like the Bizarro World version of the thread, since Bizarro (a failed Superman clone) does and says everything opposite. So when he hates you, he says he loves you. And he says hello when he wants to say goodbye.

So in the spirit of Bizarro, I'll say the following, "Me am very angry with the dumb people here."

April Fool's, Everybody!

My polyjuice potion is finally wearing off, and I can shed these Sirius FanGirl delusions and go back to my usual opinions, which are in the opposite direction! I must say I enjoyed today (Loved all the avatars and sigs! )
After being privy to the MSN conversation that started it all, I have discovered it was originally ravenfeather who came up with the idea and was encouraged by HermioneLuna who told me about it a couple of months ago.

Thank you, Ravenfeather and HerminoeLuna! This was so much fun! :clap: And very refreshing.

Okay, back to my own self now, which is:
1) Snape is not sexy, but neither is Sirius
2) All bullying is wrong, both when it comes from Sirius and James towards Snape and when it comes from Snape towards his students
3) Snape is on Dumbledore's side now, but he was a Death Eater for a while when he was young
4) Snape is not an animagus or humamagus
5) SWM was not staged, the Pensieve shows it as it happened without bias, Snape did not set up the Pensieve for Harry to see, but tried to hide it
6) Snape might be horrible to his students, but he does not lack human feelings. He's a vulnerable person with a bunker thick shell that he's developed over the years.
7) Sirius has good sides and bad sides. His bad sides are that he does not think of the consequences of his actions and that he gets bored very quickly, and needs to be entertained.
8) James had good sides and a bad side. His bad side is his bullying of Snape. His good sides are as father and husband.
9) I struggle to see a good side in Peter ... But I believe every human being has a good side. (I don't count Voldemort as a human being anymore).
10) Lupin is a good guy. He did not participate in the bullying of Snape. The only thing he's done wrong, is not act, because he was afraid to lose his friends. I do not believe Lupin was the mastermind behind any of the mean things the Marauders did, but I do believe he was totally in on their adventures, as long as they didn't hurt anyone.
11) I'm on my own, private crusade against all bullying. ;)

Just to make things clear.

Uh oh. Norbertha went all ravenfeather on us there. :lol:

Great work everyone. I've been snickering for 24 hours. Same time, same place next year!

and is it just me or does grrliz always have sev av's? :evil:

It's still April Fool's where I am. But yeah that was an interesting change of pace. Now I can switch back to the "right" side! :evil:

Just so we're all clear on the matter: I was kidding. There are no "right" or "wrong" sides. Just opinions.

Maybe we should explain for those who are just joining us - we all switched "sides" for the day as an April Fool's Joke. ;) Basically, we had "Opposite Day."

Tis a shame I rarely come to this thread. Seems like April Fools was loads of fun here. I really should visit more often. :cool:

I think the main reason the Marauders came together was a mutual decision to murder Snape.I really like that. And I would say, there was just about 10% chance of that happening, because marauders, at times, went berserk with their plans...I'm very intrigued by this statistic, so I have to ask. . .did you just make it up or did you base it on some calculation? Steady, there, Chiev! Snap out of it! :lol: I'll let you borrow my Siriusly Cute avatar, if it will make you feel better - I won't be needing it anymore, I assure you, lol. :p Really? I'd actually like that. ;)I may just keep ol' I Heart Sev for a while, he's kinda grown on me. :p It's really perfect with the "omg" on it. And ravenfeather's right--I think you've had more Snape avatars than Sirius avatars. :p

A little late, but Yay for April Fool's Day - this was definitely the best April Fool I've ever taken part in - sooo much fun! Big hugs to all for entering into the spirit of things, and especially our pranking ringleaders grrliz, HermioneLuna and Ravenfeather.

Since I wouldn't be needing it again, I'll leave this here;

[CENTER]http://www.cosforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=22166

I may just keep ol' I Heart Sev for a while, he's kinda grown on me. :pYIKES! No grrliz, come back...argh she's slipping away...don't fall for Snape...remember lovely sexy Gary being lovely sexy Sirius - yes?
Originally posted by HermioneLuna
I was kiddingAnd doing a fine job of it too. :D

Mischief managed. ;)

Since I wouldn't be needing it again, I'll leave this here;
Shaggy, can you post this picture in the IWBTBIGOIASSSS thread too? Pleeeease????

Glad to see things are back to normal here. :p

I like that - Mischief managed! :D

Anyhow, now a question to everyone who participated. Did playing "devil's advocate", or at posting outside your normal thoughts change your opinions about anything? Did anyone have a change or heart, or at least think that there are things that you didn't consider possible in the past? For example, those who felt Snape wasn't bullied in the past, do you now feel he may have been a victim, or vice versa, etc etc. Basically, did anyone learn anything new, or just have lots of fun! :lol:

Maybe we should explain for those who are just joining us - we all switched "sides" for the day as an April Fool's Joke. Basically, we had "Opposite Day."I wish I'd been on to participate in this little "opposite day"- it sounded like fun!

Anyhow, now a question to everyone who participated. Did playing "devil's advocate", or at posting outside your normal thoughts change your opinions about anything? Did anyone have a change or heart, or at least think that there are things that you didn't consider possible in the past? For example, those who felt Snape wasn't bullied in the past, do you now feel he may have been a victim, or vice versa, etc etc. Basically, did anyone learn anything new, or just have lots of fun! :lol:Good question.

I think that, overall, everyone was too silly for that. I mean, we weren't forced to defend the "opposing side" in a serious debate, which is really what would be needed. That would be an interesting exercise, though, not for April Fools Day, but in general. It could make very good debate. I assume that the individual personalities and experiences of everyone contribute a large part to what side of the debate they fall on. Switching sides for a serious debate might bring out some new ideas about the issues.

I wish I'd been on to participate in this little "opposite day"- it sounded like fun!

I wish you had been here, too! I missed all the Lupinites, and it would have been fun to hear your "Opposite Spin" with anti-Lupin opinions. :p

If you missed it - here are my avatar and signature, for the last time!:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/sip44/siriusavatar2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/sip44/SiriusSpecialDelivery2.jpg

Anyhow, now a question to everyone who participated. Did playing "devil's advocate", or at posting outside your normal thoughts change your opinions about anything? Did anyone have a change or heart, or at least think that there are things that you didn't consider possible in the past? For example, those who felt Snape wasn't bullied in the past, do you now feel he may have been a victim, or vice versa, etc etc. Basically, did anyone learn anything new, or just have lots of fun!

Well, I wasn't really thinking too much about my posts, just trying to make them as outrageous and extreme as possible. :evil: What I realized yesterday is that everyone here who participated really does understand the other side, and that gives me hope that we can still have a dialogue from now until the new bookcomes out!

The thing that is easiest for me to understand is the lack of sympathy for Snape as an adult and the way he talks to the children. He really is rough on all of them. My own opinion is that we can't look at what he says, but what he does. I have known alot of "gruff" people in the past who turned out to be different on the inside, so I agree with Norbertha that Snape has an outer shell. I also understand people who are "loners" pretty well, since I am one myself at times. I also agree with Jane Austen (good company) that the smooth talker and flatterer isn't always the good guy he appears to be!

The funniest thing to me is the way SWM can be twisted to sound as if Snape deserved it because James and Sirius were good looking and popular. It is humorous to write it because it seems like nonsense to me, and yet that is how Sirius describes it in the book, lol. And we've had posters here who really feel that way. I remember once, someone wrote about being popular themselves, and remembering what you have to do to keep the "reputation," even if it means jumping on someone and beating them up or calling them names.

We all know the "pecking order" of the teenage years, and that popularity means everything sometimes, so writing down the opposite of my own view reminded me of that once more.

I think we tend here to talk about more logical reasons why James and Sirius might be angry at Snape, such as his curiousity about Lupin threatening their monthly plans, and we forget that some of it might be just plain, old fashioned, "clique" behavior - one group attacking an outsider.

Originally Posted by RemusLupinFan
I wish I'd been on to participate in this little "opposite day"- it sounded like fun!

Me too. You guys were hilarious. :rotfl:

I think it was extremely interesting to read. Even though people were still "taking sides" in the discussion, you were all cooperating in making the joke work. It put all the heated discussion that happens in this thread into perspective. Definitely therapeutic. :tu: to the people who came up with it.

Originally Posted by Chievrefueil
I think that, overall, everyone was too silly for that. I mean, we weren't forced to defend the "opposing side" in a serious debate, which is really what would be needed. That would be an interesting exercise, though, not for April Fools Day, but in general. It could make very good debate. I assume that the individual personalities and experiences of everyone contribute a large part to what side of the debate they fall on. Switching sides for a serious debate might bring out some new ideas about the issues.

Chiev, I think you're right that the whole thing wasn't serious enough to change anyone's mind on the issues, and that trying it out in earnest would be interesting. I also believe you're right in saying that our own personalities and experiences colour our perceptions about these characters, but as far as I've been able to work out there isn't any single experience which has the effect of determining which "side" we're on. I've been looking for it for a long time, and I just can't find it. Personality type really seems to be the best indicator.

Anyhow, now a question to everyone who participated. Did playing "devil's advocate", or at posting outside your normal thoughts change your opinions about anything? Did anyone have a change or heart, or at least think that there are things that you didn't consider possible in the past? For example, those who felt Snape wasn't bullied in the past, do you now feel he may have been a victim, or vice versa, etc etc. Basically, did anyone learn anything new, or just have lots of fun! :lol:
I agree with what Chiev, Alisel, and SIP said.

Part of it, too, I think, is that we weren't actually expected to defend our positions in the way we normally are. Most of the things I said in jest would never slip by the posters in here without someone asking me how on Earth I came up with it. Yesterday, no one cared, as we all knew that it was just in fun.

I don't know about anyone else, but I always consider both sides of the issue, before I decide which side I should fall on. It is generally a fairly quick decision, but I feel that I am very fair. (hehe, I'm not egotistical :evil: )

I think we all consider the other side, or we wouldn't have been able to take part in this joke.

As far as personality versus personal experience, I think they both play a part. Our personality affects how we view our own personal experience, which, obviously, vary greatly. So our views are colored by our personality, regardless, and that affects how we interpret the actions in the books.

It would be interesting to have an "opposite side" debate in all seriousness, but I think it might cause too many ulcers. :eyebrows:

I wish you had been here, too! I missed all the Lupinites, and it would have been fun to hear your "Opposite Spin" with anti-Lupin opinions. :p Yeah, there wasn't enough Lupin-bashing yesterday! ;)What I realized yesterday is that everyone here who participated really does understand the other side, and that gives me hope that we can still have a dialogue from now until the new bookcomes out!I definitely think that's true. It wasn't as easy for me to come up with the opposite argument as I thought it would be and it would be pretty hard in a more serious "opposite" debate, though. I was only regurgitating arguments I'd heard countless times, but didn't try to make them really make sense, as I would if I was really debating them. (Snape should buy Harry a broom? I mean, come on! :lol: )

This could be a new beginning for this thread. Norbertha laid out what she really thought in a list last night (or morning for her, I suppose)--now you.The thing that is easiest for me to understand is the lack of sympathy for Snape as an adult and the way he talks to the children. He really is rough on all of them. My own opinion is that we can't look at what he says, but what he does. I have known alot of "gruff" people in the past who turned out to be different on the inside, so I agree with Norbertha that Snape has an outer shell. I also understand people who are "loners" pretty well, since I am one myself at times. I also agree with Jane Austen (good company) that the smooth talker and flatterer isn't always the good guy he appears to be!My opinion of Snape is very similar to yours, SIP. Snape is like a diamond in the rough. :p


I think my opinion on the Marauders is more moderate than yours. I don't find any fault with Lupin--not even for his inaction in SWM. I use the "reasonable person" argument (or "reasonable teenager"). I don't think a reasonable teenager would intervene in such a situation. The fact that Lily did makes her extraordinary, in my opinion. There's just not enough we know about James, but he was arrogant and cruel in SWM. I have a very hard time reconciling that with someone who would become a loving husband and father a few years later. All kids are cruel to some extent, but doesn't it seem like James's use of power (popularity in the school) would point toward deeper personality traits that would predispose him to other acts of similar cruelty in other situations? As for Sirius, he is also cruel and arrogant in SWM, but not to the extent of James. He's a bit more aloof--more removed from the action. As an adult, I find him too judgmental and that's really my biggest problem with him. He's judgmental when he's angry with Harry for not meeting him in Hogsmeade. He's judgmental with Molly. He's judgmental with Snape (of course, history explains that better than his feelings toward Molly). And then there's Peter, the Rat. :rolleyes:

For fun, I looked up my first post in this thread to see if my opinion had changed:
I don't think it's automatic to interpret that she means either of them is a bully. Snape just ungratefully insulted her, but most people wouldn't say that 1 insult is bullying. It seems unlikely that Lily would have tried to stand up for Snape, if he had been insulting her on a regular basis, which would count as bullying. Therefore, I think that Lily was saying that Snape is mean & nasty and James is too. However, not all mean and nasty people engage in bullying. Just my opinion.Nope, not really! :lol: