Deconstructing the Marauders V.9

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. :tu: Yep, it was a very good natured debate. Like SIP said, we were all just having a laugh and deliberately being as outrageous as possible. To think this thread sometimes gets a bit of a rep for being uh - volatile - yesterday proved we are ALL lovely, fluffy bunnies really! :D
Originally posted by Alisel
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.Personality type is a funny one. It is a very strong indicator in some cases, but very weak in others. I've just had a quick look again at the personality type thread Chiev started in the Common Room after we'd discussed it here and there is one very strong trend - a close connection between INTJ character types and Snape. Almost all INTJs say Snape is one of their favourite characters, and the majority of people who put Snape as one of their favourite characters were INTJs.

There doesn't seem to be this connection for any other character or personality type. For instance, grrliz and I have opposite personality types - she's an ISTJ, I'm an ENFP but we both like Sirius best, and we generally agree in most discussions. Glancing through the results in the Common Room I couldn't see the personality type/favourite character connections for Lupin and Sirius that are so obvious for Snape. I really don't know why that is. Any ideas? :huh:

I think a role-reversal day might be really interesting and shouldn't cause any ulcers. :p

Might give us all a different perspective on some of the issues. We could do this for a predetermined amount of time, and at the end compare notes and see if our opinions have changed at all. Anyone game for that? :)

I think a role-reversal day might be really interesting and shouldn't cause any ulcers. :p

Might give us all a different perspective on some of the issues. We could do this for a predetermined amount of time, and at the end compare notes and see if our opinions have changed at all. Anyone game for that? :)
I think it would be fun, if a little difficult. I would imagine that you need a number of people willing to do it, and, depending on schedules, a time that would work well for those participants. Assuming I'm correct, I would be more likely to be able to do it on a Friday. I'm pretty much hit or miss for the rest of the week. :p

Shaggy, thanks!

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:

Glad to see the world has re-aligned itself in this thread. :)

Personally, my opinions haven't changed that much, if at all. I tried to take it "seriously" even to the point of debating with someone who I don't think knew we were all just kidding. But honestly, I don't see Snape in a newer light than I did before we all switched sides. I still think he's out of line and most the the excuses listed before his behavior are a stretch at best, but it was really funny to see me arguing in favor of them.

I think I might be willing to take part in a serious debate the way we do normally in this thread only with everyone on opposite sides again. It sounds interesting and might help us gain new perspective so we aren't just going around in endless circles anymore.

Norbertha, you may prefer to leave this pages back, and it's perfectly fine if you do, but I was thinking about the question you asked me about Lupin being the brains of the Marauder's pranks. Someone else gave their interpretation of what you meant, but I'd much rather hear your meaning from you than from someone who could be interpreting it incorrectly. :)

I think a role-reversal day might be really interesting and shouldn't cause any ulcers. :p

Might give us all a different perspective on some of the issues. We could do this for a predetermined amount of time, and at the end compare notes and see if our opinions have changed at all. Anyone game for that? :)Hmm, I think this is a really interesting idea. It really might help people understand the other side of the argument a little better and it might make people have more of an appreciation of the other side.

In the meantime, does anybody object to going back and analyzing some of the serious posts before the "opposite day" was initiated? Before the April Fools Day joke was initiated, I had a few things prepared that I didn't get to say.

Another odd aspect of the personality types is the sheer number of INTJs present on these forums; INTJs, according to one web site's information, only account for 1% of the general population. So that's interesting in and of itself, in terms of the types of people who get involved in discussions of HP.

Could it be part of the attraction--INTJ types are rare, so that the attention of readers who are INTJ is caught by an INTJ character?

In the meantime, does anybody object to going back and analyzing some of the serious posts before the "opposite day" was initiated? Before the April Fools Day joke was initiated, I had a few things prepared that I didn't get to say.

I'd have no objection to that. Maybe after this little joke we can have better discussions with fewer arguments than before.

I'd be interested in that sort of opposite discussion. Timing would be the main problem. Using only one day would mean that many people would not get a chance to reply to everyone else's posts. The nifty new debate style with a set post limit, instead of time, would work much better for something like this, I think. Could that be done?

Originally Posted by shaggydogstail
There doesn't seem to be this connection for any other character or personality type. For instance, grrliz and I have opposite personality types - she's an ISTJ, I'm an ENFP but we both like Sirius best, and we generally agree in most discussions. Glancing through the results in the Common Room I couldn't see the personality type/favourite character connections for Lupin and Sirius that are so obvious for Snape. I really don't know why that is. Any ideas?

Ideas? More than I can keep straight. :lol: Whether any of them will ever move past the realm of wild speculation...

I went back to have a look at chiev's thread. The correlation for Snape is really quite remarkable; all INTJ's have mentioned him, and all others who have picked Snape have been IN's. Dumbledore's also quite strong on INFJ lists, and Lupin shows up on quite a few "near misses" as well as the INFP lists. Sirius is the tricky one. It'll be a little too much work for me to check this hypothesis out tonight (I'll have a look in the morning), but I'm wondering whether going for a "three out of four" correlation rather than an exact match (and possibly allowing for strength of preferences) would give anything. Actually, I got that idea from looking at yours, Shaggy.

Ideas, you said. I would say it's likely that a "popular" or likeable character would get picked by a wider range of types, and vice versa. As I said when we first discussed making such a thread, we were unlikely to end up with a great number of people who had Voldemort as a favourite character, whether they shared his type or not. It doesn't really surprise me that Snape only appeals to people who know where he's coming from, while Harry and Sirius are picked by very different types. I'm working on a few other possibilities, but I've no idea if any of them are viable yet.

Originally Posted by subtle science
Another odd aspect of the personality types is the sheer number of INTJs present on these forums; INTJs, according to one web site's information, only account for 1% of the general population. So that's interesting in and of itself, in terms of the types of people who get involved in discussions of HP.

True, that's quite surprising, but I'm not sure it reflects the composition of the forums as a whole. The thread's been promoted on threads which already discussed Snape, so that has probably skewed the results, as far as the range of posters is concerned. Then there's the fact that only about 30 people have responded so far, which doesn't really make for a lot of statistical material when spread over 12 types and even more characters. The latter is quite a problem; it's difficult to know what to make of people listing characters whose type we don't know.

I would imagine that, if all of the posters across the forums were taken into account, that the percentage of INTJs would be closer to the norm. Looking back at my post, I really didn't say quite what I was thinking (I'm still on a major lagging of sleep....)--which actually was the proportion of INTJs on certain threads...not the entire forum...

(crawling back into my burrow now)

Oh, I see. In that case, I agree. That sounds likely. The INTJs appear to be a majority on certain threads.

There doesn't seem to be this connection for any other character or personality type. For instance, grrliz and I have opposite personality types - she's an ISTJ, I'm an ENFP but we both like Sirius best, and we generally agree in most discussions. Glancing through the results in the Common Room I couldn't see the personality type/favourite character connections for Lupin and Sirius that are so obvious for Snape. I really don't know why that is. Any ideas?

Harry hates Snape. Therefore, in order to like Snape you have to be able to relate to Snape and look past Harry's negative opinion. I imagine that this would be easier for people who can relate to Snape i.e. INTJs. However, Sirius is seen in a positive light by Harry, and so the reader has to work less in order to relate to him. Sirius is also the classic romantic hero, and therefore would be far more familiar to most people (normally he would be the hero in a novel). If you think about the popularity of the characters, in Harry's eyes, then I think that quite accurately translates to the real world.

Ideas, you said. I would say it's likely that a "popular" or likeable character would get picked by a wider range of types, and vice versa. As I said when we first discussed making such a thread, we were unlikely to end up with a great number of people who had Voldemort as a favourite character, whether they shared his type or not. It doesn't really surprise me that Snape only appeals to people who know where he's coming from, while Harry and Sirius are picked by very different types. I'm working on a few other possibilities, but I've no idea if any of them are viable yet.

Alisel, you made some very good points.

Oh, I see. In that case, I agree. That sounds likely. The INTJs appear to be a majority on certain threads.

Yes, they seem to travel in numbers. So unlike Snape :huh:
I am thankful for the large number of INTJs on this thread, because they do offer remarkable insight into the novels (far more so than other types, IMO). Their posts are tho only things stopping me from losing all sympathy for Snape.

(I am very sorry that I missed April Fool's day. I couldn't work out how to get past the stupid 'shut down' page :grumble: )

Hmm I posted on Chiev's thread and got ISTJ, though I'm not sure I agree with this result.

Going back to an older quote:
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. Definitely- I agree especially with what you say about Lupin wanting to avoid confrontation. In fact, this is one of the parallels Lupin shares with wolves. From this ( http://www.crystalinks.com/totemanimals.html) websiteThey [wolves] seem to go out of their way to avoid a fight. One is rarely necessary when a shift in posture, a growl, or a glance gets the point across quite readily.
I'd say this is quite an apt description of Remus. Numerous times now we have seen how Lupin acts as the peacemaker or the go-between in times of high tension. One of the most prominent examples is during Molly and Sirius' argument, when Remus opts for the middle ground in letting Harry know as much as he needs to. Also, the way Lupin shifts the situation when things become too heated to avoid violence or confrontation by speaking to Sirius in italics. The impact of these words is far greater than if he had shouted by speaking in all caps. His quiet strength is enough to encourage people to listen to him and to obey his commands when he chooses to be assertive.

Lupin also goes out of his way to avoid a confrontation with his friends in Snape’s Worst Memory. Instead of standing up to them, which could have caused a fight, he hides behind his book and avoids facing up to them. I have often wondered whether he would have had the courage to stand up to Sirius and James had the entire school not been watching them torment Snape.(From the website) Traditionally, someone with Wolf Medicine has a strong sense of self, and communicates well through subtle changes in voice inflection and body movements.This statement has Remus Lupin written all over it. Remus does indeed have a strong sense of self, which he accepts- flaws and all- despite being very hard on himself and being riddled with guilt for his condition, and for acting cowardly. In spite of the fact that he loses his very consciousness and humanity once a month, is still able to reclaim his identity.

Lupin's excellent subtlety, and the fact that a few words from Lupin are worth pages of text from other characters, illustrate how he can get a point across with a gesture, an expression, a smile, or a few, well-chosen words. He’s often described as having a shrewd look or a piercing gaze. In the Marauder’s Map scene, the merest half-glance in Harry’s direction warns him not to interfere. In the Shrieking Shack scene, all it takes is eye contact with Sirius and the two understand each other. Many of his gestures also seem to hold a power that words can not compare to, as in the example when Harry speaks about hearing his parents being murdered, and Lupin makes that sudden motion with his arm. That gesture conveys so much of what he was feeling that it wouldn’t have been the same if he had started to say something comforting to Harry, and then cut himself off. We are also alerted to what’s going on in Remus’ mind when he speaks mildly and casually, as opposed to when he speaks sharply or with a steely tone. Remus is also very deliberate and sure with his words, which makes it so sad when Lupin is stumbling in his speech after Sirius dies. We are instantly aware of his pain at that moment, even if he doesn’t outwardly show it.

--this is part of an analysis I did a while ago.

I'd be interested in that sort of opposite discussion. Timing would be the main problem. Using only one day would mean that many people would not get a chance to reply to everyone else's posts. The nifty new debate style with a set post limit, instead of time, would work much better for something like this, I think. Could that be done?

I like this idea. Could one of our friendly neighborhood moderators let us know?

Alisel: I'm really not interested in taking the "opposite view" again any time soon, at least not on this thread! I said everything I wanted to say (plus alot of silly things) yesterday! It was fun, but by the end of the day, I wanted my comfort zone back.

Another odd aspect of the personality types is the sheer number of INTJs present on these forums; INTJs, according to one web site's information, only account for 1% of the general population. So that's interesting in and of itself, in terms of the types of people who get involved in discussions of HP.

Could it be part of the attraction--INTJ types are rare, so that the attention of readers who are INTJ is caught by an INTJ character?

I like your last point, subtle! I think alot of INTJ types are interested in Snape because of the way he seems to figure things out, such as when he "interrogates" Harry.

Also, Potions seems more like a real class that depends on what you have studied and what you do, more than just using magic in a certain direction. So Snape seems to really be "teaching" school more than just letting them use their talents for spells with their wands (no foolish wand-waving!). That's just my opinion - you could make that case for Hagrid as well, and I'm sure someone will make the case that Lupin was a wonderful teacher with the boggart and the patronus.

My point is just that Snape seems to be more like real teachers I have known - cranky, feeling unappreciated, frustrated with lazy students, and prone to giving homework when they're having a bad day. :p

For those who missed the discussion before, this is one list of INTJ (Snapeish) traits. I picked this list off the Internet because it struck me as both true and funny, when you consider some of us, ahem, INTJ types:

INTJ

:evil:
loner, more interested in intellectual pursuits than relationships or family, not very altruistic, not very complimentary, would rather be friendless than jobless, observer, values solitude, perfectionist, detached, private, not much fun, hidden, skeptical, does not like most people, socially uncomfortable, not physically affectionate, unhappy, does not talk about feelings, hard to impress, analytical, likes esoteric things, pessimistic, not spontaneous, discontented, guarded, does not think they are weird but others do, responsible, insensitive to the misfortunes of others, orderly, clean, organized, familiar with darkside, does not value organized religion, suspicious of others, lonely, rarely shows anger, punctual, finisher, prepared

Well, I don't think all those things apply, however I can identify with "Does not think they are weird but others do." :lol: I'm not that "unhappy," though.

IIt's really perfect with the "omg" on it. And ravenfeather's right--I think you've had more Snape avatars than Sirius avatars. :p *pats self on back* I thought the "omg" part made it the ultimate fangirl icon, hehehe. And you're right, I think I have had more Snape avatars than Sirius avatars, although overall I know I've made more avatars with Sirius than Snape on them; the Snape ones are always funnier though. :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:The way I approached the April Fools Day joke was to take the base arguments that are usually presented from the other side and then blow them completely out of proportion (hence my suggestion that the Marauders' sole goal in life was to kill Snape :rolleyes: ). I don't think it actually made me any more sympathetic to Snape on any level; I think it just reinforced why I don't hold those particular views in the first place.

INTJ


loner, more interested in intellectual pursuits than relationships or family, not very altruistic, not very complimentary, would rather be friendless than jobless, observer, values solitude, perfectionist, detached, private, not much fun, hidden, skeptical, does not like most people, socially uncomfortable, not physically affectionate, unhappy, does not talk about feelings, hard to impress, analytical, likes esoteric things, pessimistic, not spontaneous, discontented, guarded, does not think they are weird but others do, responsible, insensitive to the misfortunes of others, orderly, clean, organized, familiar with darkside, does not value organized religion, suspicious of others, lonely, rarely shows anger, punctual, finisher, prepared
I am feeling psychoanalyzed. :p

I guess I am strange, because I approached my first couple of posts seriously trying to debate the other side, but I got caught up in the silliness very quickly. I think it is a good intellectual exercise to debate the other side. Like my signature says, I believe that playing devil's advocate is the only way to truly know where you stand on an issue, and makes your arguments much more effective. However, if I can't convince anyone else, oh well, I have fun debating my own arguments, rather than arguing someone else's.

I'm really not interested in taking the "opposite view" again any time soon, at least not on this thread! I said everything I wanted to say (plus alot of silly things) yesterday! It was fun, but by the end of the day, I wanted my comfort zone back.
I really had fun, that day. More by reading te messages than by posting, and imagining myself as a person who didn't know about the joke... By the end, well, I was beginning to hate peter and snape even more, just because,the proportion of their good and bad qualities is quite a contrast! Thanks a lot, everyone.

Definitely- I agree especially with what you say about Lupin wanting to avoid confrontation. In fact, this is one of the parallels Lupin shares with wolves. From this website

They [wolves] seem to go out of their way to avoid a fight. One is rarely necessary when a shift in posture, a growl, or a glance gets the point across quite readily.

I'd say this is quite an apt description of Remus. Numerous times now we have seen how Lupin acts as the peacemaker or the go-between in times of high tension. One of the most prominent examples is during Molly and Sirius' argument, when Remus opts for the middle ground in letting Harry know as much as he needs to.
Great observation! This really reminds me of Wheel of Time. For those who have read it, don't you find the similarity between Perrin and Lupin? Both are calm people. After all Perrin is a wolf brother....

I would call Lupin sensible to do what he did. Again coming back to the comparison between hermione and Lupin, whatever hermione says or does, it has never stopped harry and ron, has it? Then isn't it better to be like lupin and stay quiet about the whole thing?

Lupin is a good observer, I guess, from what you say. It all seems to fit in his character... He seems to be a moderate person in a bunch of hyper-whatever characters.

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!
Just like I said, it somehow made me despise him more, though I just don't know why....

In the meantime, does anybody object to going back and analyzing some of the serious posts before the "opposite day" was initiated? Before the April Fools Day joke was initiated, I had a few things prepared that I didn't get to say.
Congrats! You are the one who did it ;)

Its my 100th day here! Its been really nice to be here! Thanks a bunch, all of you!

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!
It made me realise that James could not possibly have known, beforehand, that Snape wasn't wearing trousers under his robes. He just flipped him upside down. The knickers were an added bonus.

Norbertha, you may prefer to leave this pages back, and it's perfectly fine if you do, but I was thinking about the question you asked me about Lupin being the brains of the Marauder's pranks. Someone else gave their interpretation of what you meant, but I'd much rather hear your meaning from you than from someone who could be interpreting it incorrectly.

Okay. But I hope it's not going to escalate into a "I never said that" "you don't understand my points" argument between us, because I hate arguments. I avoid arguments like a rabid dog. :lol:

Maybe I've not understood you correctly, but I thought you said that Lupin was the one who planned the Marauders' pranks. I asked you what you meant, because I can simply not see Lupin planning such things as SWM or certainly not the Whomping Willow incident. More innocent things he could have planned, yes, but not those two things. So this is why I wondered if you could explain what you meant. I wasn't sure whether you included the crueller things they did, or just the more innocent ones.

However, this is my opinion:
1) Lupin would never plan anything that deliberately hurts another human being.
2) Lupin would take part in other adventures with the Marauders, such as exploring the hills around Hogwarts, sneaking out to Hogsmeade and things like that.
Another odd aspect of the personality types is the sheer number of INTJs present on these forums; INTJs, according to one web site's information, only account for 1% of the general population. So that's interesting in and of itself, in terms of the types of people who get involved in discussions of HP.

Could it be part of the attraction--INTJ types are rare, so that the attention of readers who are INTJ is caught by an INTJ character?
Subtle and Alisel, thank you for your interpretations of those correlations/non correlations. :tu:

It strikes me how many Is there are! Everybody is an introvert, it seems. Apart from Shaggy! :lol: No wonder we are attracted to the internet, rather than have to face people in "real life".

I also can't see Lupin planning the cruelty--as the major example, I can't see him actually having anything to do with the 'prank' that lures Snape to the Willow. From what Lupin says in PoA, about the risks the Marauders took in roaming the grounds when he transformed, he had a horror of biting someone. I just can't visualize his character planning anything that entailed an act performed on an outsider (ie, Snape); working out plans to leave the Willow or the Map, yes--but nothing that would affect someone else against his/her will. Lupin doesn't seem to have the personality of a practical joker (which, to me, is a compliment of a high order!). This is also why I buy into the argument that others have made, that the Werewolf Incident caused a rift between him and Sirius--possibly James, too--as it makes sense in terms of what we know of Lupin's character.

Lupin's major fault was his not emphatically objecting to or stopping the others' 'pranks.' As I've said before, I see the events of PoA as being Lupin's crucible, when he realizes that he cannot stand to the side and allow what he knows to be wrong to be done; that, to me, explains the subtle change in his behavior in OotP.

silver ink pot--I think I should probably print out that list and have it put on business cards that I could simply hand to people.....it would save a lot of time............

I also can't see Lupin planning the cruelty--as the major example, I can't see him actually having anything to do with the 'prank' that lures Snape to the Willow. From what Lupin says in PoA, about the risks the Marauders took in roaming the grounds when he transformed, he had a horror of biting someone. I just can't visualize his character planning anything that entailed an act performed on an outsider (ie, Snape); working out plans to leave the Willow or the Map, yes--but nothing that would affect someone else against his/her will. Lupin doesn't seem to have the personality of a practical joker (which, to me, is a compliment of a high order!). This is also why I buy into the argument that others have made, that the Werewolf Incident caused a rift between him and Sirius--possibly James, too--as it makes sense in terms of what we know of Lupin's character.

Lupin's major fault was his not emphatically objecting to or stopping the others' 'pranks.' As I've said before, I see the events of PoA as being Lupin's crucible, when he realizes that he cannot stand to the side and allow what he knows to be wrong to be done; that, to me, explains the subtle change in his behavior in OotP.
I think that you're right, I don't picture Lupin as being the one to plan, or even really carry out the pranks that were mean to others, but he did choose to ignore them, which is very bad too, because he probably knew it was wrong, but still did nothing to stop his friends.

I would call Lupin sensible to do what he did. Again coming back to the comparison between hermione and Lupin, whatever hermione says or does, it has never stopped harry and ron, has it? Then isn't it better to be like lupin and stay quiet about the whole thing? In terms of their willingness to upset their friends, I believe Lupin is more like Ron than Hermione. Just as Ron didn't want to stand up to his brothers when they were doing things they shouldn't have been, Remus also didn't stand up to his friends all of the time. But in terms of academics, I think Remus was a lot more like Hermione than Ron.

However, this is my opinion:
1) Lupin would never plan anything that deliberately hurts another human being.
2) Lupin would take part in other adventures with the Marauders, such as exploring the hills around Hogwarts, sneaking out to Hogsmeade and things like that.I agree with this, as well as with another statement you made concerning Lupin:I think Lupin is an adventurer, like the rest, but not a bully.:agree: I believe that Lupin could have been the one to help plan something really clever, like an April Fool’s joke for example, :evil: as long as it didn’t deliberately harm anyone. He actually may have been the one to tweak some of the Marauders’ plans so that they didn’t hurt anyone or end up permanently destroying anything. This is especially so because he was a prefect, so it’s very unlikely that he’d directly planned or take part in any plan that either hurt someone or permanently destroyed anything.

About SWM, I agree that to a degree that Lupin’s inaction may have been the best thing to do, because it’s quite possible that the situation could have escalated even further if he had stepped in. Granted, it may not have been the most moral thing to do. I agree that Lily’s interference does make her extraordinary, and I think it also shows how strong-willed (and perhaps stubborn) she was as a teenager.

Lupin doesn't seem to have the personality of a practical joker (which, to me, is a compliment of a high order!).I agree, but I think we can see that Lupin does indeed have a mischievous side and a sense of humor.

I think Lupin is an adventurer, like the rest, but not a bully.
I agree completely. After all he also was once an adolescent, like others, however mature he is or was.

Just as Ron didn't want to stand up to his brothers when they were doing things they shouldn't have been, Remus also didn't stand up to his friends all of the time.
I didn't notice that. But really, that is a nice point. As I said before, characters are a quite complex, not 1-dimensional.

I quess we all do tend to think Remus as a mature character. But there would certainly some other side too

I think this would have been discussed earlier, but I wanted to bring this up-the parallelism between snape and sirius. Deep hatred, lack of control over emotions, but(perhaps) on good side, great wizards, and both "give in" to what they feel(what I mean is that they both are not willing to listen to others to change their feelings. Talking about it, I am sure Dumbledore would have told snape atleast once to control his feelings towards harry).... I really think sirius would have hated snape's son, if snape had a son, as much as snape hates harry. Isn't it interesting that they do have some similarities? We often see too very similar characters hating each other, and two extremely different characters being best friends. Is it one of those situations?

subtle-I do believe, in a way that (as I said before), that there was no way of stopping james and sirius, was it? Even if he did object emphatically, if those two had made up there minds, they would bully people, right or not.

I think a role-reversal day might be really interesting and shouldn't cause any ulcers. :p

Might give us all a different perspective on some of the issues. We could do this for a predetermined amount of time, and at the end compare notes and see if our opinions have changed at all. Anyone game for that? :)I'd be game. I love good debate and this would be an opportunity to see if there are any new angles to the arguments. We could plan to do it over the span of a week, maybe? That should be enough time for everyone to participate. Also, I don't see any reason why someone who doesn't want to participate, like SIP, would need to do so. We would just be on the "opposite side" for a little while. ;)I went back to have a look at chiev's thread. The correlation for Snape is really quite remarkable; all INTJ's have mentioned him, and all others who have picked Snape have been IN's. Dumbledore's also quite strong on INFJ lists, and Lupin shows up on quite a few "near misses" as well as the INFP lists. Sirius is the tricky one. It'll be a little too much work for me to check this hypothesis out tonight (I'll have a look in the morning), but I'm wondering whether going for a "three out of four" correlation rather than an exact match (and possibly allowing for strength of preferences) would give anything. Actually, I got that idea from looking at yours, Shaggy. When we first started talking about the personality types in the last thread, I read somewhere that it's the S/N and T/F (the 2nd and third traits) preferences that are most important in terms of getting along and being able to work with other people. I found this page at the end of our last discussion about this subject. I thought it explained things better than the other web-sites I'd read.http://www.personalitypage.com/info.html

. . .there were two opposite ways of functioning. We can perceive information via 1) our senses, or 2) our intuition. We can make decisions based on 1) objective logic, or 2) subjective feelings. . .We all naturally use one mode of operation within each category more easily and more frequently than we use the other mode of operation. So, we are said to "prefer" one function over the other. The combination of our four "preferences" defines our personality type. Although everybody functions across the entire spectrum of the preferences, each individual has a natural preference which leans in one direction or the other within the four categories. . .The topic of how we Take in Information deals with our preferred method of taking in and absorbing information. Do we trust our five senses (Sensing) to take in information, or do we rely on our instincts (iNtuitive)? The third type of preference, how we prefer to Make Decisions, refers to whether we are prone to decide things based on logic and objective consideration (Thinking), or based on our personal, subjective value systems (Feeling).

The "SN" preference refers to how we gather information. We all need data on which to base our decisions. We gather data through our five senses. Jung contended that there are two distinct ways of perceiving the data that we gather. The "Sensing" preference absorbs data in a literal, concrete fashion. The "Intuitive" preference generates abstract possibilities from information that is gathered. We all use both Sensing and Intuition in our lives, but to different degrees of effectiveness and with different levels of comfort.

We are Sensing when we:

Taste food
Notice a stoplight has changed
Memorize a speech
Follow steps in a plan
We are Intuitive when we:

Come up with a new way of doing things
Think about future implications for a current action
Perceive underlying meaning in what people say or do
See the big picture

Within the context of personality typing, the important distinction is which method of gathering information do we trust the most? Do we rely on our five senses and want concrete, practical data to work with? Or do we trust our intuitions without necessarily building upon a solid foundation of facts?

When Jung studied human behavior, he noticed that people have the capability to make decisions based on two very different sets of criteria: Thinking and Feeling. When someone makes a decision that is based on logic and reason, they are operating in Thinking mode. When someone makes a decision that is based on their value system, or what they believe to be right, they are operating in Feeling mode. We all use both modes for making decisions, but we put more trust into one mode or the other. A "Thinker" makes decisions in a rational, logical, impartial manner, based on what they believe to be fair and correct by pre-defined rules of behavior. A "Feeler" makes decisions on the individual case, in a subjective manner based on what they believe to be right within their own value systems.

We are making decisions in the Thinking mode when we:

Research a product via consumer reports, and buy the best one to meet our needs
Do "The Right Thing", whether or not we like it
Choose not to buy a blue shirt which we like, because we have two blue shirts
Establish guidelines to follow for performing tasks
We are making decisions in the Feeling mode when we:

Decide to buy something because we like it
Refrain from telling someone something which we feel may upset them
Decide not to take a job because we don't like the work environment
Decide to move somewhere to be close to someone we care about
Some decisions are made entirely by Thinking or Feelings processes. Most decisions involve some Thinking and some Feeling. Decisions that we find most difficult are those in which we have conflicts between our Thinking and Feeling sides. In these situations, our dominant preference will take over. Decisions which we find easy to make and feel good about are usually a result of being in sync with both our Feeling and Thinking sides.
I like your last point, subtle! I think alot of INTJ types are interested in Snape because of the way he seems to figure things out, such as when he "interrogates" Harry. Also, it's possible that INTJs like Snape because they like to figure things out and Snape is an enigma! :lol:
Harry hates Snape. Therefore, in order to like Snape you have to be able to relate to Snape and look past Harry's negative opinion. I imagine that this would be easier for people who can relate to Snape i.e. INTJs. However, Sirius is seen in a positive light by Harry, and so the reader has to work less in order to relate to him. This adds to what Alisel said and I think this makes a lot of sense. :tu:(I am very sorry that I missed April Fool's day. I couldn't work out how to get past the stupid 'shut down' page :grumble:Oh, that really sucks! I only accidentally found the link to get in, so it definitely wasn't easy. Hmm I posted on Chiev's thread and got ISTJ, though I'm not sure I agree with this result."Serious and quiet, interested in security and peaceful living. Extremely thorough, responsible, and dependable. Well-developed powers of concentration. Usually interested in supporting and promoting traditions and establishments. Well-organized and hard working, they work steadily towards identified goals. They can usually accomplish any task once they have set their mind to it.

Click here (http://www.personalitypage.com/ISTJ.html) for a detailed description of ISTJ."Definitely- I agree especially with what you say about Lupin wanting to avoid confrontation. In fact, this is one of the parallels Lupin shares with wolves. From this websiteThat's interesting. I didn't realize that wolves were like that. Great work on the rest of the analysis, RemusLupinFan. This part caught my attention: Remus is also very deliberate and sure with his words, which makes it so sad when Lupin is stumbling in his speech after Sirius dies. We are instantly aware of his pain at that moment, even if he doesn’t outwardly show it.I'm too lazy to get my book right now, but there's no description of his expression, right? It's only the voice breaking description. To expand on what you said, I think that the pain would be apparent for any character being described in that way. For instance, if Sirius's voice broke when speaking about Peter's betrayal of James & Lily, it would still convey pain. The difference is the degree of pain that must be present. Sirius is so emotional all the time that it doesn't take much for him to make a big production out of it. So, if his voice breaks, what does that really mean? Whereas characters like Lupin, Harry, and Snape are so reserved that a description of their voices breaking would be heartwrenching. And that's how I felt when I read Lupin's voice breaking as he tries to hold Harry back. It made his quiet strength more apparent.Just like I said, it somehow made me despise him more, though I just don't know why....Hmm. . .I guess we gave the most compelling arguments on "our side" SIP, clkginny, and ravenfeather. (I hope I didn't forget anyone.) ;) :p

ETA: Argh! Norbertha, of course! :rolleyes: Sorry! :blush: It made me realise that James could not possibly have known, beforehand, that Snape wasn't wearing trousers under his robes. He just flipped him upside down. The knickers were an added bonus.Right! :lol:

Of course, he knew by the time he flipped Snape for the second time and said he was going to take off his knickers. . .Lupin would never plan anything that deliberately hurts another human being.I agree. Lupin's clear disapproval at the time of SWM shows that he wouldn't willingly participate in something like that. I tend to think that James was the lead prankster. If Snape knew this, it could explain his particular animosity for James over Sirius. The reason I say James is that Lupin and Sirius don't seem to have any practical jokes when they are together in OotP. Of course, they are older, but I don't think that's something that people necessarily grow out of--especially Sirius who is always argued to be immature because of his time in Azkaban. Presumably, Sirius planned the Whomping Willow incident, but I think that also supports him not being the leader of the pranks, in general. People who don't pull practical jokes very often tend to go a bit too far, in my experience.I think this would have been discussed earlier, but I wanted to bring this up-the parallelism between snape and sirius. Deep hatred, lack of control over emotions, but(perhaps) on good side, great wizards, and both "give in" to what they feel(what I mean is that they both are not willing to listen to others to change their feelings. Talking about it, I am sure Dumbledore would have told snape atleast once to control his feelings towards harry).... I really think sirius would have hated snape's son, if snape had a son, as much as snape hates harry. Isn't it interesting that they do have some similarities? We often see too very similar characters hating each other, and two extremely different characters being best friends. Is it one of those situations?Yes, I agree that they have some interesting similarities. I would make a point about the "lack of control over emotions," though. I don't think Snape cannot control his emotions, except at 2 points--in the Shrieking Shack and after he finds Harry in the Pensieve. Otherwise, he is very controlled. He expresses disdain easily, but I see this as a choice. He is purposely showing his disdain--negative emotions being those that are easiest and least dangerous to show. Sirius sees no danger in showing his emotions--he lets them all out, all the time. This also doesn't mean that Sirius can't control his emotions, but that it's not important for him to do so. The best example, I think, is the kitchen scene. Snape shows what he wants to reveal--if Sirius gets to him, it's not apparent. Sirius responds to Snape with no checks on his emotions, possibly because he's never been on the receiving end before. A few more exchanges like that and Sirius might have attempted to control his emotions better.

I completely agree that Lupin has a sense of adventure, humor, and mischief--but I don't see him as a practical joker...largely because practical jokes often don't have a basis in humor, but rather in cruelty, and that doesn't suit Lupin at all, at any point in his character.

As for his non-interference in SWM...I formulated this response before I read Chievrefueil's post, and now I'm laughing at myself because what I'm about to say is so INTJ....Anyway: when I look at the characters' actions in the novels, I tend to divide my analyses into two parts--what the character should have done versus what the character did do because the character is, well, the character. Lupin and SWM is a perfect example of this: he should have intervened; he should not have let his friends do something so cruel--no matter what their motives were. However, it does not make sense for his character to take action: it is not the nature of young Lupin to take that stand at that point. Even in PoA, we see the traces of that younger character, in that Lupin doesn't tell Dumbledore what he knows--he should, but, still, he's not quite the person who would do so. After passing through the firestorm that is the ending of PoA, Lupin is different: the events in OotP are small, but the change is distinct. The Lupin of OotP would've stopped SWM and would've immediately gone to Dumbledore; the development of the character is that distinct. JKR herself has said that Lupin's weakness is wanting to be liked; what she shows in the novels is Lupin's growth in learning that sometimes you have to take stands that will mean you are not liked. Not acting in SWM and not telling Dumbledore in PoA doesn't necessarily make Lupin a bad person, in my eyes: JKR has him acting in character; to me, what would make him 'bad' is if he never developed and consciously chose the wrong behavior--a la Lucius Malfoy, Cornelius Fudge, Dolores Umbridge...the true villains of the novel.

And, yes, there is no description of Lupin's facial expression in OotP, as he has grabbed Harry from behind. A great choice by JKR; I agree that it actually increases the impact of the scene because we know Lupin isn't prone to emotional displays (I mean--at the beginning of OotP, after he hasn't seen Harry for over a year, his big demonstration is to shake Harry's hand...gee, calm down already, Lupin!!). It's a classic setup to have the tightly wrapped character show the crack and have it mean twice as much as an emotional outpouring from a typically emotional character. So, all we have in OotP is what Harry has: the sound of Lupin's "voice breaking as he struggled to contain Harry" (p. 807, US hardcover).

It's a classic setup to have the tightly wrapped character show the crack and have it mean twice as much as an emotional outpouring from a typically emotional character. So, all we have in OotP is what Harry has: the sound of Lupin's "voice breaking as he struggled to contain Harry" (p. 807, US hardcover).That's not all. Everyone forgets it, but one the very next page as Lupin is turning away from the veil, we get this quote:

Lupin turned away from the archway as he spoke. It sounded as though every word was causing him pain.
[ OotP, p713, UK edition ]

A very strong emotional reaction being carefully checked, but it sounds like if there weren't people around who needed help, Remus would have broken down right there.

And take it a bit further back, and it's Neville who inadvertently triggers it when he speaks to Harry:

"Was dat man--was Sirius Black a----a friend of yours?"
Harry nodded.
"Here," said Lupin quietly, and pointing his wand at Neville's legs he said, "Finite." The spell was lifted. Neville's legs fell back onto the floor and remained still. Lupin's face was pale. "Let's--let's find the others...." (p. 808, US hardcover).

The only description, I believe, of Lupin's appearance. I think there may also be an interesting parallel to Snape--the quieter the voice, the greater the emotion.

I really think sirius would have hated snape's son, if snape had a son, as much as snape hates harry. Isn't it interesting that they do have some similarities? We often see too very similar characters hating each other, and two extremely different characters being best friends. Is it one of those situations?You know, you might be right about Sirius extending hatred onto Snape’s son if he had one, though we’ll never know for sure. I definitely agree though that Snape’s and Sirius’s attitudes are mirrors of each other, to a degree. Both stubbornly hold onto a grudge against the other, and both are a little bit childish in several of their actions. It's the whole "opposite side of the coin" argument. ;)

Click here for a detailed description of ISTJ."Thanks for the link! :) After reading that description, I guess I do agree that ISTJ does kind of describe me well, though there are some things I still disagree with.

Whereas characters like Lupin, Harry, and Snape are so reserved that a description of their voices breaking would be heartwrenching. And that's how I felt when I read Lupin's voice breaking as he tries to hold Harry back. It made his quiet strength more apparent.:tu: Yes, that’s exactly the way I see it.

Not acting in SWM and not telling Dumbledore in PoA doesn't necessarily make Lupin a bad person, in my eyes: JKR has him acting in character; to me, what would make him 'bad' is if he never developed and consciously chose the wrong behavior--a la Lucius Malfoy, Cornelius Fudge, Dolores Umbridge...the true villains of the novel.:tu: Yes, I agree. I do believe that Lupin’s flaws in SWM and in PoA, and his behavior in OotP, do show a successive development and growth of his character in which we can see that he is confronting his flaws and working to overcome them. Lupin’s development from a teen who didn’t want to stand up to his friends, to an adult who was afraid of Dumbledore’s disappointment, and finally to an adult who was willing to tell people what they needed to hear as opposed of what they wanted to hear-- represents an arc that Lupin’s character follows. Perhaps this arc is not yet complete, but it is clear to see that Lupin doesn’t continuously and consciously choose to take the wrong actions, like Fudge, Malfoy, Umbridge, and Voldemort.

The only description, I believe, of Lupin's appearance. I think there may also be an interesting parallel to Snape--the quieter the voice, the greater the emotion.Agreed, both men seem to show a similarity in this regard.

Originally Posted by RemusLupinFan
Hmm I posted on Chiev's thread and got ISTJ, though I'm not sure I agree with this result.

Judging by the strength of your preferences you could as easily have been classified as an INFJ. That may be why.

Interesting that wolves are conflict-avoiders too. I had no idea. Even the body language fits. Great find. :tu:

Originally Posted by subtle science
Could it be part of the attraction--INTJ types are rare, so that the attention of readers who are INTJ is caught by an INTJ character?

Subtle, do you know whether INTJ characters are as rare as the type is supposed to be in real life? I keep feeling there should be huge numbers of interesting INTJs to read about, but now I can't think of any.

Originally Posted by Norbertha
It strikes me how many Is there are! Everybody is an introvert, it seems. Apart from Shaggy! No wonder we are attracted to the internet, rather than have to face people in "real life".

I have to plead guilty to that one. We probably read more, too. By the way, didn't Shaggy say that she used to be an I?

Norbertha, I agree completely with your assessment of which Marauder activities Lupin would and wouldn't have been willing to participate in. :tu:

Originally Posted by Chievrefueil
I'd be game. I love good debate and this would be an opportunity to see if there are any new angles to the arguments. We could plan to do it over the span of a week, maybe? That should be enough time for everyone to participate. Also, I don't see any reason why someone who doesn't want to participate, like SIP, would need to do so. We would just be on the "opposite side" for a little while.

I'm sure we can work it out so that people can choose whether to participate or not. Even a day might seem too long if the thread is not available for normal business. Don't worry, SIP, I'm not trying to drag your out of your comfort zone. ;)

We are Sensing when we:

Taste food
Notice a stoplight has changed
Memorize a speech
Follow steps in a plan


Ah. I'll show this to my boyfriend next time he suggests I get a driver's license. I am so not a sensing person.

Originally Posted by Chievrefueil
Also, it's possible that INTJs like Snape because they like to figure things out and Snape is an enigma!

Good point, I think you've got something there. Now why do I like him? :huh:

I'm sure we can work it out so that people can choose whether to participate or not. Even a day might seem too long if the thread is not available for normal business. Don't worry, SIP, I'm not trying to drag your out of your comfort zone.
Or could we start separate thread for it? It could be called sreduaram eht gnitcurtsnoced - and lock it after a week or so?

Alisel--Another INTJ literary character that comes immediately to mind: Sherlock Holmes. And why do I think of him immediately?--because I have always loved that character, too!

Okay. But I hope it's not going to escalate into a "I never said that" "you don't understand my points" argument between us, because I hate arguments. I avoid arguments like a rabid dog. :lol:

Maybe I've not understood you correctly, but I thought you said that Lupin was the one who planned the Marauders' pranks. I asked you what you meant, because I can simply not see Lupin planning such things as SWM or certainly not the Whomping Willow incident. More innocent things he could have planned, yes, but not those two things. So this is why I wondered if you could explain what you meant. I wasn't sure whether you included the crueller things they did, or just the more innocent ones.

However, this is my opinion:
1) Lupin would never plan anything that deliberately hurts another human being.
2) Lupin would take part in other adventures with the Marauders, such as exploring the hills around Hogwarts, sneaking out to Hogsmeade and things like that.

I have no intention of arguing with that. That's what I meant when I posted. It's just that someone posted after you and interpreted what you meant, I only wanted to get your opinion on your statement rather than their's. I don't think anyone planned Snape's Worst Memory. That was completely spontaneous. And I agree that Lupin wasn't behind the Whomping Willow incident, especially because both he and Sirius admitted it was Sirius' plan. Also, I can't see Lupin doing anything so mean.

Like I said, I don't think Lupin was an angel, but he certainly wasn't "evil" in the sense of purposely hurting or humiliating another person. I think he took part in the planning of all the "innocent" pranks and he was the brains of those operations. He just seems more levelheaded than the others, so he would have been more logical than rash about the things they did. I think he kept them out of trouble, even if they did get caught at times.

Quote from Chievrefueil:
Yes, I agree that they have some interesting similarities. I would make a point about the "lack of control over emotions," though. I don't think Snape cannot control his emotions, except at 2 points--in the Shrieking Shack and after he finds Harry in the Pensieve. Otherwise, he is very controlled. He expresses disdain easily, but I see this as a choice. He is purposely showing his disdain--negative emotions being those that are easiest and least dangerous to show. Sirius sees no danger in showing his emotions--he lets them all out, all the time. This also doesn't mean that Sirius can't control his emotions, but that it's not important for him to do so. The best example, I think, is the kitchen scene. Snape shows what he wants to reveal--if Sirius gets to him, it's not apparent. Sirius responds to Snape with no checks on his emotions, possibly because he's never been on the receiving end before. A few more exchanges like that and Sirius might have attempted to control his emotions better.
That's a surprising statement to me because I read the kitchen scene completely differently! I read it as a scene of both Snape and Sirius engaging in mutually destructive taunting that served no purpose. Snape appears to be in "control" of his emotions but I noticed how he never failed to return an insult (rather then ignore it). Isn't there an expression about digging yourself into a hole? Also Harry, who isn't a person that notices a lot about people, notices that Sirius's first insult scores a hit...Snape flushs. I think that scene shows the main problem with Snape and Sirius...one of them alone is fine but put the two in the same room...

Or could we start separate thread for it? It could be called sreduaram eht gnitcurtsnoced - and lock it after a week or so?Since essentially that thread would be identical to this one, only with people arguing different sides, I imagine it would get closed pretty quickly. :)

While there's quite a back-and-forth between Sirius and Snape in "Occlumency," it is Sirius who loses his cool: he pulls his wand first; he raises it first; and he even pushes Harry aside to get to Snape. Sirius' tone rises to the crescendo of a roar, whereas Snape's voice is "quietly waspish," and he speaks "smoothly," "silkily," "sleekly," and "softly." Snape's verbal jabs seem to have the desired effect, which is to disconcert Sirius thoroughly; even though Snape responds with his wand pointing into Sirius' face, too, he never gets provoked enough to shout or act first.

Thanks for the link! :) You're welcome! :):tu: Yes, I agree. I do believe that Lupin’s flaws in SWM and in PoA, and his behavior in OotP, do show a successive development and growth of his character in which we can see that he is confronting his flaws and working to overcome them. Lupin’s development from a teen who didn’t want to stand up to his friends, to an adult who was afraid of Dumbledore’s disappointment, and finally to an adult who was willing to tell people what they needed to hear as opposed of what they wanted to hear-- represents an arc that Lupin’s character follows. Perhaps this arc is not yet complete, but it is clear to see that Lupin doesn’t continuously and consciously choose to take the wrong actions, like Fudge, Malfoy, Umbridge, and Voldemort.After reading this, it made me wonder is there is a lot more to Lupin's story that we don't know. I mean, there obviously is, but in terms of it being important to the story JKR has been telling, is there something more? Perhaps Lupin is following a redemption arc, in addition to Snape? I wonder if there is any more to Snape and Lupin's relationship than has been revealed? That's a surprising statement to me because I read the kitchen scene completely differently! I read it as a scene of both Snape and Sirius engaging in mutually destructive taunting that served no purpose. Snape appears to be in "control" of his emotions but I noticed how he never failed to return an insult (rather then ignore it). Isn't there an expression about digging yourself into a hole? Also Harry, who isn't a person that notices a lot about people, notices that Sirius's first insult scores a hit...Snape flushs. I think that scene shows the main problem with Snape and Sirius...one of them alone is fine but put the two in the same room...No, that's just another aspect of that scene. I also see that they are "engaging in mutually destructive taunting." As subtle says, though, Snape never loses it like he does in SWM (letting out a string of mixed curse words and hexes, to paraphrase). Snape flushes, but that's a physiological response--very difficult to control. (I don't even know how one would really learn to control that--biofeedback, I guess.) Snape is absolutely taunting Sirius, but he seems to be seeing how far he can get to the figurative line. With each move Sirius makes, he crosses the line to escalate the situation and then Snape steps up to the new line. I see that Snape is purposely doing that, though. He's in control and Sirius is playing in to what he wants. Meanwhile, Sirius doesn't care if he crosses the line because he's always going to express exactly what he feels anyway.

While there's quite a back-and-forth between Sirius and Snape in "Occlumency," it is Sirius who loses his cool: he pulls his wand first; he raises it first; and he even pushes Harry aside to get to Snape. Sirius' tone rises to the crescendo of a roar, whereas Snape's voice is "quietly waspish," and he speaks "smoothly," "silkily," "sleekly," and "softly." Snape's verbal jabs seem to have the desired effect, which is to disconcert Sirius thoroughly; even though Snape responds with his wand pointing into Sirius' face, too, he never gets provoked enough to shout or act first.

I have no trouble reading that scene, either. Harry sees how it is going, and tries to stop Sirius, who is the one with the problem, in my opinion.

It would be hard for anyone to just walk away from a confrontation with Sirius. I'm sure I would have said more choice things than Snape does (ahem, perhaps with some colorful language thrown in). I think Snape shows alot of restraint, fighting verbally instead of with wands until Sirius tries to make it "showdown at the OK Corral" by pulling out his wand. I think that is how Sirius always tries to solve problems.

Subtle, do you know whether INTJ characters are as rare as the type is supposed to be in real life? I keep feeling there should be huge numbers of interesting INTJs to read about, but now I can't think of any.
Alisel--Another INTJ literary character that comes immediately to mind: Sherlock Holmes. And why do I think of him immediately?--because I have always loved that character, too!

Subtle wrote it as I was thinking about it - Sherlock Holmes is the perfect example of an INTJ.

But I also thought of another one, with whom JKR has to be familiar since she has two books by Dorothy Sayers on her "Official Site" Bookshelf: Lord Peter "Death" Bredon Wimsey, who is so sharp and intelligent in every way, including always solving the mystery. He is quite silly alot of the time, spouting literary quotes and making puns, but as you read a few of the stories, you realize he is not just some ridiculous aristocrat with a monocle, but a very unusual person.

The difference between Sherlock and Peter Wimsey is that, while Holmes is truly detached and considers the evidence nearly emotionlessly, Wimsey is totally logical only until the case is solved. Then he shows his other side as a more flawed human being. He has been known to hire an attorney for the defendent, give money to his family, and stay up all night waiting for the execution, which he hates. You could say that Holmes uses drugs to cope with being human, while Wimsey substitutes action.

Another thing we learn about Peter Wimsey is that during WWI, he was responsible for the deaths of a great many men who served under him, and after the war he retreated into a room and wouldn't see anyone except his servant, Bunter, who was also a soldier with him. Eventually, he learns to cope with memories, but, when he marries mystery writer, Harriet Vane, she finds out that he has terrible nightmares and is still suffering from shell-shock. That reminds me a bit of Norbertha's theory about Snape, that he has a sort of "post-traumatic stress disorder."

At any rate, once you find out about Wimsey's past, you take the things he says very differently.

I believe alot of sleuths and detectives, in books and on television, fall into the INTJ category.

The difference between Sherlock and Peter Wimsey is that, while Holmes is truly detached and considers the evidence nearly emotionlessly, Wimsey is totally logical only until the case is solved. Then he shows his other side as a more flawed human being. He has been known to hire an attorney for the defendent, give money to his family, and stay up all night waiting for the execution, which he hates. You could say that Holmes uses drugs to cope with being human, while Wimsey substitutes action.

I don't know the story at all, but I found your post interesting. Do you really see it as a flaw that he begins to have emotions about the cases he was investigating? I see it as a sign he is human, but I think that is a good thing.

Originally posted by Alisel
Originally Posted by Norbertha
It strikes me how many Is there are! Everybody is an introvert, it seems. Apart from Shaggy! No wonder we are attracted to the internet, rather than have to face people in "real life".
I have to plead guilty to that one. We probably read more, too. By the way, didn't Shaggy say that she used to be an I?I didn't take this test before, but on other personality tests I took as a teenager I regularly got 'introvert' type scores. I didn't score very high on extrovert (22) though. When I was reading through information about personality types last night, I did read something saying that ENFPs (like me) are the only extrovert group who actually need to spend time alone sometimes, which is normally an introvert habit, so maybe that's why I still fit in here! (Or maybe I don't and am just a complete freak! :p )

I was looking for something that might explain the 'why INTJs prefer Snape' end of the question and whether other personality types might commonly be expected to have similar opinions. I couldn't really find much that was directly relevant, but I did find a small survey of personality type and political preference.

http://www.personalitypage.com/political_affil.html

I haven't studied it in any detail, but I did notice that some personality types are very skewed in terms of political opinion, whereas other contain a spread of opinion which is closer to the average distribution. So for example, ENFPs results were roughly similar to the average results, suggesting no link between personality type and political opinion. Two of groups which did suggest a strong connection between personality type and political affiliation were ENTPs (like Sirius) who were more likely than average to be Democrat or liberal than average and INTJs (like Snape) who were more likely than average to be Republican or conservative. (Another thing for them to disagree on! :p )

Now I certainly don't want to turn the debate around to politics - I mean, really, as if things didn't get heated enough round here! :rolleyes: But it does seem that for some groups, personality type is a strong indicator of opinion, which might go some way to explaining why INTJs seem the plump for the same favourite character, whereas some other personality types seem more random in their preferences.
Originally Posted by Wandering Bard
Harry hates Snape. Therefore, in order to like Snape you have to be able to relate to Snape and look past Harry's negative opinion. I imagine that this would be easier for people who can relate to Snape i.e. INTJs. However, Sirius is seen in a positive light by Harry, and so the reader has to work less in order to relate to him. Looking at the personality type and relationships information, it seems that personality type might be a factor as well. ENTP's like Sirius are described as 'charming' and 'popular', suggesting they will be liked by a wide range of personality types. INFPs like Lupin are described as 'valued friends', and the description also suggests a wide appeal. INTJs like Snape are described as 'easily misunderstood' and 'appearing aloof' which suggests a character with this personality type might not be so widely liked by people from other types, as they don't understand him.

The information for the above came from here ; http://www.personalitypage.com/relationships.html The description of ENTPs as lovers just killed me, but I won't go into that... :angel:
Originally posted by Chiev
Snape is absolutely taunting Sirius, but he seems to be seeing how far he can get to the figurative line. With each move Sirius makes, he crosses the line to escalate the situation and then Snape steps up to the new line. I see that Snape is purposely doing that, though. He's in control and Sirius is playing in to what he wants. :tu: This is exactly how I read that scene - Snape is playing Sirius like a finely-tuned violin. Sirius either doesn't realise or doesn't care - ENTPs seem more interested in self-expression than self-restraint, making them prone to being argumentative.

silver ink pot and I will prove our INTJ natures--we don't want emotional responses while our investigator is still in the process of investigating; we want dispassionate, scientific examination and consideration of the evidence. Emotion is for later. : )

Interesting points about Lupin's story arc. Obviously, we're not done with him yet, with two more books to go. There hasn't been an interaction between Lupin and Snape since PoA (yet another scene I kept waiting to see in OotP that never materialized); somehow, somewhere, you'd think two Order members would cross paths. And it may be slight, but I think it matters (especially when one considers that both Lupin and Snape are characters of the significant small gesture): Why does Lupin think--expect--Snape to listen to him if he went up to Hogwarts to talk to Snape about the end of the Occlumency lessons? I see a red flag waving all over that, trying to get the reader's attention.

While there's quite a back-and-forth between Sirius and Snape in "Occlumency," it is Sirius who loses his cool: he pulls his wand first; he raises it first; and he even pushes Harry aside to get to Snape. Sirius' tone rises to the crescendo of a roar, whereas Snape's voice is "quietly waspish," and he speaks "smoothly," "silkily," "sleekly," and "softly." Snape's verbal jabs seem to have the desired effect, which is to disconcert Sirius thoroughly; even though Snape responds with his wand pointing into Sirius' face, too, he never gets provoked enough to shout or act first.I have no trouble reading that scene, either. Harry sees how it is going, and tries to stop Sirius, who is the one with the problem, in my opinion.

It would be hard for anyone to just walk away from a confrontation with Sirius. I'm sure I would have said more choice things than Snape does (ahem, perhaps with some colorful language thrown in). I think Snape shows alot of restraint, fighting verbally instead of with wands until Sirius tries to make it "showdown at the OK Corral" by pulling out his wand. I think that is how Sirius always tries to solve problems.As much as I love to go over this scene again, I naturally feel the need to provide the opposite view since it is not so clear cut Sirius' fault as it's being painted. Sirius and Snape are having a rather "calm" discussion regarding Harry's Occlumency lessons, all things considering and by their own standards; Sirius speaks "agressively" but Snape does his ridiculously infuriating "smooth and silky" act that he has down to a fine art (which is his own way of acting "agressive"). Despite this, they're both relatively fine and it's not really a fight or confrontation of any sort. Until this point they're fine; they've spoken to each other as they usually would and it's not all that out of the ordinary from other interaction they might have. It's what happens after that causes the fight to start.

Snape turns to leave; Sirius calls him back. Snape has no idea why Sirius has called him back; Sirius doesn't do anything other than sit up straight in his hair (I don't consider good posture to be agressive), and Snape immediately turns around sneering and belittles Sirius for having "unlimited lesiure time". Sirius ignores this insult and says "I'll get to the point then" so that Snape can go on with his Unbelievably Important Business and Snape balls his fist in his robes around his wand. Paranoid, much? Sirius tells him not to use the lessons to harass Harry, which is a perfectly legitimate concern given that what Sirius has probably heard from Harry about their lessons together is seen through the Harry Filter, a filter that thinks Harry is given a hard time in Potions. Snape then uses this as an opening to insult James, who had absolutely nothing to do with the conversation and whom no one was talking about, and then uses insulting James to insult Harry. Then, and only then, does Sirius draw his wand, after Snape has insulted two people near and dear to Sirius' heart. (Maybe Snape is lucky he's so mysterious so no one can have a go at his family on such a regular basis.)

We've talked about how the kitchen scene is a role reversal of Snape's Worst Memory: Snape has the upper hand and Sirius is at his mercy. And yet Sirius doesn't have the right to get angry at Snape's bullying tactics? Snape has certainly been justified in pulling his wand on James and Sirius in SWM; I'm confused why Sirius should have remained neutral given the ribbing Snape was purposely putting him through. (Yes, they're both adults in the kitchen scene, but since Snape and Sirius act ridiculously like children when they're together, I'm not sure that argument pans out.)

I guess I'm confused why Snape should be commended for fighting "verbally" when there didn't need to be a fight in the first place. If he had just heeded Sirius' warning, said "Duly noted, Black" and then left the kitchen, the fight would have been avoided. Snape didn't need to mention James, he didn't need to mention that he thinks Harry is arrogant, he didn't need to say any of that. Snape's got the upperhand and he utterly abuses it by refusing to walk away.

I don't know the story at all, but I found your post interesting. Do you really see it as a flaw that he begins to have emotions about the cases he was investigating? I see it as a sign he is human, but I think that is a good thing.

No! I guess I didn't express myself well - I kept getting interupted while I was typing that post. I think the point I was trying to make was that there is a "chink in the armor" type of thing - Wimsey isn't as cool and collected as he seems most of the time to outside observers, and that is a good thing, definitely. It makes him a well-rounded character, instead of a cartoonish "crime solver." The flaw in it is that he loves solving crimes, but he hates the aftermath of the trial and execution, and nearly has a nervous breakdown every time. Holmes on the other hand, can just take his seven-percent solution of cocaine and forget about it.

silver ink pot and I will prove our INTJ natures--we don't want emotional responses while our investigator is still in the process of investigating; we want dispassionate, scientific examination and consideration of the evidence. Emotion is for later. : )

:p Maybe you're right, lol.

Interesting points about Lupin's story arc. Obviously, we're not done with him yet, with two more books to go. There hasn't been an interaction between Lupin and Snape since PoA (yet another scene I kept waiting to see in OotP that never materialized); somehow, somewhere, you'd think two Order members would cross paths. And it may be slight, but I think it matters (especially when one considers that both Lupin and Snape are characters of the significant small gesture): Why does Lupin think--expect--Snape to listen to him if he went up to Hogwarts to talk to Snape about the end of the Occlumency lessons? I see a red flag waving all over that, trying to get the reader's attention.

I just found a great series of articles on the creation of Holmes, and other literary detectives he might have been based upon:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/sherlock_holmes/1.html?sect=18

This is one that subtle is probably more familiar with than I am, since I haven't read Edgar Allen Poe in a long time - Chevalier Auguste "Dupin" (rhymes with Lupin, I suppose, lol. :evil: ). He is noted for being a "mind reader!" :huh:

Maybe this is what will happen, Subtle - Lupin/Dupin and Snape/Holmes will help Dumbledore/Wimsey solve everything in the end!

From Page 2:

Chevalier C. Auguste Dupin is the amateur detective who appears in Poe’s stories “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” (1841), “The Mystery of Marie Roget” (1842), and “The Purloined Letter” (1844), predating Sherlock Holmes’s debut in A Study in Scarlet by nearly fifty years. These tales have rightfully earned Poe the reputation as the father of the modern mystery. Other writers, such as Dickens, wrote about crime and criminal enterprises, but no one before Poe made the crime and its detection the central plot. Poe was the first to make the amateur detective a hero. (It would be some time until writers dared cast an actual policeman as a hero given society’s fear and mistrust of the police.)

He’s also the creator of the “locked-room” puzzle, a plot device in which a murder is committed in a sealed room, a weapon is nowhere to be found, and there are no signs of forcible entry or exit. Although Poe was an American, he chose to make his hero a Frenchman and set his stories in Paris.

Like Holmes, Dupin carries on his investigations with a sidekick who serves as a stand-in for the reader, giving the detective the opportunity to voice his brilliant deductions. But while Sherlock Holmes uses his keen observations to uncover otherwise hidden truths, Dupin has the ability to replicate the thought processes of others and in effect, read minds. Julian Symons in Bloody Murder characterizes Dupin as “an emotionless reasoning machine.” By contrast, Holmes is hardly emotionless, but he does avoid emotional entanglements and, as many critics have pointed out, is something of a misanthrope.

grrliz--I'd like to point out that I neither said the kitchen scene was Sirius' fault nor did I commend Snape. There's nothing in my post regarding either of those judgments. The whole point of my post was to indicate that Snape had the upper hand in this spat by goading Sirius into acting first and into losing control. I registered no other opinion.

Quote from shaggydogstail:
This is exactly how I read that scene - Snape is playing Sirius like a finely-tuned violin. Sirius either doesn't realise or doesn't care - ENTPs seem more interested in self-expression than self-restraint, making them prone to being argumentative.
This may sound stupid but I think the exact opposite is happening...Sirius is playing Snape like a finely-tuned violin. Sirius lets Snape think he is the one in control and plays him as such. I wouldn't have given this idea much thought but it could explain how Snape was tricked during the Willow incident. Snape walks away from a confrontation in which he had the "upper hand" only to have Sirius change the rules (or "overlook" mentioning the werewolf). Dumbledore plays much the same game with people: he omits certain things and/or lets the person reach the wrong conclusion.

grrliz--I'd like to point out that I neither said the kitchen scene was Sirius' fault nor did I commend Snape. There's nothing in my post regarding either of those judgments. The whole point of my post was to indicate that Snape had the upper hand in this spat by goading Sirius into acting first and into losing control. I registered no other opinion.I don't recall saying you did say that the scene was Sirius' fault, I was merely using your post as a preface to SIP's post that indicated that Sirius, not Snape, was the one with the problem (in her opinion). I am presenting the opposite side of that argument, that Snape could have left well enough alone and refused to argue with Sirius.

Snape turns to leave; Sirius calls him back. Snape has no idea why Sirius has called him back; Sirius doesn't do anything other than sit up straight in his hair (I don't consider good posture to be agressive), and Snape immediately turns around sneering and belittles Sirius for having "unlimited lesiure time". Sirius ignores this insult and says "I'll get to the point then" so that Snape can go on with his Unbelievably Important Business and Snape balls his fist in his robes around his wand. Paranoid, much? Sirius tells him not to use the lessons to harass Harry, which is a perfectly legitimate concern given that what Sirius has probably heard from Harry about their lessons together is seen through the Harry Filter, a filter that thinks Harry is given a hard time in Potions. Snape then uses this as an opening to insult James, who had absolutely nothing to do with the conversation and whom no one was talking about, and then uses insulting James to insult Harry. Then, and only then, does Sirius draw his wand, after Snape has insulted two people near and dear to Sirius' heart. (Maybe Snape is lucky he's so mysterious so no one can have a go at his family on such a regular basis.)Sirius was already giving Snape a hard time about Occlumency, though ("Why can't Dumbledore teach Harry?"). Snape has delivered his message and turned to leave when Sirius called him back. Snape went on the offensive by making the remark about Sirius's leisure time--it makes sense that he was expecting an attack because what else would Sirius have to say? I do think that Sirius's remark was confrontational. It may be a reasonable thing for Sirius to say, but the way he said it was confrontational. Snape definitely insulted Harry through James, but, I'm not convinced that he insulted James at all. Everyone knew what Snape thought of James already and Snape used this as a frame of reference for Sirius. The subtext of Snape's remark was that Sirius shouldn't worry about it. Albeit, he said it in a nasty way.

As for the role reversal between this scene and SWM, it only applies to the control each character displays during the confrontation, not the events. Sirius was not a victim, as Snape was in SWM. Likewise, Snape was not bullying during that scene. The actions of each were matched in the kitchen scene, it was the emotional state of each character that was not. I guess I'm confused why Snape should be commended for fighting "verbally" when there didn't need to be a fight in the first place. If he had just heeded Sirius' warning, said "Duly noted, Black" and then left the kitchen, the fight would have been avoided.I don't think either of them should be commended for that scene--they were both vengeful idiots. They were both adults and each could have ended it at any point. I think, throughout the scene, Sirius consistently escalated the confrontation, though, while Snape matched.This may sound stupid but I think the exact opposite is happening...Sirius is playing Snape like a finely-tuned violin. Sirius lets Snape think he is the one in control and plays him as such. Really? You'll have to explain why. What does Sirius say and do to show that he is in control and playing Snape?

they argued like children. I think Jo wanted to show how inmature both are.

Chiev, for me the fight starts after Sirius asks Snape to wait a moment, which is why I was largely ignoring the stuff about the Occlumency lessons. It's not because I don't think it's important, I just think that Snape and Sirius are giving as good as they get in that scene and that their barb trading is pretty much equal but also pretty much boring run-of-the-mill Snape/Sirius interaction; Sirius gives Snape a hard time about Occlumency, but Snape gives Sirius a hard time about his innactivity at Grimmauld Place. There's not much that's particularly inflammatory in what either of them are saying at that point.

It's after Snape turns at Sirius' request that things turn sour (IMO, I understand that other see the fight starting earlier / later / not at all / continuously). I understand why Snape might make a pre-emptive strike at Sirius if he thought Sirius was going to do the same to him, but once he realised Sirius hadn't gone for a cheap shot and was merely making a statement asking Snape to keep the lessons professional, he could have take the high road. But he goads and he insults and Sirius (idiot that he is) rises to the occasion and matches him, but doesn't give more than he gets. Snape has the upper hand and Snape is the one escalating the scene. I don't understand how Snape could have the upperhand but Sirius escalates the scene. :huh:

Quote from Chievrefueil:
Really? You'll have to explain why. What does Sirius say and do to show that he is in control and playing Snape?
Let me change what I said slightly: neither was really "in control" and/or "playing" the other.

Sirius is expressing his anger verbally and physically...shouting, pulling out his wand etc. Most people say this shows that Sirius is out of control...which is probably true.

Snape isn't shouting and people note that he speaks quietly but in my reading his voice betrays as much as Sirius...he is mad and extremely so. He voice is getting more waspish, silky (in my view a bad quality in a situation like this) and his sneer is in full force.

Then they proceed to engage in their "mutually destructive taunting" which, to me, shows Snape is not really in control. He can't stop himself from taunting Sirius. His intellect is still working...look at the quality of the insults! But he seems to have misplaced his sense of judgment. He readies his wand before launching a major insult at Sirius: showing that he couldn't control the urge to pick a fight.

To me this is a vicious cycle. Snape or Sirius think they're in control of themselves but neither stops it (unless you intend to claim that Snape planned that along...which is what Harry believes) which shows a) a secret longing to continue the fight or b) an inability to just walk away or c) ulterior motives.

Or d) all of the above?

Okay, not to defend Snape, neccessarily, but if someone was insulting me by implying that I was being unprofessional in carrying out my job, I would definitely puncture them for the insult. Which is what Sirius did when he called Snape back. Not the most mature reaction, I admit, but I can understand why Snape did it. Sirius shouldn't have had that conversation in front of Harry, that had to increase the reaction from Snape.

I understand why Snape might make a pre-emptive strike at Sirius if he thought Sirius was going to do the same to him, but once he realised Sirius hadn't gone for a cheap shot and was merely making a statement asking Snape to keep the lessons professional, he could have take the high road.I'd say that "If I hear you're using these Occlumency lessons to give Harry a hard time, you'll have me to answer to" is definitely confrontational. Sirius may very well have that as a concern, but he chose a poor way to phrase it. But he goads and he insults and Sirius (idiot that he is) rises to the occasion and matches him, but doesn't give more than he gets.Not surprisingly, I don't see it that way. Snape insults Harry through James to which Sirius responds by standing up, pulling out his wand, and calling Snape "Snivellus" before implying that Snape is still a Death Eater. How is that only matching and not escalating? Snape has the upper hand and Snape is the one escalating the scene. I don't understand how Snape could have the upperhand but Sirius escalates the scene. :huh:I think Snape is itching for a fight, but doesn't want to initiate it. He must know Sirius well enough to predict the outcome, if he nudges just enough. So, his responses match Sirius's just enough to keep it going, without escalating the confrontation himself.Then they proceed to engage in their "mutually destructive taunting" which, to me, shows Snape is not really in control. He can't stop himself from taunting Sirius. His intellect is still working...look at the quality of the insults! But he seems to have misplaced his sense of judgment. He readies his wand before launching a major insult at Sirius: showing that he couldn't control the urge to pick a fight. That's true, it does show poor judgement. That's a good question--could he walk away? Obviously, you think not. I'm not sure, although I lean toward thinking not. But, if he only matches and never escalates, isn't he in control anyway?I would definitely puncture them for the insult.:lol: I'm sorry, I just find that phrase amusing.

I think Snape is itching for a fight, but doesn't want to initiate it. He must know Sirius well enough to predict the outcome, if he nudges just enough. So, his responses match Sirius's just enough to keep it going, without escalating the confrontation himself.That's true, it does show poor judgement. That's a good question--could he walk away? Obviously, you think not. I'm not sure, although I lean toward thinking not. But, if he only matches and never escalates, isn't he in control anyway?
I think the key is that Sirius reacts in a way that seems to be what Snape wants, while Snape doesn't appear to react as Sirius wants. I would give the edge to Snape, based on that.
:lol: I'm sorry, I just find that phrase amusing.
Best phrasing I could come up with. At least it was humorous. :eyebrows:

Quote from grrliz:
Or d) all of the above?
Or that. :p

Quote from Chievrefueil:
That's true, it does show poor judgement. That's a good question--could he walk away? Obviously, you think not. I'm not sure, although I lean toward thinking not. But, if he only matches and never escalates, isn't he in control anyway?
See to me Snape may or may not be in control of his emotions but he obviously is not in control of his urge to taunt people (unless you're implying some sort of ulterior motives :eyebrows: ). Snape and Sirius are like fire and gas...they shouldn't be mixed. Snape honestly can't seem to rein himself in or if he could what were his motives for continuing? (Suicide by Sirius or what Harry implies at the end of OotP)

Besides Snape may be disdainful of Sirius but I doubt that he’s not wary of Sirius. Sirius has already shown that he can outwit Snape and I doubt that Snape wants a repeat.

Okay, not to defend Snape, neccessarily, but if someone was insulting me by implying that I was being unprofessional in carrying out my job, I would definitely puncture them for the insult. Which is what Sirius did when he called Snape back. Not the most mature reaction, I admit, but I can understand why Snape did it. Sirius shouldn't have had that conversation in front of Harry, that had to increase the reaction from Snape.Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but how is calling Snape back by saying "wait a moment" implying that Snape is unprofessional? :huh:

I'd say that "If I hear you're using these Occlumency lessons to give Harry a hard time, you'll have me to answer to" is definitely confrontational. Sirius may very well have that as a concern, but he chose a poor way to phrase it. Sirius being confrontational would be saying something like "If I hear you're using these Occlumency lessons to give Harry a hard time, you'll be seeing the wrong end of a knuckle sandwich from me" or "If I hear you're using these Occlumency lessons to give Harry a hard time, I'll see to it that you're hexed into oblivion". There's nothing inflammatory in what he's saying; I'm curious as to how Sirius could have told Snape that he'd have him to answer in a way that is less "confrontational" than the way he did it. He is being positively polite, IMO.

Not surprisingly, I don't see it that way. Snape insults Harry through James to which Sirius responds by standing up, pulling out his wand, and calling Snape "Snivellus" before implying that Snape is still a Death Eater. How is that only matching and not escalating? How is it escalating events? Let's make like a bad PowerPoint presentation and reduce the scene point by point. After Sirius asks Snape to "wait a moment": Snape: insults Sirius with unlimited leisure time comment (Snape 1, Sirius 0)
Sirius: says he'll get to the point (neutral statement; Snape 1, Sirius 0)
Snape: balls his fist around his wand (going for his weapon; Snape 2, Sirius 0)
Sirius: tells Snape he'll have to answer to him (for the sake of argument I will say this is agressive; Snape 2, Sirius 1)
Snape: insults Harry and James with the arrogance comment (Snape 3, Sirius 1)
Sirius: draws his wand (Snape 3, Sirius 2)
Sirius: makes the Snivellus the Unreformed comment (note that he doesn't actually call Snape a Death Eater ;); Snape 3, Sirius 3)
Snape: insults Sirius by saying he's been hiding in Grimmauld Place (Snape 4, Sirius 3)
Sirius: makes the Lucius Malfoy's lapdog comment (Snape 4, Sirius 4)
Snape: makes the "you have a cast-iron excuse not to leave your hidey-hole"* comment (Snape 5, Sirius 4)
Sirius: raises his wand (Snape 5, Sirius 5)
Snape: calls Sirius a coward (Snape 6, Sirius 5)
The Weasley Family and Hermione: come into the kitchen and disrupt the fight*The idea of Snape saying the words "hidey-hole" is making me giggle profusely.

According to my vaguely arbitary scoring system, Snape wins in terms of who delivered more insults / aggressive actions, and also is always in the lead; Sirius never over takes him. Snape keeps prolonging things and it's Snape's most volatile comments (particularly the coward one) that escalates the conversation into places it never had to go.

I think Snape is itching for a fight, but doesn't want to initiate it. He must know Sirius well enough to predict the outcome, if he nudges just enough. So, his responses match Sirius's just enough to keep it going, without escalating the confrontation himself.I don't understand: if Snape is nudging Sirius because he is able to predict the outcome, and he's continually pepetuating the argument, how is it not initiation and / or escalating?

I understand why Snape might make a pre-emptive strike at Sirius if he thought Sirius was going to do the same to him, but once he realised Sirius hadn't gone for a cheap shot and was merely making a statement asking Snape to keep the lessons professional, he could have take the high road.

Here is where we differ. Snape made a pre-emptive strike. Not the wisest reaction, or the most mature, but I digress. Sirius' further comment ("If I hear you've been giving Harry a bad time), was an attack on Snape's (IMHO and probably his, too) credibility. Now, it was an accurate comment. Snape is known for giving Harry a bad time. But, it could be percieved as insulting (and as I said before, I would see it as such). However, it was in bad taste for Sirius to have that conversation with Harry present. It put them both into a volatile situation, more volatile than it would have been with another member of the order present, instead of Harry. The whole thing was stupid, on both sides, from the moment the conversation started. It just got worse as it went on.

Personally, I see them both as equally responsible for that altercation.

I completely agree with grrliz interpretation of the scene. I am also perplexed why chiev doesn't think it is an insult to James when Snape calls him arrogant. It is Snape's opinion that James was arrogant (certainly a negative trait). If you go around spouting your negative opinions about someone you are insulting them.

Umm...I thought we all agreed that they were both being insulting, if not in the same way or the same time?

Not surprisingly, I don't see it that way. Snape insults Harry through James to which Sirius responds by standing up, pulling out his wand, and calling Snape "Snivellus" before implying that Snape is still a Death Eater. How is that only matching and not escalating?

I think you must have misread that, because she does say that Snape insulted Harry via James.

Snape definitely insulted Harry through James, but, I'm not convinced that he insulted James at all. Everyone knew what Snape thought of James already and Snape used this as a frame of reference for Sirius.
No, I'm pretty sure I read it correctly. I was referring to an earlier post.

:blush: Sorry, my bad, I missed that part. :blush:

I still think Sirius overreacts to everything Snape says. It isn't difficult to "play" Sirius, since he is so touchy about everything.

I know we discussed this scene a long time ago and there was alot of discussion about whether Snape was there "as a teacher" or as an "Order member." I say, he is both, but in that scene, he is Harry's teacher - no doubt in my mind. They are talking about something he is going to "teach" Harry, and that is just as valid of a learning experience as Lupin teaching him how to fight a dementor with a patronus! :tu:

Just as Sirius undermines Molly Weasley's authority in front of her children, he undermines Snape's authority in front of Harry in that scene.

Sirius has trouble with Authority figures, down the line, every single one in the book OotP. Dumbledore, Molly, Snape, and even Hermione.

And before everyone starts saying that I am out in left field, let's please remember that JKR mentioned the way Sirius speaks to Snape as evidence of his immaturity and the fact that he "never grew up."

I think the key is that Sirius reacts in a way that seems to be what Snape wants, while Snape doesn't appear to react as Sirius wants. I would give the edge to Snape, based on that.Everything I've been trying to say in 2 sentences! :rolleyes: ;)unless you're implying some sort of ulterior motives I don't know what type of ulterior motives. :angel:

Seriously, did you have something in mind?Snape honestly can't seem to rein himself in or if he could what were his motives for continuing? (Suicide by Sirius or what Harry implies at the end of OotP)What does Harry imply at the end of OotP? That Snape was making him more vulnerable to Voldemort? That's the only implication I remember Harry making, but I don't see how that would relate. . .

I might have to revise what I said above because now I'm convincing myself of something else (or maybe you're convincing me--I'm confused. :rolleyes: :lol: ).

Although, I still agree with clkginny about Snape having more control because Sirius reacts as he wants. I think part of Snape's motivation is to annoy Sirius, as Sirius has annoyed him. The reason he doesn't walk away is pride. Snape has a lot of pride, which you may notice Sirius attacks straight away by trying to bring him down a peg in front of his student ("If I hear you're using these Occlumency lessons to give Harry a hard time, you'll have me to answer to."). From that moment, pride won't allow him to back down until he "wins" or until it's a draw. I think that if Sirius only matched him, instead of escalating it, he could leave. Each time Sirius escalates it, he feels the need to respond in kind, so in that way, he's not as "in control" as I previously said.Besides Snape may be disdainful of Sirius but I doubt that he’s not wary of Sirius. Sirius has already shown that he can outwit Snape and I doubt that Snape wants a repeat.Wariness is probably why Snape grips his wand when Sirius calls him back. That's a wariness of "physical violence," though. I doubt Snape thinks that Sirius could outwit him in a verbal duel. (I also doubt that Sirius could.)Sirius being confrontational would be saying something like "If I hear you're using these Occlumency lessons to give Harry a hard time, you'll be seeing the wrong end of a knuckle sandwich from me" or "If I hear you're using these Occlumency lessons to give Harry a hard time, I'll see to it that you're hexed into oblivion". There's nothing inflammatory in what he's saying; I'm curious as to how Sirius could have told Snape that he'd have him to answer in a way that is less "confrontational" than the way he did it. He is being positively polite, IMO.I don't think it was polite at all. It would be less confrontational for Sirius to treat Snape with some respect as Harry's teacher. He could have said something like, "I understand from Harry that you're hard on him in Potions class. I hope you won't use Occlumency as another opportunity to make things difficult for him." By adding "or you'll have me to answer to," there is an implied threat, even though Sirius doesn't spell out what that threat may be. Why does Sirius have to say that? Does Snape treat Harry any differently during Occlumency lessons than he would have if Sirius hadn't said anything? It's impossible to know for certain, but I doubt it. So, Sirius's purpose is to a) score points with Harry-->no need; b) get in a dig at Snape by implying that he's unprofessional-->probably; c) threaten Snape with retribution, if he gives Harry a hard time-->probably, although he should have known it would make no difference. Most people don't respond well to threats. Why should Snape?

Powerpoint:Snape: insults Sirius with unlimited leisure time comment (Snape 1, Sirius 0)
Sirius: says he'll get to the point (neutral statement; Snape 1, Sirius 0)Okay. Although, I wouldn't put them as starting out even because Sirius was on the offensive from the beginning of the scene when Snape tells Harry to sit down. Since Snape was leaving and for the sake of argument, I'll start with a clean slate and agree: Snape-1/Sirius-0Snape: balls his fist around his wand (going for his weapon; Snape 2, Sirius 0)I disagree. His wand is still in his cloak. This doesn't escalate the situation. There's no indication that Sirius has even noticed. Snape-1/Sirius-0Sirius: tells Snape he'll have to answer to him (for the sake of argument I will say this is agressive; Snape 2, Sirius 1)By my count, Snape-1/Sirius-1Snape: insults Harry and James with the arrogance comment (Snape 3, Sirius 1)Snape-2/Sirius-1Sirius: draws his wand (Snape 3, Sirius 2)
Sirius: makes the Snivellus the Unreformed comment (note that he doesn't actually call Snape a Death Eater ;) ; Snape 3, Sirius 3)This is the first major escalation. I would count the "Snivellus" and "Unreformed" comments separately. Snape-2/Sirius-4Snape: insults Sirius by saying he's been hiding in Grimmauld Place (Snape 4, Sirius 3)
Sirius: makes the Lucius Malfoy's lapdog comment (Snape 4, Sirius 4)By my count, Snape-3/Sirius-5.Snape: makes the "you have a cast-iron excuse not to leave your hidey-hole"* comment (Snape 5, Sirius 4)
Sirius: raises his wand (Snape 5, Sirius 5)Raising the wand is another escalation. By my count, Snape-4/Sirius-6*The idea of Snape saying the words "hidey-hole" is making me giggle profusely.It doesn't seem very. . .er. . .in character for a stiff British guy. :lol:Snape: calls Sirius a coward (Snape 6, Sirius 5)
The Weasley Family and Hermione: come into the kitchen and disrupt the fightBy my count Snape-5/Sirius-6 with Sirius accounting for the two major escalations.I don't understand: if Snape is nudging Sirius because he is able to predict the outcome, and he's continually pepetuating the argument, how is it not initiation and / or escalating?Sirius is the one whose direct actions raise the level of tension each time.I completely agree with grrliz interpretation of the scene. I am also perplexed why chiev doesn't think it is an insult to James when Snape calls him arrogant. It is Snape's opinion that James was arrogant (certainly a negative trait). If you go around spouting your negative opinions about someone you are insulting them.I don't think Snape's purpose is to insult James--it's to insult Harry. I think it similar to saying that Voldemort is just like Hitler because he's just as evil. That statement may be insulting to Hitler, but it's aimed at Voldemort and I wouldn't care about insulting Hitler anyway. Of course, the situation is slightly different because Sirius cared for James, but I think, to Snape, James was arrogant as a matter of fact and so the insult isn't to James, but to Harry. I'm not sure if I've explained it any better.

Quote from silver ink pot:
I still think Sirius overreacts to everything Snape says. It isn't difficult to "play" Sirius, since he is so touchy about everything.

Quote from silver ink pot:
And before everyone starts saying that I am out in left field, let's please remember that JKR mentioned the way Sirius speaks to Snape as evidence of his immaturity and the fact that he "never grew up."
Good point Silver Ink Pot. However it takes two to tango and Snape, if he is playing Sirius, is acting on the same level as Sirius. Perhaps Harry was the most mature in that scene? :huh:

Perhaps Harry was the most mature in that scene? :huh:I definitely agree with that. :tu:

Sirius has trouble with Authority figures, down the line, every single one in the book OotP. Dumbledore, Molly, Snape, and even Hermione. Not every single one. He still sat down and shut up when Remus told him to.

And before everyone starts saying that I am out in left field, let's please remember that JKR mentioned the way Sirius speaks to Snape as evidence of his immaturity and the fact that he "never grew up."No, you're right. Sirius was flash-frozen, so to speak, at the age of 22. He missed the chance to mature normally that everyone else had.

Quote from Chievrefueil:
What does Harry imply at the end of OotP? That Snape was making him more vulnerable to Voldemort? That's the only implication I remember Harry making, but I don't see how that would relate. . .
I was referring to Harry telling Dumbledore that Snape taunted Sirius out of the house. OotP page 734

I still think Sirius overreacts to everything Snape says. It isn't difficult to "play" Sirius, since he is so touchy about everything.

I agree. Then again, it is sort of up in the air to me, because Snape is goading him about VERY touchy subjects that to someone like Sirius, cause great internal pain. I wonder if he is like this about other things Snape says.

Just as Sirius undermines Molly Weasley's authority in front of her children, he undermines Snape's authority in front of Harry in that scene.

Yep. I do think though, that it comes from truly having idealogical differences (Molly) and not so much from immaturity. As far as Snape, there are many things you can chalk that up to in my mind.

Sirius has trouble with Authority figures, down the line, every single one in the book OotP. Dumbledore, Molly, Snape, and even Hermione.

Again, I wonder how much can be directly tied to his immaturity and how much can be tied to ideaological differences or grudges (whether that be from his situation or otherwise)

And before everyone starts saying that I am out in left field, let's please remember that JKR mentioned the way Sirius speaks to Snape as evidence of his immaturity and the fact that he "never grew up]

See above

Dumbledore plays much the same game with people: he omits certain things and/or lets the person reach the wrong conclusion.
Oh and isn't this one of JKR's major talents? Down the garden path into a snake pit, as often as not.... ;) She's got it down. Like all great mystery writers, she's careful to lead us in the wrong direction. She even mentions that this is something children do naturally, and can remember doing it herself. So Harry, often working with only fragments of information fills in the blanks from his imaginataion and usually reaches the wrong conclusion.

But I agree that this is one of Snape's talents as well as one of his uses in the plot. Sirius is too straightforward, (for his own good?) to be so subversive, even if he wanted to be. I don't think it's his nature.

No, you're right. Sirius was flash-frozen, so to speak, at the age of 22. He missed the chance to mature normally that everyone else had.Now you have me thinking of Han Solo frozen in carbonite. :lol:I was referring to Harry telling Dumbledore that Snape taunted Sirius out of the house. OotP page 734Of course! *slaps forehead* :rolleyes:

I don't think that was Snape's purpose.Sirius is too straightforward, (for his own good?) to be so subversive, even if he wanted to be. I don't think it's his nature.No, I never saw Sirius as subversive, either--that's kind of funny. It could be in his nature, though. I mean, the Order is kind of subversive to the MoM, isn't it?

Just as Sirius undermines Molly Weasley's authority in front of her children, he undermines Snape's authority in front of Harry in that scene.

Sirius never undermines Molly's authority over her own children. Between Sirius and Molly, Sirius is the one who is in charge of Harry's care. Molly was trying to hide information from her own children, therefore she didn't want Harry to know. However, Molly had no authority over Harry in that scene. Sirius only mentioned Harry getting information. He never said the Weasley children should know things as well.

Even Arthur doesn't agree with Molly. When she tries to stop Fred and George from getting information, he tells her that she can't stop them because they are of age. Molly is just over protective.

I don't think that Sirius undermine's Snape's authority, either. He doesn't tell Snape he can't teach Harry Occlumency. He doesn't tell Snape he has no authority over Harry. He does nothing except tell Snape not to bully Harry, which is valid given the history between Harry and Snape.

If you're using this as an example of Sirius' immaturity, then both Molly and Snape are immature as well. Molly verbally attacks Sirius in front of everyone Harry's first night at Grimmauld Place, and Sirius says nothing against her when he very well could have. She insults him and his ability as a parental figure. Sirius could have taken that opportunity to insult her ability to take care of her children as Percy had, in effect, disowned them. Instead he keeps it at a much more mature level.

Snape insults Lupin, not in front of one student, but an entire class. He suggests that Lupin is an inefficient teacher and he goes behind Dumbledore's back to try to make students see that Lupin is a werewolf. Then he tells the Slytherins about Lupin's condition against Dumbledore's orders.

If Sirius is immature for having problems with authority figures or for "undermining" their authority, then so are Snape and Molly. And so are Harry, Ron, Hermione, Neville, Ginny, Fred, George, Cho, and the rest of the D.A. for going against Umbridge's decrees.

Sirius has trouble with Authority figures, down the line, every single one in the book OotP. Dumbledore, Molly, Snape, and even Hermione.

I wouldn't call Molly an authority figure. At least, not over Sirius. The same for Snape and Hermione. What "authority" of Hermione's does he undermine? And Sirius listens to Dumbledore for the most part. He only left Grimmauld Place three times in Order of the Phoenix. And one of those times was a time when he couldn't just sit back and hoped everything turned out well. If he had no respect for Dumbledore and his authority, he wouldn't have stuck to Grimmauld Place as much as he did.

Sirius never undermines Molly's authority over her own children. Between Sirius and Molly, Sirius is the one who is in charge of Harry's care. Molly was trying to hide information from her own children, therefore she didn't want Harry to know. However, Molly had no authority over Harry in that scene. Sirius only mentioned Harry getting information. He never said the Weasley children should know things as well.
This is a conversation that should have taken place away from the children. It did undermine her authority because of the way it took place, and whom was there.

Even Arthur doesn't agree with Molly. When she tries to stop Fred and George from getting information, he tells her that she can't stop them because they are of age. Molly is just over protective.
This is irrelevant, no offense.

I don't think that Sirius undermine's Snape's authority, either. He doesn't tell Snape he can't teach Harry Occlumency. He doesn't tell Snape he has no authority over Harry. He does nothing except tell Snape not to bully Harry, which is valid given the history between Harry and Snape.
Sirius had valid issues with the way Snape teaches. However, the conversation should never have taken place in front of Harry. Implying that Snape isn't a good teacher, while true to some extent, is an insult. Insulting a teacher in front of their student is underming thier authority.

If you're using this as an example of Sirius' immaturity, then both Molly and Snape are immature as well. Molly verbally attacks Sirius in front of everyone Harry's first night at Grimmauld Place, and Sirius says nothing against her when he very well could have. She insults him and his ability as a parental figure. Sirius could have taken that opportunity to insult her ability to take care of her children as Percy had, in effect, disowned them. Instead he keeps it at a much more mature level.
I'll agree with you about Snape, he was immature, and is immature in the way he deals with his students. However, Molly, as you said, is over protective, or in other words, insecure. Given what happened to her brothers, it is understandable, but she should learn to lighten up. But, it is difficult in situations like that.

Snape insults Lupin, not in front of one student, but an entire class. He suggests that Lupin is an inefficient teacher and he goes behind Dumbledore's back to try to make students see that Lupin is a werewolf. Then he tells the Slytherins about Lupin's condition against Dumbledore's orders.
Two wrongs, do not make a right.

If Sirius is immature for having problems with authority figures or for "undermining" their authority, then so are Snape and Molly.
Just to make sure, I do agree with you on this point, for the most part.

And so are Harry, Ron, Hermione, Neville, Ginny, Fred, George, Cho, and the rest of the D.A. for going against Umbridge's decrees.
They were immature about it. However, I consider Umbridge to be somewhat understandable, even if it wasn't the smartest way to handle things. They are, after all, children.

I wouldn't call Molly an authority figure. At least, not over Sirius. The same for Snape and Hermione. What "authority" of Hermione's does he undermine? And Sirius listens to Dumbledore for the most part. He only left Grimmauld Place three times in Order of the Phoenix. And one of those times was a time when he couldn't just sit back and hoped everything turned out well. If he had no respect for Dumbledore and his authority, he wouldn't have stuck to Grimmauld Place as much as he did.
I have to agree with you on this, but Sirius would have been wise to admit the validity of at least some of their advice.

Great observation! This really reminds me of Wheel of Time. For those who have read it, don't you find the similarity between Perrin and Lupin? Both are calm people. After all Perrin is a wolf brother.…

You know, I didn’t even notice that until you brought it up. Except for the physical strength, they do compare well.

This is a conversation that should have taken place away from the children. It did undermine her authority because of the way it took place, and whom was there.

So either both Sirius and Molly were immature or neither was. Especially considering Sirius takes her insults without responding in kind. However, since every other member of the Order was against Molly on that topic, I don't think Molly was expressing "authority" so much as being over protective and paranoid.

This is irrelevant, no offense.

Actually, it's quite relevant. If Sirius was immature to disagree with Molly, then so was Arthur. If Arthur was immature, then so were the other Order members. The fact that her own husband tells her she can't prevent certain people from sitting in on the discussion proves that they weren't being immature. She was being irrational.

Sirius had valid issues with the way Snape teaches. However, the conversation should never have taken place in front of Harry. Implying that Snape isn't a good teacher, while true to some extent, is an insult. Insulting a teacher in front of their student is underming thier authority.

I don't see it that way. The only limit Sirius puts on Snape is to not bully Harry, and that isn't an unreasonable request. Sirius doesn't try to take authority away from Snape.

Certainly insulting a teacher in front of a student does nothing to increase a student's respect for a teacher, but I don't think it changes that the teacher is still the teacher. No matter how much Snape is insulted, he is still the teacher with the authority of a teacher.

I'll agree with you about Snape, he was immature, and is immature in the way he deals with his students. However, Molly, as you said, is over protective, or in other words, insecure. Given what happened to her brothers, it is understandable, but she should learn to lighten up. But, it is difficult in situations like that.

I think you said what I said in a different way, so I agree. If I'm wrong, please feel free to say what you meant.

Two wrongs, do not make a right.

I never made the argument that Sirius was right because of what Snape did. I'm holding them to the same level of responsibility. If Sirius is condemned for his actions, then so should Snape be for commiting those same actions on a bigger scale.


They were immature about it. However, I consider Umbridge to be somewhat understandable, even if it wasn't the smartest way to handle things. They are, after all, children.

I don't understand. Do you mean that you consider the Umbridge situation to be understandable?

I have to agree with you on this, but Sirius would have been wise to admit the validity of at least some of their advice.

To what advice are you referring? I can see how going to King's Cross Station may not have been the best choice, but I understand why he did it.

So either both Sirius and Molly were immature or neither was. Especially considering Sirius takes her insults without responding in kind. However, since every other member of the Order was against Molly on that topic, I don't think Molly was expressing "authority" so much as being over protective and paranoid.
I don't think any of the adults handled that situation well. Sirius was, however, the one who brought it up, in light of that fact, he was the most immature. I stand by my comment that it was a discussion that should have taken place prior, and then brought up to Harry, afterwards.


Actually, it's quite relevant. If Sirius was immature to disagree with Molly, then so was Arthur. If Arthur was immature, then so were the other Order members. The fact that her own husband tells her she can't prevent certain people from sitting in on the discussion proves that they weren't being immature. She was being irrational.
It is irrelevant, because by then the damage had been done. No one agreed with her, but the discussion should not have taken place then and there. I don't even agree with her, but still, my objection to this situation remains.


I don't see it that way. The only limit Sirius puts on Snape is to not bully Harry, and that isn't an unreasonable request. Sirius doesn't try to take authority away from Snape.
It is an unreasonable request, when requested in front of Harry. First off, Sirius should have respected Dumbledore's wishes. He didn't. This implies to Harry that Sirius doesn't trust Snape. Children are impressionable. Harry has a bad enough view of Snape (although it is partially Snape's own doing). Occlumency is important for Harry. Sirius reinforcing Harry's lack of trust in Snape is damaging to Snape's ability to teach Harry, especially something that weakens Harry's mind until he learns to do it. Implying that Snape would bully Harry while teaching Occlumency implies to Harry that we can expect the same old Snape, and puts Harry's defenses up even further. It is a disaster in the making, and that is what Occlumency ends up being. At least part of the responsibility for that is, IMO, Sirius' fault. That conversation should not have taken place in front of Harry.

Certainly insulting a teacher in front of a student does nothing to increase a student's respect for a teacher, but I don't think it changes that the teacher is still the teacher. No matter how much Snape is insulted, he is still the teacher with the authority of a teacher.
Harry is already boderline disrespectful to Snape, and he gets worse during OoTP, and I believe it is due to the conversation in GP. He doesn't have the regular authority of a teacher during Occlumency. It is a "volunteer" effort, and without Harry's cooperation (apparently from the results of OotP, anyway) it can't be effective. So, it was a doomed effort.



I think you said what I said in a different way, so I agree. If I'm wrong, please feel free to say what you meant.
No, you got it.



I never made the argument that Sirius was right because of what Snape did. I'm holding them to the same level of responsibility. If Sirius is condemned for his actions, then so should Snape be for commiting those same actions on a bigger scale.
No, we were discussing immaturity. I just meant that Snape's immaturity doesn't justify Sirius' immaturity. :p




I don't understand. Do you mean that you consider the Umbridge situation to be understandable?
I consider the childrens' actions to be understandable, if immature and unwise, yes, given Umbridge's running of Hogwarts.



To what advice are you referring? I can see how going to King's Cross Station may not have been the best choice, but I understand why he did it.
King's Cross, as well as Dumbledore, and Snape telling him to stay put. However, I understand why he didn't, I wouldn't have either. Sirius had a bad tendency to do things on impulse. It isn't always a healthy way to live.

I don't think any of the adults handled that situation well. Sirius was, however, the one who brought it up, in light of that fact, he was the most immature. I stand by my comment that it was a discussion that should have taken place prior, and then brought up to Harry, afterwards.
So far, in this series, ignorance has not proven to be bliss. The sooner the kids understand what they're up against, the better their chances will be. The longer they are treated like little kids, the harder the truth will be for them to accept. War is upon them. It is neither fair nor realistic to force these young people, (they're not in kindergarten after all, but all in their teens), to exist in a fantasyland of "everything is okay." It certainly isn't, and as Harry's first line of defense is his peers, they need to be prepared.

So far, in this series, ignorance has not proven to be bliss. The sooner the kids understand what they're up against, the better their chances will be. The longer they are treated like little kids, the harder the truth will be for them to accept. War is upon them. It is neither fair nor realistic to force these young people, (they're not in kindergarten after all, but all in their teens), to exist in a fantasyland of "everything is okay." It certainly isn't, and as Harry's first line of defense is his peers, they need to be prepared.
Oh, I don't disagree that Harry should have been informed. I disagree with the way it was handled. The adults should have discussed it and come to a general agreement, before it was blurted out in front of everybody. Especially considering the fact that other people's children were involved. I agree that Molly is over protective, but those are her children, and she should have been able to say her piece without being shot down in front of her children. It was wrong.

I don't think any of the adults handled that situation well. Sirius was, however, the one who brought it up, in light of that fact, he was the most immature. I stand by my comment that it was a discussion that should have taken place prior, and then brought up to Harry, afterwards.

I don't find encouraging Harry to find out what's going on with Voldemort to be immature. Sirius didn't ask Harry why he hadn't asked in order to start a fight. If he had done it with the intention of having an argument, I might be more inclined to agree with you. However, there's no indication in canon that Sirius was thinking of starting a fight with everyone just to tell Harry about Voldemort.

It is irrelevant, because by then the damage had been done. No one agreed with her, but the discussion should not have taken place then and there. I don't even agree with her, but still, my objection to this situation remains.

What damage exactly? That everyone was suddenly asking about Voldemort? Because I think that that was on everyone's minds anyway. You say it's irrelevant that Arthur's words are against Molly's, thus proving that Sirius wasn't being immature. However, I find it very relevant to the discussion of Sirius' immaturity. If we're going to just go back and forth on this with the same arguments, maybe we should just agree to disagree.

It is an unreasonable request, when requested in front of Harry. First off, Sirius should have respected Dumbledore's wishes. He didn't. This implies to Harry that Sirius doesn't trust Snape. Children are impressionable.

Harry is fifteen. I don't know about some people, but by the time most people are 15 their views aren't as impressible as they were at, for example, 11. Harry isn't a child. He's a young man. A young man who had been through most his age. Yes, he is only 15, but he's more mature than a great deal of 15 year olds.

Harry has a bad enough view of Snape (although it is partially Snape's own doing).

I'd say it was entirely Snape's own doing. If it weren't for Snape's own actions, Harry wouldn't have a bad view of him.

Occlumency is important for Harry. Sirius reinforcing Harry's lack of trust in Snape is damaging to Snape's ability to teach Harry, especially something that weakens Harry's mind until he learns to do it.


Harry's attitude has nothing to do with Snape's ability to teach. I would argue Snape isn't the best teacher to begin with, but Snape's teaching skills are not dependent upon who his student is. I think how much the student learns is dependent upon the student's attitude, but that has nothing to do with the teacher's ability.

Implying that Snape would bully Harry while teaching Occlumency implies to Harry that we can expect the same old Snape, and puts Harry's defenses up even further. It is a disaster in the making, and that is what Occlumency ends up being. At least part of the responsibility for that is, IMO, Sirius' fault.

I completely disagree. Harry has his own issues with Snape and it's pretty clear from canon that Harry isn't think about Sirius' words when he doesn't learn Occlumency. We can't argue what was going on subconsciously with Harry because J.K. Rowling never tells us. We can only argue canon and in canon it states that Harry was annoyed with Snape's attitude and therefore he had trouble shutting down his emotions. Occlumency lessons ended because Harry jumped into Snape's Worst Memory, not because Sirius was rude to Snape at Grimmauld Place.


That conversation should not have taken place in front of Harry.

I agree. And it wouldn't have if Snape had taken the high road and not insulted Sirius, James, and Harry. All he had to do was leave after Sirius said what he wanted to. Instead, he chose to stay and start and take part in an argument.

Harry is already boderline disrespectful to Snape, and he gets worse during OoTP, and I believe it is due to the conversation in GP.

There's no canon for that. I don't even think it's suggested in canon. I think it's due to the Occlumency lessons and Harry's reaction to them.

He doesn't have the regular authority of a teacher during Occlumency. It is a "volunteer" effort, and without Harry's cooperation (apparently from the results of OotP, anyway) it can't be effective. So, it was a doomed effort.

Snape himself says he is still Harry's professor even in Occlumency lessons. So he does have that authority. If he didn't, why would it matter if Harry was thinking about what Sirius said or not? Snape wouldn't have been his teacher with the same authority in those lessons.


No, we were discussing immaturity. I just meant that Snape's immaturity doesn't justify Sirius' immaturity. :p

I'm aware we were discussing immaturity, I just chose to continue the argument in another direction. However, my point can be made on the subject of immaturity as well. I never made the argument that Sirius wasn't immature because of what Snape did. I'm holding them to the same level of responsibility or maturity. If Sirius is condemned and called immature for his actions, then so should Snape be for commiting those same actions on a bigger scale.

Sirius had a bad tendency to do things on impulse. It isn't always a healthy way to live.

True. But I don't see his impulses causing any real and lasting damage in Order of the Phoenix until the end. And I think we agree that he had to follow that impulse given the situation.

I don't find encouraging Harry to find out what's going on with Voldemort to be immature. Sirius didn't ask Harry why he hadn't asked in order to start a fight. If he had done it with the intention of having an argument, I might be more inclined to agree with you. However, there's no indication in canon that Sirius was thinking of starting a fight with everyone just to tell Harry about Voldemort.
Encouraging him wasn't the part that I disagree with. (I was going to type take umbridge with, but there is such a nast connotation there, now :evil: ). He should have realised that it wasn't the right time to bring it up. He had quite a bit of time to discuss it, before Harry went to trial/school. So, my contention is that it was foolish, done without forethought, and, therefore, immature. Hope that explains my position better.



What damage exactly? That everyone was suddenly asking about Voldemort? Because I think that that was on everyone's minds anyway. You say it's irrelevant that Arthur's words are against Molly's, thus proving that Sirius wasn't being immature. However, I find it very relevant to the discussion of Sirius' immaturity. If we're going to just go back and forth on this with the same arguments, maybe we should just agree to disagree.
You are probably right. I see no point in arguing in circles all night.



Harry is fifteen. I don't know about some people, but by the time most people are 15 their views aren't as impressible as they were at, for example, 11. Harry isn't a child. He's a young man. A young man who had been through most his age. Yes, he is only 15, but he's more mature than a great deal of 15 year olds.
Another point of disagreement. I see 15 year olds as more impressionable, at least when it comes to some one they look up to or admire. I think that Sirius safely falls into that category. I do agree that, for the most part, Harry is very mature for his age.


I'd say it was entirely Snape's own doing. If it weren't for Snape's own actions, Harry wouldn't have a bad view of him.
This will end up going in circles to. Snape started it, and Snape has continued it. However, it is mutual, Harry has been as suspicious of Snape as the other way around. They don't like each other, don't trust each other, it is a mutual problem. Harry is no more willing to see any good in Snape, than Snape is to see Harry as other than a little clone of James.



Harry's attitude has nothing to do with Snape's ability to teach. I would argue Snape isn't the best teacher to begin with, but Snape's teaching skills are not dependent upon who his student is. I think how much the student learns is dependent upon the student's attitude, but that has nothing to do with the teacher's ability.
Snape is an effective teacher. He isn't a nice teacher, a polite teacher, a friendly teacher, or an understanding teacher. Learning requires as much or more effort from the student as from the teacher. Harry has to be willing to learn. It is apparent (to me, anyway) that Harry has little desire to learn anything that Snape might have to teach him. That is unfortunate for Harry. Probably makes Snape's day, though. :p



I completely disagree. Harry has his own issues with Snape and it's pretty clear from canon that Harry isn't think about Sirius' words when he doesn't learn Occlumency. We can't argue what was going on subconsciously with Harry because J.K. Rowling never tells us. We can only argue canon and in canon it states that Harry was annoyed with Snape's attitude and therefore he had trouble shutting down his emotions. Occlumency lessons ended because Harry jumped into Snape's Worst Memory, not because Sirius was rude to Snape at Grimmauld Place.
So, you believe that Sirius' words didn't affect Harry at all? He indicates his suspicions of Snape throughout the book. Somehow, I doubt that Sirius' words were dismissed by Harry. I didn't mean the end of Occlumency lessons, I mean the suspicions about Occlumency lessons, the disrespect (I told you to call me professor). Snape also caught on to the fact that Harry wasn't practising. Why no punishment? This indicates to me that Snape couldn't punish him for not acting/doing as he was supposed to during Occlumency, because when has Snape ever been reluctant to punish Harry? Something is keeping him from it, here.




I agree. And it wouldn't have if Snape had taken the high road and not insulted Sirius, James, and Harry. All he had to do was leave after Sirius said what he wanted to. Instead, he chose to stay and start and take part in an argument.
Of course, you could also say that if Sirius had obeyed Dumbledore's wishes in this, the problem wouldn't have come up, either.



There's no canon for that. I don't even think it's suggested in canon. I think it's due to the Occlumency lessons and Harry's reaction to them.
I forgot what this was about. I'll have to edit my response in.

ETA: I suppose that is a matter of interpretation. I doubt you would agree with mine, so this probably won't go anywhere, either.


Snape himself says he is still Harry's professor even in Occlumency lessons. So he does have that authority. If he didn't, why would it matter if Harry was thinking about what Sirius said or not? Snape wouldn't have been his teacher with the same authority in those lessons.
See my response above.




I'm aware we were discussing immaturity, I just chose to continue the argument in another direction. However, my point can be made on the subject of immaturity as well. I never made the argument that Sirius wasn't immature because of what Snape did. I'm holding them to the same level of responsibility or maturity. If Sirius is condemned and called immature for his actions, then so should Snape be for commiting those same actions on a bigger scale.
I was agreeing with you.



True. But I don't see his impulses causing any real and lasting damage in Order of the Phoenix until the end. And I think we agree that he had to follow that impulse given the situation.
Yes, I think we do agree on this.

At least part of the responsibility for that is, IMO, Sirius' fault. That conversation should not have taken place in front of Harry.


Harry is already boderline disrespectful to Snape, and he gets worse during OoTP, and I believe it is due to the conversation in GP. He doesn't have the regular authority of a teacher during Occlumency. It is a "volunteer" effort, and without Harry's cooperation (apparently from the results of OotP, anyway) it can't be effective. So, it was a doomed effort. But Harry did learn occlumency, no thanks to Snape. I would suggest that Harry's attitude toward Snape during occlumency is no different that any other time. Harry also probably doesn't much like getting battered and bruised while having his mind opened further to Vodle in the process. It doesn't sound like a pleasant experience to say the least. As for practicing, along with the rest of the complications in Harry's life, Snape deliberately keeps Harry so wound up, practice is difficult under the best of circumstances. Nevertheless, Harry does learn occlumency.

I still think that occlumency lessons were an opportunity for Snape to look around in Harry's head for the method to kill Voldemort, just as Vodle spent the year trying to find out how to kill Harry. As soon as Harry managed occlumency, the lessons were over. The experiment was a failure and no longer seved any purpose for Snape. :huh:

Whiz, you do realize that this argument is doomed to go in circles, right? I'm not going to change your mind, and your not going to change mine. I have considered your Pureblood Supremacist Agenda and I even lurk there, from time to time. I do not find it likely, however, it is very ingenius.

But Harry did learn occlumency, no thanks to Snape.
If he learned Occlumency, why did he still get the vision from Voldemort?

I would suggest that Harry's attitude toward Snape during occlumency is no different that any other time.
I disagree, but you know that. :eyebrows:

Harry also probably doesn't much like getting battered and bruised while having his mind opened further to Vodle in the process. It doesn't sound like a pleasant experience to say the least.
I agree, it doesn't sound pleasant, however, everyone told Harry how important it was. Something he apparently discounted.

As for practicing, along with the rest of the complications in Harry's life, Snape deliberately keeps Harry so wound up, practice is difficult under the best of circumstances. Nevertheless, Harry does learn occlumency.
I disagree with Snape having kept Harry wound up. I think that Snape was remarkably well mannered during Occlumency, as compared to his normal, sarcastic self. I also disagree with the idea that Harry succeeded at learning Occlumency.

I still think that occlumency lessons were an opportunity for Snape to look around in Harry's head for the method to kill Voldemort, just as Vodle spent the year trying to find out how to kill Harry. As soon as Harry managed occlumency, the lessons were over. The experiment was a failure and no longer seved any purpose for Snape. :huh:
If that was Snape's intention, don't you think that Dumbledore would have prevented Snape teaching Occlumency to Harry? According to your theory, the only reason Dumbledore trusts Snape is they both want Voldemort defeated. So wouldn't Dumbledore suspect that Snape would have ulterior motives in that case? Wouldn't Dumbledore have monitored the situation? Especially considering the wonderful relationship that already existed between Harry and Snape?

Another point of disagreement. I see 15 year olds as more impressionable, at least when it comes to some one they look up to or admire. I think that Sirius safely falls into that category. I do agree that, for the most part, Harry is very mature for his age.

While 15 year olds are fairly impressionable, I think they have moved past the point where they dislike someone because someone else does, even that someone else is someone they look up to. Harry disliked Snape before Harry ever even knew about Sirius, so it isn't Sirius' fault that Harry has no trust for his teacher.

Snape is an effective teacher. He isn't a nice teacher, a polite teacher, a friendly teacher, or an understanding teacher. Learning requires as much or more effort from the student as from the teacher. Harry has to be willing to learn. It is apparent (to me, anyway) that Harry has little desire to learn anything that Snape might have to teach him. That is unfortunate for Harry. Probably makes Snape's day, though. :p


I stated that how much a student learns is dependent on their attitude. So we agree.

So, you believe that Sirius' words didn't affect Harry at all? He indicates his suspicions of Snape throughout the book. Somehow, I doubt that Sirius' words were dismissed by Harry. I didn't mean the end of Occlumency lessons, I mean the suspicions about Occlumency lessons, the disrespect (I told you to call me professor). Snape also caught on to the fact that Harry wasn't practising. Why no punishment? This indicates to me that Snape couldn't punish him for not acting/doing as he was supposed to during Occlumency, because when has Snape ever been reluctant to punish Harry? Something is keeping him from it, here.


Like I said, Harry already disliked Snape. Certainly Sirius didn't encourage Harry to become closer to Snape, but given their history, I don't blame him. And by "their" history, I mean Snape's and Harry's as well as Sirius' and Snape's. Sirius knows things about Snape we don't and there's a reason for their hatred of each other all these years after school. I think it takes more than Snape's Worst Memory and the Whomping Willow incident to create that kind of animosity. After all that they've both been through, there are more important things in their past and lives to be concerned about. If they still hate each other, there's more backstory that we don't have.

Of course, you could also say that if Sirius had obeyed Dumbledore's wishes in this, the problem wouldn't have come up, either.


True. But what we have to work with is that Sirius was in the room. We can't rearrange the players in the room to create a better situation. We have to take what J.K. Rowling gave us and view it that way.

I was agreeing with you.


I apologize. I interpreted it as an argument, not an agreement. Glad to see we agree on something else.

But Harry did learn occlumency, no thanks to Snape. I would suggest that Harry's attitude toward Snape during occlumency is no different that any other time. Harry also probably doesn't much like getting battered and bruised while having his mind opened further to Vodle in the process. It doesn't sound like a pleasant experience to say the least. As for practicing, along with the rest of the complications in Harry's life, Snape deliberately keeps Harry so wound up, practice is difficult under the best of circumstances. Nevertheless, Harry does learn occlumency.

I still think that occlumency lessons were an opportunity for Snape to look around in Harry's head for the method to kill Voldemort, just as Vodle spent the year trying to find out how to kill Harry. As soon as Harry managed occlumency, the lessons were over. The experiment was a failure and no longer seved any purpose for Snape. :huh:
You have a good point there. None of us are one hundred percent sure which side that Snape is on. All we are told/Al Harry is told is that Dumbldore trust Snape. He seems to have an important position that carries much leverage over either side. He has knowledge form both sides of the field. Any information he could have gained from Harry pertaining to the prohecy at that time would have made him important to both sides as well. Who's to say that Snape isn't out for himself? How can we know that Dumbledore knows when Snape is lying or not? Snape is admittedly an accomplished Occlumens. I suppose that since it comes from Dumbledore, we are to believe it, and since it is said that we will learn more about why Dumbledore trusts Snape in the next book, It must be something good enough to make us all believe. I think Harry will master it with a different teacher.

Originally Posted by clkginny

At least part of the responsibility for that is, IMO, Sirius' fault. That conversation should not have taken place in front of Harry.


Harry is already boderline disrespectful to Snape, and he gets worse during OoTP, and I believe it is due to the conversation in GP. He doesn't have the regular authority of a teacher during Occlumency. It is a "volunteer" effort, and without Harry's cooperation (apparently from the results of OotP, anyway) it can't be effective. So, it was a doomed effort.

That conversation I think was fore shadowing or a clue. Possibly Sirius wanted for Harry to hear it?:huh:

While 15 year olds are fairly impressionable, I think they have moved past the point where they dislike someone because someone else does, even that someone else is someone they look up to. Harry disliked Snape before Harry ever even knew about Sirius, so it isn't Sirius' fault that Harry has no trust for his teacher.
I agree that his whole opinion of Snape isn't based on Sirius' opinion. Snape and Harry have too much history for that. But it reinforced Harry's already low opinion, thereby undermining his role as teacher. I didn't mean to imply that Sirius caused the situation, just that he strengthened it.



I stated that how much a student learns is dependent on their attitude. So we agree.
Wow, how many things have we agreed on? I think it is a record. :angel:




Like I said, Harry already disliked Snape. Certainly Sirius didn't encourage Harry to become closer to Snape, but given their history, I don't blame him. And by "their" history, I mean Snape's and Harry's as well as Sirius' and Snape's. Sirius knows things about Snape we don't and there's a reason for their hatred of each other all these years after school. I think it takes more than Snape's Worst Memory and the Whomping Willow incident to create that kind of animosity. After all that they've both been through, there are more important things in their past and lives to be concerned about. If they still hate each other, there's more backstory that we don't have.
I'm sure there is more to their animosity than what we've seen, but I theink the WW incident would be adequate to encite Snape's dislike, while, if nothing else (and I doubt there was nothing else), PoA probably incited Sirius just fine.




True. But what we have to work with is that Sirius was in the room. We can't rearrange the players in the room to create a better situation. We have to take what J.K. Rowling gave us and view it that way.
True, but (is there an echo?) the initial immature action was Sirius' by not respecting Dumbledore's wishes. After that, they were equally immature.




I apologize. I interpreted it as an argument, not an agreement. Glad to see we agree on something else.
That's okay, I wan't very clear.

I still think that occlumency lessons were an opportunity for Snape to look around in Harry's head for the method to kill Voldemort, just as Vodle spent the year trying to find out how to kill Harry. As soon as Harry managed occlumency, the lessons were over. The experiment was a failure and no longer seved any purpose for Snape. :huh:

You seem to overlook the fact that Lupin told Harry to practice Occlumency, and even complimented Snape on his skill. Is Lupin in on the Vodle Conspiracy too?

If lessons were over the minute that Harry performed Occlumency, then why had Snape scheduled the lesson that got interrupted?

If he learned Occlumency, why did he still get the vision from Voldemort?

BINGO! Harry didn't master the skill, and that is confirmed during his talk with Dumbledore, who tells him there was no reason to go to the DoM, and Harry admits he didn't practice even though Hermione, and everyone else, told him to.


Sirius has trouble with Authority figures, down the line, every single one in the book OotP. Dumbledore, Molly, Snape, and even Hermione.

[QUOTE=wooden coyote]Not every single one. He still sat down and shut up when Remus told him to.

Aha! But does he really think of Remus as an authority figure? I don't think so. He sees Remus as a peer, and that is why he respects him.

I have no intention of arguing with that. That's what I meant when I posted. It's just that someone posted after you and interpreted what you meant, I only wanted to get your opinion on your statement rather than their's. I don't think anyone planned Snape's Worst Memory. That was completely spontaneous. And I agree that Lupin wasn't behind the Whomping Willow incident, especially because both he and Sirius admitted it was Sirius' plan. Also, I can't see Lupin doing anything so mean.
Okay, we agree, then. :)
This may sound stupid but I think the exact opposite is happening...Sirius is playing Snape like a finely-tuned violin. Sirius lets Snape think he is the one in control and plays him as such. I wouldn't have given this idea much thought but it could explain how Snape was tricked during the Willow incident. Snape walks away from a confrontation in which he had the "upper hand" only to have Sirius change the rules (or "overlook" mentioning the werewolf). Now, that's an interesting idea that I would like to explore further. :tu: How Sirius managed to lure Snape into the willow has always been a great mystery to me. I had imagined a scene where Sirius stages a conversation for Snape to overhear, letting him think that he'll get them in trouble if he follows them to the willow. But I like your idea. It could have been a conversation/confrontation between Sirius and Snape if Snape had, or thought he had, the upper hand at that particular time.
I think Snape is itching for a fight, but doesn't want to initiate it. He must know Sirius well enough to predict the outcome, if he nudges just enough. So, his responses match Sirius's just enough to keep it going, without escalating the confrontation himself.
Chievrefueil: Is Snape power playing with his former tormentor?
Let's make like a bad PowerPoint presentation and reduce the scene point by point.
Another blow by blow analysis! :rotfl:
Sorry, Grrliz, couldn't resist. You post was fine.

EDIT: Oh gosh, you guys over there are either up very late, or else very early today! A zillion posts since I started typing my post. :clap:

I didn't mean the end of Occlumency lessons, I mean the suspicions about Occlumency lessons, the disrespect (I told you to call me professor).

The suspicious about the lessons didn't just come from Sirius. Ron was also suspicious as to Snape's intentions and it lingered in Harry's mind.

I'm sure there is more to their animosity than what we've seen, but I theink the WW incident would be adequate to encite Snape's dislike, while, if nothing else (and I doubt there was nothing else), PoA probably incited Sirius just fine.

I agree that Snape would likely still be upset over the Whomping Willow incident. However, after so many years, his life as a Death Eater and then a spy and the current situation, would that be the sole motivation for his continued dislike of Sirius? Considering what we know about it, I don't think it is.



True, but (is there an echo?) the initial immature action was Sirius' by not respecting Dumbledore's wishes. After that, they were equally immature.

My point was that we can rationalize this to no end, but we need to stick with what canon gives us. For example, we could say that the argument would not have happened if Sirius had never escaped Azkaban, therefore he wouldn't have found Harry and proved his innocence to him, therefore he would not be fighting with the Order, thus he would not have been in Grimmauld Place because he would still have been in Azkaban. The Order would have had a different headquarters and that confrontation would not have taken place.

Or we could say that the argument would not have happened if Snape had never been a Death Eater because then he might not have learned Occlumency, therefore Dumbledore wouldn't have asked hiim to teach Harry, therefore Snape wouldn't have been there to take part in the arugment.

I realize that these may be extreme examples, but I hope they prove my point. We can talk about what should have or could have been done before the scene, but as it is, the best thing to do in order to analyze the scene is to stick with what canon tells us happens in the scene. That's just my opinion.

The suspicious about the lessons didn't just come from Sirius. Ron was also suspicious as to Snape's intentions and it lingered in Harry's mind.
Ron is not an authority figure, although I'm sure his opinion influenced Harry as well. Ron being immature is more understandable than Sirius being immature.



I agree that Snape would likely still be upset over the Whomping Willow incident. However, after so many years, his life as a Death Eater and then a spy and the current situation, would that be the sole motivation for his continued dislike of Sirius? Considering what we know about it, I don't think it is.
I agree that it is doubtful that there isn't more backstory, but having someone almost kill you is likely to stick in one's mind. I still think that would be sufficient, if not the only motivation.




My point was that we can rationalize this to no end, but we need to stick with what canon gives us. For example, we could say that the argument would not have happened if Sirius had never escaped Azkaban, therefore he wouldn't have found Harry and proved his innocence to him, therefore he would not be fighting with the Order, thus he would not have been in Grimmauld Place because he would still have been in Azkaban. The Order would have had a different headquarters and that confrontation would not have taken place.

Or we could say that the argument would not have happened if Snape had never been a Death Eater because then he might not have learned Occlumency, therefore Dumbledore wouldn't have asked hiim to teach Harry, therefore Snape wouldn't have been there to take part in the arugment.

I realize that these may be extreme examples, but I hope they prove my point. We can talk about what should have or could have been done before the scene, but as it is, the best thing to do in order to analyze the scene is to stick with what canon tells us happens in the scene. That's just my opinion.
It is canon that Snape was told to talk to Harry, alone. Sirius demanded to be there anyway. So, that puts the initial action on Sirius.

EDIT: Oh gosh, you guys over there are either up very late, or else very early today! A zillion posts since I started typing my post. Well, I'm supposed to be getting up here in two hours, so late and torturing myself. :eyebrows:

I still think Sirius overreacts to everything Snape says. It isn't difficult to "play" Sirius, since he is so touchy about everything.He's touchy about being called a coward and he is touchy about hearing people he loves insulted. That is hardly 'everything.' Being accused of cowardice bothers him because for Sirius, cowardice is a huge character flaw, and one he really doesn't possess. I can't imagine many people aren't touchy about people they love. Sirius is completely normal in this.
Originally posted by SIP
Just as Sirius undermines Molly Weasley's authority in front of her children, he undermines Snape's authority in front of Harry in that scene.Snape and Molly both undermine Sirius' authority as Harry's godfather. In both scenes Sirius is the person with the greatest claim to parental authority over Harry and neither Snape nor Molly should undermine him.

In the argument with Molly, Sirius specifically upholds Molly's authority over her own children when they argue that they, like Harry, should be allowed to ask questions about Voldemort;

"'It's not my fault you haven't been told what the Order's doing,' said Sirius calmly, 'that is your parents' decision. Harry, on the other hand - '

'It's not down to you to decide what's good for Harry!' said Mrs Weasley sharply."
(OotP, The Order of the Phoenix, p 84, UK paperback)

Sirius isn't rude or offensive to Molly in this scene, nor does he question her right to make decisions about witholding information from her own children. Molly, on the other hand, explicitly denies Sirius' role in Harry's life. Lily and James chose Sirius as Harry's godfather and made him Harry's guardian, so it was clearly their intention that Sirius should be the one making decisions about Harry's welfare - not Molly, not the Dursleys, not even Dumbledore. Just Sirius. If Harry's own parents trusted Sirius' judgement so much, I don't see what right Molly has to question it.

This is one of the few occasions where Sirius does have the opportunity to excert his authority as Harry's godfather - circumstances have made it impossible for him to carry out the role as he would have done otherwise, and as Lily and James wanted him to. For me the conversation reaches it's lowest point when Molly uses this against Sirius;

" ' Yes,' said Mrs Weasley, her lip curling, 'the thing is, it's been rather difficult for you to look after him while you've been locked up in Azkaban, hasn't it?' "
(As before, p85)

Up until that point I felt quite sorry for Molly, even though she was being unreasonable I could understand why she was being so over-protective. This comment, however, was just plain spiteful and there was no need for it.
Originally posted by SIP
Sirius has trouble with Authority figures, down the line, every single one in the book OotP. Dumbledore, Molly, Snape, and even Hermione. Only Dumbledore has any authority over Sirius, and Sirius does generally do as Dumbledore asks. It isn't easy for him, but that makes it all the more impressive that he nearly always manages it anyway. In GoF we see Sirius responding very positively to Dumbledore - he repeatedly tells Harry to go the Dumbledore straight away if he has any concerns, and he writes to Dumbledore himself about Harry's scar hurting. He does everything Dumbledore asks of him. It is harder for him in OotP because being stuck in Grimmauld Place nearly drives him out of his mind yet he only steps outside the house twice - once when Harry's life is at risk.

As WoodenCoyote mentioned, it isn't like Sirius doesn't listen to anyway. He listens to Lupin and does as Lupin asks, not only in the scene with Molly, but on every other occassion they are together as well.
Originally posted by SIP
And before everyone starts saying that I am out in left field, let's please remember that JKR mentioned the way Sirius speaks to Snape as evidence of his immaturity and the fact that he "never grew up."Sirius can behave immaturily at times, but not all the time - it isn't his defining characteristic. I think I know the quote you are thinking of - it is her answer to the question of whether she likes Sirius. She doesn't cite Sirius' dislike of Snape as evidence of his immaturity, but as evidence that he doesn't always live up to his own standards of behaviour. She does go on to suggest that Sirius isn't very mature though;
JKR Website

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/faq_view.cfm?id=61

Sirius is brave, loyal, reckless, embittered and slightly unbalanced by his long stay in Azkaban. He has never really had the chance to grow up; he was around twenty-two when he was sent off to Azkaban, and has had very little normal adult life. Lupin, who is the same age, seems much older and more mature. Sirius's great redeeming quality is how much affection he is capable of feeling. He loved James like a brother and he went on to transfer that attachment to Harry.Mind you, JKR also says that she likes Sirius very much and that he is sexy, so clearly not everyone feels the need to agree with her on everything. ;)

I think above all, Molly is being loyal to Dumbledore when she is talking about Harry.

And my problem about Sirius and his "authority" over Harry is that he is asserting it at a really bad time, right when everyone is relaxed and about to go to bed. Sirius chooses that moment to let everyone know who is "in charge" of Harry. It is true that no one backs Molly up, but that doesn't mean she is wrong (remember SWM? Lily isn't wrong, either).

I always wonder why Sirius didn't just wait till the next day? He and Harry could have been alone, and he could have told him anything he wanted. But he doesn't do that. Lupin could have, too, but he doesn't. Would it have been so bad to let Harry have one night to get used to the place before he dropped all those "hints" about secret weapons and stealth? None of that really helps Harry understand anything. The kids think Sirius is talking about a way to kill someone, like Avada Kedavra.

So just how much information does Harry get, and how much "misinformation" does he get? I think the latter. Sirius may have the best of intentions, but none of it helps Harry understand the situation with Voldemort any better, in my opinion.

What strikes me about the kitchen scene between Snape and Sirius is how it underscores how each man sees the other: neither sees an adult--as soon as they lay eyes on each other, they're 16 again. In the confrontation, while neither truly understands the other, each man is positively surgical in his ability to pinpoint the other's vulnerability. For Snape, it's the issue of trust; for Sirius, it's the issue of courage (consider how neatly these relate to their Houses)--that's the source of the insults for each.

As for who wins--well, I'd say Snape does decidely get the upper hand. However, all that matters about it is the contrast this scene provides with SWM, wherein Snape loses spectacularly.


[Something said earlier that I can't let go of is the idea that a parental figure could insult a teacher in front of a student and the teacher still maintain authority as a teacher. YIKES! To those of you who are parents: please, don't try this! Unless you do want to find out how impressionable your 15 year old is.]

I don't think Snape's purpose is to insult James--it's to insult Harry. I think it similar to saying that Voldemort is just like Hitler because he's just as evil. That statement may be insulting to Hitler, but it's aimed at Voldemort and I wouldn't care about insulting Hitler anyway. Of course, the situation is slightly different because Sirius cared for James, but I think, to Snape, James was arrogant as a matter of fact and so the insult isn't to James, but to Harry. I'm not sure if I've explained it any better.

Thanks for answering my question. I do see what you were saying now. I think that Sirius still could have taken it as an insult toward James, but I can also see why you think that he might not have.

Aha! But does he really think of Remus as an authority figure? I don't think so. He sees Remus as a peer, and that is why he respects him.That could be the solution to the problem, because to the Order itself, Remus is an authority figure [ we see him giving orders to the Guard, he has the final say in what Harry can and can't hear, people listen to him et. al ]
Sirius' problem with authority is entirely faulted with his point of view. Remus is his friend long before the Order, so its easier to swallow commands from him. Unlike with Dumbledore [ the great father ] or Molly [ muscular mother ], they're equals. He still respects Dumbledore, but he can't take orders from him without grudge because they're not on the same level.

Whiz, you do realize that this argument is doomed to go in circles, right? I'm not going to change your mind, and your not going to change mine. I have considered your Pureblood Supremacist Agenda and I even lurk there, from time to time. I do not find it likely, however, it is very ingenius. Lizo: You say that you don't set out to put particular messages in each book, they grow organically. But do you think that it's important to have the right messages there when they do emerge?

JKR: Well obviously in the wizard world passes for racism, and that's deeply entrenched in the whole plot, there's this issue going on about the bad side really advocating a kind of genocide, to exterminate what they see as these half-blood people. So that was obviously very conscious, but the other messages do grow organically.Interview (http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2003/0302-newsround-mzimba.htm) The author says that not only is racism an important part of the story, it's written there deliberately.
If he learned Occlumency, why did he still get the vision from Voldemort?Because the vision was induced by Snape using some other process.
He raised his wand: "One - two - three - Legilimensl"

A hundred Dementors were swooping towards Harry across the lake in the grounds... he screwed up his face in concentration... they were coming closer... he could see the dark holes beneath their hoods... Harry succeeds in blocking Snape from his mind.

Harry raised his own wand.

"Protego!"

Snape staggered - his wand flew upwards, away from Harry -and suddenly Harry's mind was teeming with memories that were not his: a hook-nosed man was shouting at a cowering woman, while a small dark-haired boy cried in a corner... a greasy-haired teenager sat alone in a dark bedroom, pointing his wand at the ceiling, shooting down flies... a girl was laughing as a scrawny boy tried to mount a bucking broomstick -
Harry uses the protego to ricochet Snape's legilimency spell back at him and is able to see into Snape's memories. I would suggest that Harry's attitude toward Snape during occlumency is no different that any other time.
I disagree, but you know that. :eyebrows: Can you give some examples of when, up to that point, Harry's attitude toward Snape is any different than it is during occlumency lessons?
I agree, it doesn't sound pleasant, however, everyone told Harry how important it was. Something he apparently discounted. I think they were all duped.

If Dumbledore knew what was going on in those classes, and there are days I wonder, the only way I can justify it is if he hoped Snape would succeed and someone else would be able to kill Voldemort, sparing Harry the ordeal.
I disagree with Snape having kept Harry wound up. I think that Snape was remarkably well mannered during Occlumency, as compared to his normal, sarcastic self. I also disagree with the idea that Harry succeeded at learning Occlumency. :huh: We already saw Harry succeed in Occlumency in the quote above. And when is Snape not winding Harry up?


"Well, Potter, you know why you are here," he said. The Headmaster has asked me to teach you Occlumency. I can only hope that you prove more adept at it than at Potions."

Snape looked back at him for a moment and then said contemptuously, "Surely even you could have worked that out by now,Potter? The Dark Lord is highly skilled at Legilimency"

"You have no subtlety, Potter," said Snape, his dark eyes glittering. "You do not understand fine distinctions. It is one of the shortcomings that makes you such a lamentable potion-maker."

Snape paused for a moment, apparently to savour the pleasure of insulting Harry, before continuing.


"I just wanted to know," Harry began again, forcing his voice back to politeness, "why -"

"You seem to have visited the snake's mind because that was where the Dark Lord was at that particular moment," snarled Snape. "He was possessing the snake at the time and so you dreamed you were inside it, too."

"And Vol- he - realised I was there?"

"It seems so," said Snape coolly.

"How do you know?" said Harry urgently. "Is this just Professor Dumbledore guessing, or -?"

"I told you," said Snape, rigid in his chair, his eyes slits, to call me 'sir'."

"Yes, sir," said Harry impatiently, "but how do you know -?"

"It is enough that we know," said Snape repressively. The important point is that the Dark Lord is now aware that you are gaining access to his thoughts and feelings. He has also deduced that the process is likely to work in reverse; that is to say, he has realised that he might be able to access your thoughts and feelings in return -"
:elaugh: Ever wonder how the Dark Lord found out? :agree: That's right. Snape told him.....
If that was Snape's intention, don't you think that Dumbledore would have prevented Snape teaching Occlumency to Harry? According to your theory, the only reason Dumbledore trusts Snape is they both want Voldemort defeated. So wouldn't Dumbledore suspect that Snape would have ulterior motives in that case? Wouldn't Dumbledore have monitored the situation? Especially considering the wonderful relationship that already existed between Harry and Snape?There are two possibilites. Dumbledore trusts Snape enough to believe he won't harm Harry because he needs the boy alive and capable of defeating the DL, and does not monitor the situation as closely as he should, or he hopes that Snape will succeed in discovering the method to kill Vodle, thus sparing Harry the nasty job. In which case he'd better be monitoring, because I have no doubt that if Snape can get this information, Harry's life will be in grave danger.

I do believe that Snape has Dumbledore duped, (or thinks he does), and Voldemort placated. He is playing a very dangerous game and one slip in this delicate balancing act......... :huh: This, of course, requires enormous subtlety and cunning and near total control of the data flow ..... who knows what, when. :elaugh:

Just to jump in and throw in my two cents on the kitchen scene. :)

I think both adults acted terribly. It was as if the last 16 years or so never happened and both men were teenagers again. I think both were at fault. Harry was definitely the most mature person out of the three. :shrug:

Sirius undermining Snape's authority - I do agree with this, and here's why: By Sirius making this comment in front of Harry, it suggests to Harry that if Snape gives him any issues during their lessons, Harry can run to Sirius who will then make Snape "answer to him". Granted, we know that Harry isn't that type of person who would take advantage of a comment like that and pit Snape vs. Sirius, but, the comment still leaves room for that, if Harry were to decide to take that route. Harry and Snape dislike each other. If Harry were vengeful, or out to get Snape into any type of trouble, all he would have to do would be run to Sirius. Regardless of the fact that Harry is not likely to run to Sirius over Snape's treatment of him, the fact that Sirius made that comment in front of Harry was irresponsible, IMO.

Lizo: You say that you don't set out to put particular messages in each book, they grow organically. But do you think that it's important to have the right messages there when they do emerge?

JKR: Well obviously in the wizard world passes for racism, and that's deeply entrenched in the whole plot, there's this issue going on about the bad side really advocating a kind of genocide, to exterminate what they see as these half-blood people. So that was obviously very conscious, but the other messages do grow organically.Interview (http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2003/0302-newsround-mzimba.htm) The author says that not only is racism an important part of the story, it's written there deliberately.
I agree that racism is a central theme in the story. That doesn't mean that JK is writing the wizarding world's equivalent to the JFK conspiracy.

Because the vision was induced by Snape using some other process.
He raised his wand: "One - two - three - Legilimensl"

A hundred Dementors were swooping towards Harry across the lake in the grounds... he screwed up his face in concentration... they were coming closer... he could see the dark holes beneath their hoods... Harry succeeds in blocking Snape from his mind.

Harry raised his own wand.

"Protego!"

Snape staggered - his wand flew upwards, away from Harry -and suddenly Harry's mind was teeming with memories that were not his: a hook-nosed man was shouting at a cowering woman, while a small dark-haired boy cried in a corner... a greasy-haired teenager sat alone in a dark bedroom, pointing his wand at the ceiling, shooting down flies... a girl was laughing as a scrawny boy tried to mount a bucking broomstick -
Harry uses the protego to ricochet Snape's legilimency spell back at him and is able to see into Snape's memories.
Snape told Harry that he could use any method Harry could think of to repel Snape from his mind. Apparently, Snape told him the truth. Occlumency appears, when fully learned, to enable the caster to not use spells as defence. Otherwise, it would be pretty useless for a spy to employ with Voldemort. As far as planting the memory, that took place a week (?) later, and all other times, spell effects are immediate. Why haven't we seen delayed reaction spells before, if that is what it is? I still don't see the connection here.

Can you give some examples of when, up to that point, Harry's attitude toward Snape is any different than it is during occlumency lessons?
I don't have time to type it out now, but I can do so later, if you wish. In the mean time, I will quickly run it down. Harry has to be reminded several times to refer to Snape with respect. Harry disobeys Snape about practicing. Harry cross examines Snape with minimal respect.


I think they were all duped.

If Dumbledore knew what was going on in those classes, and there are days I wonder, the only way I can justify it is if he hoped Snape would succeed and someone else would be able to kill Voldemort, sparing Harry the ordeal. :huh: We already saw Harry succeed in Occlumency in the quote above. And when is Snape not winding Harry up?
These are relatively mild, for Snape.




"Well, Potter, you know why you are here," he said. The Headmaster has asked me to teach you Occlumency. I can only hope that you prove more adept at it than at Potions."

Snape looked back at him for a moment and then said contemptuously, "Surely even you could have worked that out by now,Potter? The Dark Lord is highly skilled at Legilimency"

"You have no subtlety, Potter," said Snape, his dark eyes glittering. "You do not understand fine distinctions. It is one of the shortcomings that makes you such a lamentable potion-maker."

Snape paused for a moment, apparently to savour the pleasure of insulting Harry, before continuing.


"I just wanted to know," Harry began again, forcing his voice back to politeness, "why -"

"You seem to have visited the snake's mind because that was where the Dark Lord was at that particular moment," snarled Snape. "He was possessing the snake at the time and so you dreamed you were inside it, too."

"And Vol- he - realised I was there?"

"It seems so," said Snape coolly.

"How do you know?" said Harry urgently. "Is this just Professor Dumbledore guessing, or -?"

"I told you," said Snape, rigid in his chair, his eyes slits, to call me 'sir'."

"Yes, sir," said Harry impatiently, "but how do you know -?"

"It is enough that we know," said Snape repressively. The important point is that the Dark Lord is now aware that you are gaining access to his thoughts and feelings. He has also deduced that the process is likely to work in reverse; that is to say, he has realised that he might be able to access your thoughts and feelings in return -"
Snape stops Harry at the point when he is treading to close to the prophecy and its related information. That was probably Dumbledore's decision. They didn't want Harry to have that information, yet.

:elaugh: Ever wonder how the Dark Lord found out? :agree: That's right. Snape told him.....
I believe it had to do with Harry's emotional response to what happened to Mr. Weasley, a man he cares about, and a man whose health is extremely important to many people Harry cares about. Also, Harry's reaction seemed stronger in that scene.

There are two possibilites. Dumbledore trusts Snape enough to believe he won't harm Harry because he needs the boy alive and capable of defeating the DL, and does not monitor the situation as closely as he should, or he hopes that Snape will succeed in discovering the method to kill Vodle, thus sparing Harry the nasty job. In which case he'd better be monitoring, because I have no doubt that if Snape can get this information, Harry's life will be in grave danger.
I disagree. If Dumbledore believed that Snape was only in it for his own advantage, I doubt that Dumbledore would allow Snape to even teach at Hogwarts.

I do believe that Snape has Dumbledore duped, (or thinks he does), and Voldemort placated. He is playing a very dangerous game and one slip in this delicate balancing act......... :huh: This, of course, requires enormous subtlety and cunning and near total control of the data flow ..... who knows what, when. :elaugh:
We've made it through five books and we haven't seen any hints that this is indeed the situation. :huh:

ETA: One other point, why did Dumbledore have Snape teach Harry Occlumency if Voldemort couldn't plant thoughts in Harry's head? And if that was the reason Harry was to learn Occlumency, then it make more sense that it was Voldemort that planted the false memory in Harry's head.

:elaugh: Ever wonder how the Dark Lord found out? :agree: That's right. Snape told him..... There are two possibilites. Dumbledore trusts Snape enough to believe he won't harm Harry because he needs the boy alive and capable of defeating the DL, and does not monitor the situation as closely as he should, or he hopes that Snape will succeed in discovering the method to kill Vodle, thus sparing Harry the nasty job. In which case he'd better be monitoring, because I have no doubt that if Snape can get this information, Harry's life will be in grave danger.

Oh yes, yes indeed. These are my current thoughts as well, lest we've yet to find out some very important Snape facts.. Reasons he may be indebted to Dumbledore. That, however is speculation. Based on the given sitation, I'd say he's playing both sides against the middle. That sort of thing would make anyone a bit edgy, I expect. The two most powerful wizard of roughly ever, and you manage to wedge yourself in the middle. How awkward is that! Then start teaching at the school of one and toss in the others tattoo and you've got a situation indeed. Oh yes, and then there's the protagonist of the story, entrusted to him. Something is indeed afoot.

I do believe that Snape has Dumbledore duped, (or thinks he does), and Voldemort placated. He is playing a very dangerous game and one slip in this delicate balancing act......... :huh: This, of course, requires enormous subtlety and cunning and near total control of the data flow ..... who knows what, when. :elaugh:

Interesting, very interesting this. Dumbledore has that odd way of knowing what goes on in his school. Voldemort is likely the most skilled Legilimens yet known. How could dear old Severus be juggling the two so seemingly effectively?

I think above all, Molly is being loyal to Dumbledore when she is talking about Harry.I disagree. I think she wants to keep Harry and her own children in the dark because she wants to protect them. As a mum myself, I can understand why she does this, even though I think she is wrong on this occassion. Given the chance, Molly would always prefer to keep information away from Harry - remember the argument that Harry overhead between Molly and Arthur in PoA? The kitchen scene reminds me of that.
Originally posted by silver ink pot
And my problem about Sirius and his "authority" over Harry is that he is asserting it at a really bad time, right when everyone is relaxed and about to go to bed. Sirius chooses that moment to let everyone know who is "in charge" of Harry. It is true that no one backs Molly up, but that doesn't mean she is wrong (remember SWM? Lily isn't wrong, either).Sirius isn't trying to assert his authority over Harry - it only becomes an issue because Molly questions his right to talk to Harry about Voldemort. Molly would have been quite within her rights to ask Sirius to talk to Harry about it another time, or to wait until her own children are not around. Note that Sirius makes no objection to Molly sending Ginny to bed, and refuses to back up her other children when they say they want to know as well as Harry. Unlike Molly, Sirius respects the boundaries and doesn't try to undermine other people's roles - she is the one questioning his right to make decisions about Harry, whilst he not only respects but explicitly supports her right to make decisions about her own children.

I agree that being in the minority doesn't automatically make someone in the wrong, but the fact that Molly reacts so venomously when it is clear that everyone else disagrees with her underlines the fact that she is the one being unreasonable, not Sirius. Molly doesn't repect the opinions of her husband (an equal authority figure regarding their children), Lupin (an authority figure within the Order), or Sirius (authority figure regarding Harry).
Originally posted by subtle science
[Something said earlier that I can't let go of is the idea that a parental figure could insult a teacher in front of a student and the teacher still maintain authority as a teacher. YIKES! To those of you who are parents: please, don't try this! Unless you do want to find out how impressionable your 15 year old is.]Fair enough, but it cuts both ways. As a parent I wouldn't undermine a teacher in front of my daughter but equally, I would not tolerate a teacher undermining my authority either (especially since I consider my authority to be the greater one). Snape undermines Sirius' authority as a godfather by questioning his right to be present at his meeting with Harry. If a teacher came to my house to see my daughter and attempted to exclude me from the meeting, or even hint that I shouldn't be there, I would have considerably more to say about it than Sirius did! :evil:

shaggydogstail: Well, I wasn't actually referring to that, but: Snape specifically says that it was Dumbledore's instruction that he speak to Harry alone. I don't see that as being laid at Snape's door; it's apparently Dumbledore who is undermining Sirius' parental authority in that case.

atherella: Exactly my thoughts; when Snape and Sirius get together, it's like they create the Fountain of Youth--each gets to be 16 again. The ugly side of 16, unfortunately! : )

I disagree. I think she wants to keep Harry and her own children in the dark because she wants to protect them. As a mum myself, I can understand why she does this, even though I think she is wrong on this occassion. Given the chance, Molly would always prefer to keep information away from Harry - remember the argument that Harry overhead between Molly and Arthur in PoA? The kitchen scene reminds me of that.
Sirius isn't trying to assert his authority over Harry - it only becomes an issue because Molly questions his right to talk to Harry about Voldemort. Molly would have been quite within her rights to ask Sirius to talk to Harry about it another time, or to wait until her own children are not around. Note that Sirius makes no objection to Molly sending Ginny to bed, and refuses to back up her other children when they say they want to know as well as Harry. Unlike Molly, Sirius respects the boundaries and doesn't try to undermine other people's roles - she is the one questioning his right to make decisions about Harry, whilst he not only respects but explicitly supports her right to make decisions about her own children.

I agree that being in the minority doesn't automatically make someone in the wrong, but the fact that Molly reacts so venomously when it is clear that everyone else disagrees with her underlines the fact that she is the one being unreasonable, not Sirius. Molly doesn't repect the opinions of her husband (an equal authority figure regarding their children), Lupin (an authority figure within the Order), or Sirius (authority figure regarding Harry).
It was the timing that I objected to. Sirius could have had the conversation about what to tell Harry prior to Harry's arrival, or the next day, and then discussed it with Harry, rather than bringing it up in front of people who either didn't have any reason to be involved or who would object. Then the adults would have presented a united front, even if one wasn't happy about it. Molly was out of line, no matter her reasons, but Sirius wasn't the greatest in this scene, either.

Fair enough, but it cuts both ways. As a parent I wouldn't undermine a teacher in front of my daughter but equally, I would not tolerate a teacher undermining my authority either (especially since I consider my authority to be the greater one). Snape undermines Sirius' authority as a godfather by questioning his right to be present at his meeting with Harry. If a teacher came to my house to see my daughter and attempted to exclude me from the meeting, or even hint that I shouldn't be there, I would have considerably more to say about it than Sirius did! :evil:
Snape was told to speak to Harry alone. I would assume he was told this by Dumbledore. Sirius disagreed, his right, but it wasn't very mature and it did undermine Snape's authority with Harry. After that, they were equally immature, and equally undermining, but it was the neccessity of Harry learning Occlumency that was damaged in this interchange.

J

Sirius undermining Snape's authority - I do agree with this, and here's why: By Sirius making this comment in front of Harry, it suggests to Harry that if Snape gives him any issues during their lessons, Harry can run to Sirius who will then make Snape "answer to him". Granted, we know that Harry isn't that type of person who would take advantage of a comment like that and pit Snape vs. Sirius, but, the comment still leaves room for that, if Harry were to decide to take that route. Harry and Snape dislike each other. If Harry were vengeful, or out to get Snape into any type of trouble, all he would have to do would be run to Sirius. Regardless of the fact that Harry is not likely to run to Sirius over Snape's treatment of him, the fact that Sirius made that comment in front of Harry was irresponsible, IMO.That's the first time in his life that Harry has had the sense that an adult would do something like that for him. I don't think this is undermining Snape, who should have been called on the carpet long before by the headmaster for his unacceptable and near criminal behaviour with students. This informs all in the room that Harry has an advocate.

I have kids. They go to school. If one of my kids had a teacher like Snape, he'd be dead or wishing he was.

I may not like Molly Weasley, but I definitely have something in common with her where my or anyone else's kids are concerned, and Snape would not be permitted near children in our community, whether he was run over by a cement mixer as a baby bunny or not.

It's important for young people to understand that there is someone who understands their situation and that abuse will not be tolerated. Otherwise, their victimization is likely to continue as long as they feel powerless.

That said, instead of arguing whether it should have happened, :rolleyes: does this encounter tell us anything about the past? What can we learn from this relationship about the current state of affairs in the magical world?

I still think Sirius overreacts to everything Snape says. It isn't difficult to "play" Sirius, since he is so touchy about everything.I think it's alittle extreme to say he's touchy about "everything". He's touchy when people insult the people he loves, which I think would be completely understandable. He's touchy when it comes to Snape, which I think would also be understandable. Sirius can be a rather laid back and fun guy* if given half the chance.

* A mushroom walks into a bar. The bartender says "We don't serve your kind here!" and the mushroom says "Why not? I'm a fungi!"

I know we discussed this scene a long time ago and there was alot of discussion about whether Snape was there "as a teacher" or as an "Order member." I say, he is both, but in that scene, he is Harry's teacher - no doubt in my mind. They are talking about something he is going to "teach" Harry, and that is just as valid of a learning experience as Lupin teaching him how to fight a dementor with a patronus! :tu: The lesson itself is, of course, just as valid as the Patronus lessons, but the situations surrounding the two different lessons are completely different.

The Patronus Lessons




Harry seeks Lupin out to teach him; the Patronus lessons are voluntary on Harry's part and whether or not he succeeds at them won't have any bearing on the rest of the wizarding world. (No immediate bearing that they can see when begining the lessons.)
Harry asks Lupin as his teacher at school.
The Occlumency Lessons

Harry is made to take the Occlumency lessons; it isn't voluntary.
Snape informs Harry of the lessons in the kitchen of Grimmauld Place; the kitchen is the location of all meetings of the Order of the Phoenix.
Snape could have just have easily told Harry about the lessons once they were back at school, thus minimizing the amount of time he has to spend at Grimmauld Place as well as avoiding dealing with Sirius, who likes to feel "involved". It's interesting that he doesn't.
Adults at Grimmauld Place visit the house as members of the Order. McGonagall isn't handing out homework assignments or giving Hermione extra credit projects while she's there. (Well, maybe she is and we just don't see it.)
Harry's Occlumency lessons are of particular importance to the Order, not to Hogwarts (the realm of teachers).
Now, I'm not denying that Snape is a teacher, because that would be stupid. But I firmly believe that Snape was not asked as a teacher to teach Harry Occlumency lessons, but rather he was asked as the most conveniently located Order Member to do so. Being a teacher is not the qualification that lets Snape get this task. The way I see it, Dumbledore might have had a line of thinking something like this:

Protecting Harry's mind from Voldemort is Order business. How can we do this? Occlumency lessons.
Who in the Order is a good legilimens / occlumens? Possible candidates: Severus Snape, Remus Lupin (let's assume he is a legilimens for the sake of argument)
Who is in contact with Harry most often at Hogwarts? Possible Candidates: Severus Snape, Minerva McGonagall, Sybil Trewlawney, Rubeus Hagrid, Dolores Umbridge
Who amongst those who are most often in contact with Harry are also skilled legilimens? Candidate: Severus Snape
His being a teacher is not particularly relevant to the lessons, it's his location at Hogwarts combined with his Occlumency skills that's important. I mean, if Madam Pomfrey were a skilled Occlumens and an Order member, she would also have been able to teach Harry Occlumency, despite that she's not a teacher.

And before everyone starts saying that I am out in left field, let's please remember that JKR mentioned the way Sirius speaks to Snape as evidence of his immaturity and the fact that he "never grew up."Actually, she never said that. This is what she says (http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/faq_view.cfm?id=61)Similarly, Sirius claims that nobody is wholly good or wholly evil, and yet the way he acts towards Snape suggests that he cannot conceive of any latent good qualities there. She says nothing of immaturity in regards to Sirius' interactions with Snape, only that he can't conceive of Snape's apparent "latent" good qualities; actually, upon rereading the whole thing, she doesn't actually call him immature either, just that he hasn't properly grown up, which is decidedly different.

Sirius is the one whose direct actions raise the level of tension each time.See, for me I find what Snape says immediately before each of Sirius' "esaclations" to be the escalation point; without Snape saying those things, Sirius doesn't react the way he does. If Snape does't insult call Harry, and by extension James, arrogant Sirius doesn't get irate and call him Snivellus. Likewise, later, if Snape hadn't implied Sirius was a coward with the hidey-hole comment, Sirius wouldn't have raised his wand. Snape's face is described as calculating in that scene, and he is deliberately choosing words that he know will provoke Sirius into action. True, it's not particularly hard to provoke Sirius if you know which buttons to push, but Snape deliberately pushes those buttons on purpose. Without Snape to push the buttons, Sirius remains (relatively calm). Snape is the provocateur, Snape escalates the scenes. Doing it verbally doesn't make it "less" of an escalation, it just disguises it and makes it look like Sirius' physical responses are the escalation.

I don't think Snape's purpose is to insult James--it's to insult Harry. I think it similar to saying that Voldemort is just like Hitler because he's just as evil. That statement may be insulting to Hitler, but it's aimed at Voldemort and I wouldn't care about insulting Hitler anyway. Of course, the situation is slightly different because Sirius cared for James, but I think, to Snape, James was arrogant as a matter of fact and so the insult isn't to James, but to Harry. I'm not sure if I've explained it any better.No, I understand your point, but the point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't matter how Snape feels about James, his making unncessarily mean statements towards someone's dead best friend in order to insult the dead best friend's son is insulting to Sirius and Harry, from their point of view.

So far, in this series, ignorance has not proven to be bliss. This is where my pet "Molly and Umbridge: Two Peas in a Pod?" theory comes into effect. Neither Molly nor Umbridge are realistic about what kids need to know. And keeping them in the dark only exaserbates the problems. It's funny how it seems acceptable for Molly to keep her children in the dark, but that everyone is in agreement that what Umbridge does (i.e. the same thing) is terrible.

Another blow by blow analysis! :rotfl:
Sorry, Grrliz, couldn't resist. You post was fine.Heh, I both love and loathe PowerPoint, but I find that making lists to organize things somehow helps with breaking them down and understanding them. (See above in this post for more gratuitous lists. :))

So just how much information does Harry get, and how much "misinformation" does he get? I think the latter. Sirius may have the best of intentions, but none of it helps Harry understand the situation with Voldemort any better, in my opinion.Sorry, what of what Sirius told Harry was misinformation? There were other Order members present who would have been able to "correct" Sirius if he had been providing Harry with false information.

It's important for young people to understand that there is someone who understands their situation and that abuse will not be tolerated. Otherwise, their victimization is likely to continue as long as they feel powerless.:tu: It's interesting that in light of OotP being released, JKR told kids that if they felt that they were being bullied to tell someone. Sirius is giving Harry that opportunity should the situation arise.

Shaggy, great points about Sirius and Molly and authority and everything else, you saved me from having to say it! :)

Also, :welcome: Dementor Dave! (Couldn't resist, eh?)

Quote from Norbertha:
Now, that's an interesting idea that I would like to explore further. How Sirius managed to lure Snape into the willow has always been a great mystery to me. I had imagined a scene where Sirius stages a conversation for Snape to overhear, letting him think that he'll get them in trouble if he follows them to the willow. But I like your idea. It could have been a conversation/confrontation between Sirius and Snape if Snape had, or thought he had, the upper hand at that particular time.
That's my idea of how it happened. I believe that Snape is one of those people who are they're own worst enemy. I can picture him sneering to himself as he walks away from an argument in which he used “emotional manipulation” to find out the "truth" about the Willow from Sirius. And I can picture Sirius having a good laugh about tweaking Snape's overlarge nose and giving him a lesson in humility (that's probably how he saw it...luckily for Snape James didn't agree). Sirius may not hid his emotions but that can also be an impressive diversionary act...it gives the illusion of truthfulness, because of the emotion involved, and lets old Snape, who clearly believes that control of emotions is important, think that he has the upper hand. Snape walks away thinking that he has won when really Sirius's plan was to allow Snape the illusion of victory.

Snape was told to speak to Harry alone. This point has been made a couple of times, by other posters as well, but I don't see any evidence for it. The text says, 'I was supposed to see you alone, Potter,' said Snape, the familiar sneer curling his mouth, 'but Black - ' (OotP, Occlumency, p458 UK paperback). It is possible to interpret this as meaning that Dumbledore told Snape to see Harry without Sirius being present, I suppose, but by no means a matter of fact. Dumbledore may not have wanted Snape to talk to Harry in front of the other children, but it doesn't make sense that he would have instructed Snape to exclude Sirius from the meeting. If that were the case, why on earth would he send Snape to Grimmauld Place, the very day before Harry returns to Hogwarts, where Snape will have ample opportunity to talk to Harry without Sirius being anywhere near? :huh:
Originally posted by grrliz
Originally Posted by whizbang121
It's important for young people to understand that there is someone who understands their situation and that abuse will not be tolerated. Otherwise, their victimization is likely to continue as long as they feel powerless.
It's interesting that in light of OotP being released, JKR told kids that if they felt that they were being bullied to tell someone. Sirius is giving Harry that opportunity should the situation arise. :tu: To both of those comments. Like whiz, I would hit the roof if any teacher treated my child the way Snape treats the kids. Snape is a terrible bully and a shocking teacher - he isn't just strict or a bit snarky, as JKR clearly states:
What about Snape?
JKR: Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I myself had, I have to say. I think children are very aware and we are kidding ourselves if we don’t think that they are, that teachers do sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher does abuse his power. He’s not a particularly pleasant person at all.

http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/1099-connectiontransc.html I really don't think there is any room for ambiguity here - 'very sadistic' is an extremely strong turn of phrase.

Yes, teachers in general deserve respect, but sadistic teachers who abuse their power should be held to account. Harry has been bullied all his life - first by Dudley and then by Snape. When Sirius tells Snape that Snape will have him to answer to if he uses the lessons to give Harry a hard time he will have him to answer to it is the first time in Harry's entire life that an adult has stood up for him and said he shouldn't be bullied. An adult making it clear that they will not tolerate a child being bullied is not in the least bit irresponsible, in my opinion.

This point has been made a couple of times, by other posters as well, but I don't see any evidence for it. The text says, 'I was supposed to see you alone, Potter,' said Snape, the familiar sneer curling his mouth, 'but Black - ' (OotP, Occlumency, p458 UK paperback). It is possible to interpret this as meaning that Dumbledore told Snape to see Harry without Sirius being present, I suppose, but by no means a matter of fact. Dumbledore may not have wanted Snape to talk to Harry in front of the other children, but it doesn't make sense that he would have instructed Snape to exclude Sirius from the meeting. If that were the case, why on earth would he send Snape to Grimmauld Place, the very day before Harry returns to Hogwarts, where Snape will have ample opportunity to talk to Harry without Sirius being anywhere near? :huh: Good point. It could just as easily have been that Snape asked Molly, who called Harry to the kitchen, to be sure they were alone.

Good finds, Shaggy. JKR does use strong language when she talks about Snape. Failing Harry in every class, humiliating him at every turn, insulting him, his intelligence and his family at every possible opportunity and the physical battering Harry sustained during occlumency lessons are all abuse, mental, emotional and physical.

That's the first time in his life that Harry has had the sense that an adult would do something like that for him. I don't think this is undermining Snape, who should have been called on the carpet long before by the headmaster for his unacceptable and near criminal behaviour with students. This informs all in the room that Harry has an advocate.

As a parent, Sirius leaves alot to be desired. Being an advocate is one thing. But I honestly believe that it isn't a parent's job to tell their children that they are always right and the teacher is always wrong. Although plenty of parents do that - I hear about it from people all the time.

It never ceases to amaze me what people think is "bullying" from a teacher. I've mentioned my friend before who has a son reminiscent of Dudley. She put him in a different school because the teacher at our school asked him to please stop "humming" out loud in class. I've known parents who were upset because their child was told to sit still, like all the other kids, and the parents really believed this was "cruel and unusual."

Some parents believe their child is privileged and should be able to skip homework because of church or because of lessons of some kind. I knew two mothers who wrote a heartfelt but, in my opinion, rather wayward letter asking our sons' 4th grade teacher to only give homework one night a week because of all the extracurricular things their children were doing. Now, I may get angry when there is too much homework, too. But the teacher knows the curriculum better than I do, and if kids don't have time to finish school work, maybe they are too busy outside of school! But that isn't abuse, in my opinion.

I tell my children the opposite - the classroom is the teacher's domain, not mine. If I wanted to homeschool my own children, it would be different. But I respect most teachers, and have had enough borderline bad ones myself to realize that you can learn something, even from a mean, fussy teacher.

Just as with my son's football coaches who are often really tough - it isn't my job to tell the coaches what to do and how to do it.

If there was any physical violence going on, that would be different.

If Harry was in kindergarten when Snape roughed him up verbally, that would be different.

But even though Snape isn't Harry's favorite teacher, Harry still loves Hogwarts ten times more than the schools he grew up with on Privet Drive, and thinks of Hogwarts as "Home." So perhaps he isn't as terrified of Snape as it appears.


I have kids. They go to school. If one of my kids had a teacher like Snape, he'd be dead or wishing he was.

I wouldn't put that in writing, if I were you. :huh:


I may not like Molly Weasley, but I definitely have something in common with her where my or anyone else's kids are concerned, and Snape would not be permitted near children in our community, whether he was run over by a cement mixer as a baby bunny or not.

Molly's had children who have had Snape for a teacher, and she still respects him, and her children seem to be successful.

It's important for young people to understand that there is someone who understands their situation and that abuse will not be tolerated. Otherwise, their victimization is likely to continue as long as they feel powerless.

There is abuse . . . and then there is abuse. What Umbridge does is abuse, but she is given carte blanche by the Ministry. Snape does nothing approaching what Umbridge does, unless you consider extra homework over Easter Break "evil" the way Ron does. :evil:

This point has been made a couple of times, by other posters as well, but I don't see any evidence for it. The text says, 'I was supposed to see you alone, Potter,' said Snape, the familiar sneer curling his mouth, 'but Black - ' (OotP, Occlumency, p458 UK paperback). It is possible to interpret this as meaning that Dumbledore told Snape to see Harry without Sirius being present, I suppose, but by no means a matter of fact. Dumbledore may not have wanted Snape to talk to Harry in front of the other children, but it doesn't make sense that he would have instructed Snape to exclude Sirius from the meeting. If that were the case, why on earth would he send Snape to Grimmauld Place, the very day before Harry returns to Hogwarts, where Snape will have ample opportunity to talk to Harry without Sirius being anywhere near?

Well, that's an easy one - Snape can't pull Harry aside on the first day of school and have a little talk with him in front of the Slytherins. Also, there is the "Umbridge factor" - just too many variables. Snape even tells Harry what to do if they get caught, and it plays out exactly as he says - he tells Draco it is "Remedial Potions." He is keeping secrets from his own students in Slytherin and from Umbridge. Dumbledore basically tells Harry that, too.

Yes, teachers in general deserve respect, but sadistic teachers who abuse their power should be held to account. Harry has been bullied all his life - first by Dudley and then by Snape. When Sirius tells Snape that Snape will have him to answer to if he uses the lessons to give Harry a hard time he will have him to answer to it is the first time in Harry's entire life that an adult has stood up for him and said he shouldn't be bullied. An adult making it clear that they will not tolerate a child being bullied is not in the least bit irresponsible, in my opinion.

Then why, when Sirius gives him the mirror, does Harry immediately think to himself that he won't use it? I think that shows that Harry isn't spoiled and he has learned to stand up for himself. Sirius assumes that Snape is going to do something harmful to Harry, and maybe Harry, though he dreads Occlumency, knows that it is just another class with Snape, and not the end of the world.

I mean, how many teachers has Sirius ever dealt with outside of his own time at Hogwarts? How about - none. In SWM, he seems to have a disdain for his own exams, and believes he doesn't need to study at all. I think he hates it that Snape has become part of Hogwarts while he is an outcast.

Edited to add:
Snape's never failed Harry in Potions, to my knowledge. Harry admits that he doesn't read the instructions correctly. But Harry has never failed potions a single year at Hogwarts.

As a parent, Sirius leaves alot to be desired. Being an advocate is one thing. But I honestly believe that it isn't a parent's job to tell their children that they are always right and the teacher is always wrong. Although plenty of parents do that - I hear about it from people all the time. Definitely, tons of parents do that. But I don't recall Sirius telling Harry that Harry is always right and Snape is always wrong in that scene; the best part about what Sirius says is "If I hear you're using these Occlumency lessons to give Harry a hard time..." The emphasis is mine, of course, but I think the word "if" is very important there: it's about the possibility not the inevitability of Snape's lessons running amok. Sirius is leaving it open, not telling Harry that no matter what Snape will do something wrong.

It never ceases to amaze me what people think is "bullying" from a teacher. I've mentioned my friend before who has a son reminiscent of Dudley. She put him in a different school because the teacher at our school asked him to please stop "humming" out loud in class. I've known parents who were upset because their child was told to sit still, like all the other kids, and the parents really believed this was "cruel and unusual." We're not talking just any teacher here though, we're talking about Snape, and given the quotes that others have provided, JKR clearly thinks he is sadistic. That's strong language, and I don't think she's using it to describe situations where kids get in trouble for humming in class and then blow the situation out of proportion. We're not talking the perception of what kids think is abuse coming from a teacher (because I agree with you here, I think most kids and parents need to suck it up), but when Snape's creator calls him sadistic, I think that's something we need to take into consideration and remember that while there is a Harry Filter going on, that doesn't mean the removal of the Harry Filter suddenly paints Snape as a great teacher.

I tell my children the opposite - the classroom is the teacher's domain, not mine.:tu: Hogwarts is Snape's domain, Grimmauld Place is Sirius'. ;) :p

Well, that's an easy one - Snape can't pull Harry aside on the first day of school and have a little talk with him in front of the Slytherins. Also, there is the "Umbridge factor" - just too many variables. Snape even tells Harry what to do if they get caught, and it plays out exactly as he says - he tells Draco it is "Remedial Potions." He is keeping secrets from his own students in Slytherin and from Umbridge. Dumbledore basically tells Harry that, too.Actually, Snape could have done exactly just that: "Potter, stay after class, we need to discuss your remedial potions lessons." After all, that was the cover-up story they would be using if anyone asked what was going on; why not set the tone right from the beginning?

Then why, when Sirius gives him the mirror, does Harry immediately think to himself that he won't use it? I think that shows that Harry isn't spoiled and he has learned to stand up for himself. Sirius assumes that Snape is going to do something harmful to Harry, and maybe Harry, though he dreads Occlumency, knows that it is just another class with Snape, and not the end of the world.Harry's reasoning has nothing to do with Occlumency being "just another class" and everything to do with keeping Sirius safe in Grimmauld Place."Ok," said Harry, stowing the package away in the inside pocket of his jacket, but he knew he would never use whatever it was. It would not be he, Harry, who lured Sirius from his place of safety, no matter how foully Snape treated him in their forthcoming Occlumency classes.Harry certainly doesn't sound like he's accepted that Occlumency is just another lesson he has to take.

I mean, how many teachers has Sirius ever dealt with outside of his own time at Hogwarts? How about - none. Where in canon does it say that, exactly? :huh: Actually, it doesn't seem like the parents of any Hogwarts students ever really deal with teachers either. There are no parent-teacher conferences, no meet-the-teacher barbeques* at the start of term, no school-wide events like talent shows or plays or other things parents could attend. The only instances I can think of of parental involvement are when McGonagall writes to both the Dursleys and the Weasleys after Harry and Ron crash the Ford Anglia, Moaning Myrtyle's parents coming to collect their daughter after her death, and the inviting of the Champions' families in GoF (there may be more, those are just off the top of my head). Despite this, getting a letter sent home is really not the same as a face-to-face conversation between parent and teacher; there isn't an open dialogue between parents and teachers on any real level at Hogwarts, so I'm more than inclined to think that most parents don't actually deal with the teachers in any real way either once they leave Hogwarts. Hogwarts takes on the form of a very antiquated boarding school, the type of thing where what goes on inside stays inside and only in extreme situations of one kind or another are parents notified of the goings on. I don't think Sirius' lack of experience with teachers is all that unique.

* This is where Snape takes the opportunity to wear his "Kiss the Cook" apron ;) :p

Snape's never failed Harry in Potions, to my knowledge. Harry admits that he doesn't read the instructions correctly. But Harry has never failed potions a single year at Hogwarts.I don't think anyone is questioning any of these statements.

I would (and I have three children, not that it matters) speak to my child's teacher privately about issues that I had with them, if I felt it neccessary. I wouldn't speak to the teacher about it in front of my child, it would undermine their authority.

However, if that wasn't enough, then I would seek other ways of handling the situation. No matter what my children tell me of the situation, there is always another side. I wouldn't automatically take my child's side without an understanding of what has been going on.

Other than that, thanks SIP, you said everything I would have, I think.

It never ceases to amaze me what people think is "bullying" from a teacher. JKR says Snape is 'very sadistic' and that he 'abuses his position'. Why is it so amzing that this would be described as bullying behaviour? :huh: Sirius isn't asking Snape to let Harry off doing homework or anything ridiculous like that, he is telling him that he won't stand for Harry being bullied by his 'sadistic' teacher.
Originally posted by SIP
If there was any physical violence going on, that would be different. Physical violence is only one form of bullying. As many, many survivors of bullying (including myself) can tell you verbal and emotional abuse can be just as bad as physical abuse.
Originally posted by SIP
If Harry was in kindergarten when Snape roughed him up verbally, that would be different.There's no age limit on being affected by verbal bullying. I used to work with a woman who had to have six months of work with clinical depression, then change jobs because of the affect of bullying she suffered from her boss. She was in her 50s and a tough cookie - if it verbal bullying can teenage a confident mature woman, it can certainly damage a teenage boy.
Originally posted by SIP
Well, that's an easy one - Snape can't pull Harry aside on the first day of school and have a little talk with him in front of the Slytherins. Snape could keep Harry behind after class or put him in detention without it looking even remotely suspicious. Or any Order member could have told Harry to go to Snape's office at 6pm on Monday, and Snape could explain why when he got there.
Originally posted by SIP
I mean, how many teachers has Sirius ever dealt with outside of his own time at Hogwarts? How about - none.Sirius lives with a teacher!!!

He also knows McGonagal and Dumbledore.
Originally posted by SIP
In SWM, he seems to have a disdain for his own exams, and believes he doesn't need to study at all. McGonagal describes Sirius as 'exceptionally bright', so I think it is safe to assume he passed his exams, even if he didn't study for them! :p His attitude is typical of gifted pupils who are not properly streched by their studies - grrliz did a great analysis of this a while ago, if I remember correctly. However, I don't see that this is relevent to Sirius telling Snape not to bully Harry, as Sirius isn't encouraging Harry to slack off.

Sorry grrliz, I thought I had quoted a passage from Whizbang:

Failing Harry in every class, humiliating him at every turn, insulting him, his intelligence and his family at every possible opportunity and the physical battering Harry sustained during occlumency lessons are all abuse, mental, emotional and physical.

Snape does give Harry zeros, (or are they "O" as in "owl" :evil: ). At any rate, that is the post I was referring to when I said Harry has never failed potions, to my knowledge.

Other than that, thanks SIP, you said everything I would have, I think.

Thank you, clk!

I meet alot of parents with chips on their shoulders, or unrealistic expectations for their own children. I live in an area with alot of homeschoolers and private schools, so parents have alot of options and tend to fly off the handle, especially at public school teachers. I'm pretty much a public school advocate, so this is a pet peeve of mine.

I've heard people slam teachers without having stepped foot one time in that teacher's class, which perhaps is the problem with Sirius. How long would he last as Potions Master? Not long.

We're not talking just any teacher here though, we're talking about Snape, and given the quotes that others have provided, JKR clearly thinks he is sadistic. That's strong language, and I don't think she's using it to describe situations where kids get in trouble for humming in class and then blow the situation out of proportion. We're not talking the perception of what kids think is abuse coming from a teacher (because I agree with you here, I think most kids and parents need to suck it up), but when Snape's creator calls him sadistic, I think that's something we need to take into consideration and remember that while there is a Harry Filter going on, that doesn't mean the removal of the Harry Filter suddenly paints Snape as a great teacher.

I agree on JKR's use of language, but when she was later asked why Dumbledore would allow Snape to "do his thing," she said that having horrible teachers is a lesson students should learn - can't get to the exact quote at the moment because Madame Scoop is offline.

I'm not sure I understand that statement any better than you do, grrliz. However, I think it is clear that most human beings who go to school eventually run into a difficult teacher who is sarcastic, and while it isn't pleasant, it isn't like having a run in with Voldemort, either.

As far as parental involvement, this is a Boarding School. I used to tutor at an expensive Boarding School, and many of the children there didn't see their parents for months at a time. I think, by definition, Boarding School parents are less involved, which gives the teachers more autonomy and less oversight. I think that works in the books to create more outrageous situations, and to emphasize the times when parents do interact, such as when Mrs. Weasley comes to visit during the Triwizard Tournament, or when she sends the howler. Of course, the most "involved" parent at Hogwarts seems to be Lucius Malfoy, unfortunately. Every time Draco gets a boo-boo, he is up there threatening Dumbledore with mayhem.

Regarding undermining authority, I agree with clkginny. Anytime an adult questions another’s judgment regarding a charge in front of that charge, it undermines authority. Arthur is undermining Molly’s authority when he goes against her in front of the children. Sirius is undermining Snape’s authority when he threatens him in front of Harry. Arthur may be right in questioning Molly’s judgment and Sirius may be right in making his feelings clear to Snape, but, in all cases, it should be done in private and away from the children.

As for whether or not it’s important for Harry to see Sirius stand up to Snape on his behalf, I don’t see how it did any good. Harry already knew that Sirius would do anything to help him. In fact, Harry’s chief reason for not asking for Sirius’s help throughout OotP is that he knows to what lengths Sirius will go for him and he fears for Sirius’s safety. All it accomplishes is to start a fight that ruins the evening. After Snape leaves, Harry spends the evening wanting to talk to Sirius, but feeling like he can’t because of Sirius’s foul mood. Chievrefueil: Is Snape power playing with his former tormentor?Yes, I think so. Even if his goal isn’t to start a fight, as Jaguarundi has me reconsidering, he is not backing down and is trying to show his dominance—that he is no longer the weak teenager who would allow the events in SWM to happen. I’d say that’s a “power play.” Snape and Molly both undermine Sirius' authority as Harry's godfather. In both scenes Sirius is the person with the greatest claim to parental authority over Harry and neither Snape nor Molly should undermine him.I don’t see Snape undermining any authority Sirius may have. Snape isn’t questioning his judgments in relation to Harry and I don’t see general insults as undermining authority so much. Harry already knows they hate one another.

As for Molly, I’m not sure that Sirius has any more claim to Harry than she does. Of course, Sirius was appointed Harry’s godfather by James & Lily, but we don’t really know what that entailed. I’m the godmother of a baby, but it’s honorary. At the time I was asked, it was specified that if anything happened to the parents that the baby would be raised by other family members. (I’m unrelated to the family.) For the sake of argument, though, lets assume that Sirius was supposed to raise Harry under more ordinary circumstances. He was in Azkaban, though through no (or minimal, IMO) fault of his own, making him unavailable to raise Harry. Upon arriving at Hogwarts, the Dursleys were Harry’s only guardians. By the beginning of CoS, though, isn’t Molly a surrogate mother to Harry? She takes him in as if he is her own son and treats him that way for the duration of the story, so far. Sirius doesn’t appear as Harry’s godfather until the end of PoA—meanwhile Molly has been a surrogate mother to Harry for 2 years. It’s no wonder that there would be tension over who (aside from the Dursleys) has authority over Harry. Add to that the obvious problems with Sirius in the godfather role. He's emotionally unprepared after Azkaban and is on the run. Again, I’m not blaming Sirius for any of this—I’m just pointing out the complicated nature of the situation. I don’t think it’s as cut and dry as saying that Sirius is Harry’s godfather, so, now that he’s in the picture, he has ultimate authority. You’re right that Molly’s comment about Sirius being in Azkaban is cutting. I imagine she responds that way because she is feeling superfluous. It would be much better for all of that to be played out away from the children. Snape stops Harry at the point when he is treading to close to the prophecy and its related information. That was probably Dumbledore's decision. They didn't want Harry to have that information, yet.Actually, Snape’s “repressive” comment comes at the end of a string of interruptions from Harry. At the beginning of the conversation, it seemed as if Snape was willing to give Harry quite a bit of information. It’s my hypothesis that Snape clammed up and refused further questions because he was annoyed at the interruptions. Ever wonder how the Dark Lord found out? That's right. Snape told him.....I think Voldemort found out through directly sensing Harry at that time—Harry’s emotions were particularly strong and Harry was near hysterical about the attack. Though, I believe Snape is the one who informed the Order of Voldemort becoming aware of the connection. The question Snape won’t answer is how the Order knows. Snape could have just have easily told Harry about the lessons once they were back at school, thus minimizing the amount of time he has to spend at Grimmauld Place as well as avoiding dealing with Sirius, who likes to feel "involved". It's interesting that he doesn't.I think this is a function of the story. The kitchen scene needs to take place as set up for SWM later. Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense that Snape would travel to 12 GP just for that. Surely Snape would want to speak to Harry in his own territory and without Sirius’s interference? See, for me I find what Snape says immediately before each of Sirius' "esaclations" to be the escalation point; without Snape saying those things, Sirius doesn't react the way he does. If Snape does't insult call Harry, and by extension James, arrogant Sirius doesn't get irate and call him Snivellus. Likewise, later, if Snape hadn't implied Sirius was a coward with the hidey-hole comment, Sirius wouldn't have raised his wand. Snape's face is described as calculating in that scene, and he is deliberately choosing words that he know will provoke Sirius into action. True, it's not particularly hard to provoke Sirius if you know which buttons to push, but Snape deliberately pushes those buttons on purpose. Without Snape to push the buttons, Sirius remains (relatively calm). Snape is the provocateur, Snape escalates the scenes. Doing it verbally doesn't make it "less" of an escalation, it just disguises it and makes it look like Sirius' physical responses are the escalation.Well, you and I are not going to agree on this, but I still have some questions. Why is Snape’s calling Harry (via James) arrogant any worse than Sirius threatening Snape? Why is Snape’s implying Sirius is a coward any worse than Sirius’s calling Snape a lapdog? I see those as equal moves. Is Sirius not trying to hurt Snape “where it counts?” Just because Snape is better at it (or better at controlling his overt reactions to Sirius’s attacks) doesn’t mean that he’s responsible for the escalations. Sirius is the one who threatens with his wand each time Snape “scores.” Sirius may be scoring, but Snape doesn’t show it. No, I understand your point, but the point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't matter how Snape feels about James, his making unncessarily mean statements towards someone's dead best friend in order to insult the dead best friend's son is insulting to Sirius and Harry, from their point of view.Abak asked me to explain myself, so that was aimed at her (him? sorry, I forgot which. :blush: ). I understand that it may be taken as an insult to James by Sirius, but I’m not convinced it was meant that way or that Sirius definitely took it that way. This point has been made a couple of times, by other posters as well, but I don't see any evidence for it. The text says, 'I was supposed to see you alone, Potter,' said Snape, the familiar sneer curling his mouth, 'but Black - ' (OotP, Occlumency, p458 UK paperback). It is possible to interpret this as meaning that Dumbledore told Snape to see Harry without Sirius being present, I suppose, but by no means a matter of fact. Dumbledore may not have wanted Snape to talk to Harry in front of the other children, but it doesn't make sense that he would have instructed Snape to exclude Sirius from the meeting.This reminded me of something. When Harry enters the kitchen, Snape and Sirius were both already there and staring in opposite directions. Sirius had a letter on the table in front of him. Presumably the letter was from Dumbledore, delivered by Snape? Failing Harry in every classI doubt Snape is failing Harry. If he was, we’d have heard about it and we don’t.

Just for fun, here is a story about the teacher who JKR based Snape (at least partially) on: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/1731602.stm

The part that makes me laugh is this:

"Mr Nettleship was first challenged over the link by reporters from Britain's national newspapers.

It was then that he discovered his friends and family had already made the connection between himself and the terrifying teacher long before the story hit the big screen.


Mr Nettleship was shocked to learn that his wife, Shirley, agreed that JK Rowling had used him as a template for the character.

He said: "I was rather distressed about this but Shirley said 'I'm afraid so: I realised that a long time ago but I didn't dare tell you'."

Edited to add:
Snape's never failed Harry in Potions, to my knowledge. Harry admits that he doesn't read the instructions correctly. But Harry has never failed potions a single year at Hogwarts.While everyone around him filled their flagons, Harry cleared away his things, seething. His potion had been no worse than Ron's, which was now giving off a foul odour of bad eggs; or Neville's, which had achieved the consistency of just-mixed cement and which Neville was now having to gouge out of his cauldron; yet it was he, Harry, who would be receiving zero marks for the day's work.nor was she in Snape's dungeon when they arrived for double Potions, where Harry's moonstone essay was handed back to him with a large, spiky black 's' scrawled in an upper corner.

"I have awarded you the grades you would have received if you presented this work in your OWL," said Snape with a smirk, as he swept among them, passing back their homework. This should give you a realistic idea of what to expect in the examination."

Snape reached the front of the class and turned on his heel to face them.

"The general standard of this homework was abysmal. Most of you would have failed had this been your examination. I expect to see a great deal more effort for this weeks essay on the various varieties of venom antidotes, or I shall have to start handing out detentions to those dunces who get a 's'

... "I got a 'P'," said Ron, ladling soup into his bowl. "Happy?"
""No marks again, then, Potter," said Snape maliciously, emptying Harry's cauldron with a wave of his wand. "You will write me an essay on the correct composition of this potion, indicating how and why you went wrong, to be handed in next lesson, do you understand?" Lee Jordan, who was assisting the demonstration, was lazily Vanishing the vomit at regular intervals with the same Vanishing Spell Snape kept using on Harry's potions.Harry's no worse a student than many of the others in his class, but he routinely get zeroes. This is patently unfair. I haven't even found the class where Snape simply swept Harry's potion off the desk and smashed it. And we see when Harry takes his O.W.L.S. that he's quite capable in potions, so how much of this problem is Harry and how much is sabotage?

Harry is being wound up and setup.


I meet alot of parents with chips on their shoulders, or unrealistic expectations for their own children. I live in an area with alot of homeschoolers and private schools, so parents have alot of options and tend to fly off the handle, especially at public school teachers. I'm pretty much a public school advocate, so this is a pet peeve of mine. We've all seen it in varying degrees, SIP. But, here we're talking about Harry. This is barely, if even, relevant. The situation is only vaguely related. Now if we were discussing the Dursleys, you would have a point.

I've heard people slam teachers without having stepped foot one time in that teacher's class, which perhaps is the problem with Sirius. How long would he last as Potions Master? Not long.And we know this how? Sirius was a brilliant student. He may have excelled in potions and be quite capable of teaching a class. That's another sweeping judgement with nothing at all to back it.

I agree on JKR's use of language, but when she was later asked why Dumbledore would allow Snape to "do his thing," she said that having horrible teachers is a lesson students should learn -

I'm not sure I understand that statement any better than you do, grrliz. However, I think it is clear that most human beings who go to school eventually run into a difficult teacher who is sarcastic, the author said "sadistic, not sarcastic.and while it isn't pleasant, it isn't like having a run in with Voldemort, either. Actually, Harry seems to fare better again the Dark Lord. He hasn't lost a bout, yet.
As far as parental involvement, this is a Boarding School. I used to tutor at an expensive Boarding School, and many of the children there didn't see their parents for months at a time. I think, by definition, Boarding School parents are less involved, which gives the teachers more autonomy and less oversight. I think that works in the books to create more outrageous situations, and to emphasize the times when parents do interact, such as when Mrs. Weasley comes to visit during the Triwizard Tournament, or when she sends the howler. Of course, the most "involved" parent at Hogwarts seems to be Lucius Malfoy, unfortunately. Every time Draco gets a boo-boo, he is up there threatening Dumbledore with mayhem.
And your point is .....
Sirius should or should not have become involved as Harry's guardian? His signature on the Hogmeade form was considered acceptable by those in charge. And he certainly couldn't intervene openly.

Quote from Chievrefueil:
As for Molly, I’m not sure that Sirius has any more claim to Harry than she does.
Really I think the person that can most be considered the legal guardian of Harry is Dumbledore. It was Dumbledore that left Harry at the Dursleys and makes most of the important decisions in Harry's life. If Molly or Sirius wanted to do something with Harry and Dumbledore disagreed it wouldn't happen.

Ok, I’ve taken the liberty of typing up the scene in question, and adding my own interpretation of it. Beware, this is long (sorry!). :)
OotP, pp518-521
“Sit down, Potter.”

“You know,” said Sirius loudly, leaning back on his rear chair legs and speaking to the ceiling, “I think I’d prefer it if you didn’t give orders here, Snape. It’s my house, you see.” The way Sirius says this sounds kind of childish to me, though I don’t think Sirius is really trying to provoke Snape here. It sounds like he’s making it clear to Snape that he is on Sirius’s home turf – his territory, if you will. Sirius is trying to establish that he is “in command” here and that he will call the shots, not Snape.


An ugly flush suffused Snape’s pallid face. Harry sat down in a chair beside Sirius, facing Snape across the table.

“I was supposed to see you alone, Potter,” said Snape, the familiar sneer curling his mouth, “but Black—” It’s clear that Snape is angered by Sirius’s comment, as indicated by his flush. He probably sees this as Sirius trying to make things more difficult for him than they already are. He also might see this as Sirius talking down at him. But then he recovers himself with a sneer. I'm not really sure what Snape meant by "I was supposed to see you alone"- it could have meant completely alone, or it could have meant away from any prying eyes. At this point, I'm not really sure, but I feel that it was still Sirius' perogative to be there as Harry's godfather.

“I’m his godfather,” said Sirius, louder than ever.

“I am here on Dumbledore’s orders,” said Snape, whose voice, by contrast, was becoming more and more quietly waspish, “but by all means, stay, Black, I know you like to feel . . . involved.” The contrast between how Snape and Sirius speak when they’re mad is evident: Sirius gets louder and Snape gets softer. Where Harry is concerned, Sirius’s emotions come out all the more, and he gets “louder than ever”. Snape is probably getting madder partly because he feels Sirius is getting in the way of him doing what he’s come there to do. But that’s not the only reason, because if it were, he’d have ignored Sirius’s comments instead of trying to one-up Sirius.

“What’s that supposed to mean?” said Sirius, letting his chair fall back onto all four legs with a loud bang.

“Merely that I am sure you must feel –- ah –- frustrated by the fact that you can do nothing useful,” Snape laid a delicate stress on the word, “for the Order.”

It was Sirius’s turn to flush. Snape’s lip curled in triumph as he turned to Harry. Here I think we can see that Snape knows exactly which buttons to push on Sirius. And we can clearly see that he is satisfied to have elicited this response from Sirius, as indicated by his lip curling in triumph. For now, Snape has “won”, and he then gets to deliver his message (which I’m not going to quote here). I think Sirius may not have responded to this comment from Snape because it was indeed true– Sirius was feeling frustrated that he couldn’t do anything more for the Order.

“Why can’t Dumbledore teach Harry?” asked Sirius aggressively. “Why you?”

“I suppose it is the headmaster’s privilege to delegate the less enjoyable tasks,” said Snape silkily. “I assure you I did not beg for this job.” He got to his feet. “I will expect you at six o’clock on Monday evening, Potter. My office. If anybody asks, you are taking Remedial Potions. Nobody who has seen you in my classes could deny you need them.” Here, I don’t see Sirius’s aggressiveness as being for the purpose of expressing hatred or loathing for Snape, but rather to support, protect and show concern for Harry. Snape’s response is the typical snarkiness that we’d come to expect from him. At this point, I don’t see any blatant hostility. Things would have been ok if it had just stopped there.

He turned to leave, his black traveling cloak billowing behind him.

“Wait a moment,” said Sirius, sitting up straighter in his chair.

Snape turned back to face them, sneering. It’s interesting that we don’t get a description of how Sirius delivers this line. There’s no indication that he was delivering it loudly or belligerently– surely we would have been told if Sirius’s voice was escalating in light of the rest of the scene. To me it looks like he’s delivering this line in light of having just thought of something else to say to Snape. I think this is important in assessing how Snape reacts to it.

“I am in rather a hurry, Black . . . unlike you, I do not have unlimited leisure time. ...”

“I’ll get to the point, then,” said Sirius, standing up. I think Snape’s balled fist definitely displays a “preemptive strike” mentality. It shows he was ready to take action if Sirius was going to pick a fight. That’s probably what Snape expected Sirius to do, especially since Sirius stands up to face Snape a moment before. Though I agree it’s also important to note that this action doesn’t really contribute to escalating the scene, nor is it in itself a violent action. It’s merely Snape getting ready to defend himself should the need arise.

He was rather taller than Snape who, Harry noticed, had balled his fist in the pocket of his cloak over what Harry was sure was the handle of his wand. “If I hear you’re using these Occlumency lessons to give Harry a hard time, you’ll have me to answer to.” This seems like it was meant to be Sirius’s final warning to Snape, and once Snape indicated that he understood, I think Sirius was prepared to drop it. That’s one reason why I believe he didn’t comment on Snape’s remark about leisure time– because it was more important to make Snape aware that he’d better treat Harry well, or else he’d be on Snape’s case. I do think Sirius’s comment is an implied threat, but I also think it shows how much he cares for Harry and desires to protect him from anything Snape might do while they’re having private lessons. I don’t really see this as Sirius undermining Snape’s authority or insulting his ability to teach, but I think it is making a statement about Snape’s ability to maintain his professionalism. But I also agree with HermioneLuna that nothing Sirius says here really changes or has any bearing on Harry’s ability/desire to learn Occlumency. Harry doesn’t think back to Sirius’s words in this scene at any time– rather he relies on his own experiences with Snape during the Occlumency lessons. Harry was apprehensive about taking the Occlumency lessons before Sirius even said anything rude about Snape, which I think shows that Sirius’s words aren’t really what Harry is basing his unease/unwillingness to learn Occlumency on. This isn’t to say that Harry dismissed Sirius’s words or that they didn’t strengthen the way Harry felt about Snape, I just think that they really didn’t make all that much difference in the grand scheme of things because Harry has already made up his own mind about Snape, his teaching style and the way Snape treats him.

“How touching,” Snape sneered. “But surely you have noticed that Potter is very like his father?”

“Yes, I have,” said Sirius proudly.

“Well then, you’ll know he’s so arrogant that criticism simply bounces off him,” Snape said sleekly.

Sirius pushed his chair roughly and strode around the table toward Snape, pulling out his wand as he went; Snape whipped out his own. They were squaring up to each other, Sirius looking livid, Snape calculating, his eyes darting from Sirius’s wand tip to his face. I agree that 1) Snape’s bringing up James here is completely unfounded and out of line; 2) that Snape’s intention isn’t to insult James here, but merely bringing James up to insult Harry; and 3) that insulting Harry was not only out of line, but it was the final straw for Sirius. Right now, I believe Harry is the most important person to Sirius, and so I can’t blame him for becoming upset when Snape insults Harry. The fact that Snape is delivering this line sleekily indicates that he’s deliberately trying to provoke Sirius; also the fact that he is calculating says to me he knows exactly what he’s doing and what kind of response he’s trying to get from Sirius. Also, by insulting Harry by comparing to his father, Snape is making a direct insult on James as well, which I’m sure gave Sirus all the more reason to get mad. This is where things get ugly.

“Sirius!” said Harry loudly, but Sirius appeared not to hear him.

“I’ve warned you, Snivellus,” said Sirius, his face barely a foot from Snape’s, “I don’t care if Dumbledore thins you’ve reformed, I know better— ” By the use of the name Snivellus, I’d say that Sirius is descending to the realm of childish behavior (not that his other behavior wasn’t childish, but I believe this marks a point where he’s regressing to his Marauder-day self). Here, the attack against Snape (and then Snape’s against Sirius) is starting to go below the belt.

“Oh, but why don’t you tell him so?” whispered Snape. “Or are you afraid he might not take the advice of a man who has been hiding inside his mothers’ house for six months very seriously?” I find it interesting that Snape says this when Dumbledore is the one who has ordered Sirius to “hide inside his mother’s house.”

“Tell me, how is Lucius Malfoy these days? I expect he’s delighted his lapdog is working at Hogwarts, isn’t he?”

“Speaking of dogs,” said Snape softly, “did you know that Lucius Malfoy recognized you last tome you risked a little jaunt outside? Clever idea, Black, getting yourself seen on a safe station platform. . . gave you a cast-iron excuse not to leave your hidey-hole in future, didn’t it?”

Sirius raised his wand.

“NO!” Harry yelled, vaulting over the table and t5rying to get in between them, “Sirius, don’t—”

“Are you calling me a coward?” roared Sirius, tying to push Harry out of the way, but Harry would not budge.” A couple things here: as someone mentioned earlier, I too find it interesting that Sirius doesn’t actually every call Snape a Death Eater- he only implies it. I also agree that calling or implying that Sirius is a coward is one of the worst insults you could make about him: that and suggesting he would betray his friends rather than die for what he believed in (like Peter did). It’s no wonder that Sirius gets very upset with the “hidey-hole” comment.* Sirius is very proud in this part- he doesn’t take kindly at all to an insult of this magnitude against his character, and he certainly shows that he’s not willing to take this insult lying down. Another thing that’s notable in this part is that Harry is acting as the peacemaker; and I believe he is the most mature one in the room.

*I also can’t see Snape saying this word either. :p

Without Snape to push the buttons, Sirius remains (relatively calm). Snape is the provocateur, Snape escalates the scenes. Doing it verbally doesn't make it "less" of an escalation, it just disguises it and makes it look like Sirius' physical responses are the escalation.:tu: I completely agree. Snape is much more verbal-based in his actions, while Sirius is more action-based: we have seen this contrast several times, and I think this scene really highlights this difference between the two. Therefore, I quite agree that Snape’s words are meant to escalate the scene just as Sirius’s actions are meant to escalate the scene. Both are different means of producing the same effect.

“Why yes, I suppose I am,” said Snape.

“Harry --- get --- out --- of --- it!” snarled Sirius, pushing him out of the way with his free hand.”Sirius is clearly saying that this is strictly between him and Snape, and that he doesn’t want Harry to get involved. This is a matter of pride and vengeance for Sirius- Snape has insulted him and now Snape will have to face the consequences.

<snip>

He [Mr. Weasley] and all the other Weasleys froze on the threshold, gazing at the scene in front of them, which was also suspended in mid-action, both Sirius and Snape looking toward the door with their wands pointing into each other's faces and Hary immobile between them, a hand stretched out to each of them, trying to force them apart.Here, both Sirius and Snape are getting physical, and they both need to be restrained by Harry. At this point, the scene has escalated such that both Snape and Sirius are sufficiently provoked and willing to resort to wands. This further illustrates the mutual dislike (understatement) that Sirius and Snape have toward each other, and it underscores the fact that when those two meet up, they turn into childish teenagers. :rolleyes: This frozen snapshot of the actions of all three people reflect what has been happening throughout the entire scene: with Snape and Sirius each provoking each other and nearly coming to blows, and Harry trying to stop them.

"Merlin's beard," said Mr. Weasley, the smile sliding off his face, "what's going on here?"

Both Sirius and Snape lowered their wands. Harry looked from one to the other. Each wore an expression of utmost contempt, yet the unexpected entrance of so many witnesses seemed to have brought them to their senses. Snape pocketed his wand, turned on his heel, and swept back across the kitchen, passing the Weasleys without comment. At the door he looked back.

"Six o'clock Monday evening, Potter."

He was gone. Sirius glared after him, his wand at his side."I'm glad that the two of them were able to drop their quarrel with the entrance of all these witnesses, which I suppose does show an bit of their adult senses returning. Snape is the first one to turn away, probably indicating that he's had enough and he wants to get out of there before he (or Sirius) does something they might regret. I looked up contempt on dictonary.com and found that it means "The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn." In light of the entire scene, I'd say that's it's pretty accurate to say that both Sirius and Snape have incredible scorn for the other. But what's interesting is that both their actions are contemptable, and both of their actions are mirrored by the other. I wonder if they realized this.
----------------------------

Congratulations if you finished reading this. I apologize for the length of it, but I wanted to do my own analysis of this scene line by line. Feel free to tear apart what I've written. :)

I've heard people slam teachers without having stepped foot one time in that teacher's class, which perhaps is the problem with Sirius. How long would he last as Potions Master? Not long.Well, we don't really know that, now do we?* Sirius isn't really slamming teachers so much as he's slamming Snape specifically (if he is doing any slamming, which depends on your point of view I suppose), and it's not about Snape's abilities as a teacher so much as Snape's approach to Harry as James's son. The other thing is I don't think you have to be good at something yourself in order to be a critic; if that were the case, only politicians could comment on politics or only artists could comment on art, etc. Sirius may not be a teacher, but he has been a student and since having a terrible teacher or two is part of growing up, I suspect Sirius had one or two himself. Evidently he knows a sadist when he sees one. ;)

*I'm now picturing Sirius as Potions Master and I bet a lot of stuff in his class would go BOOM.

As far as parental involvement, this is a Boarding School. I used to tutor at an expensive Boarding School, and many of the children there didn't see their parents for months at a time. I think, by definition, Boarding School parents are less involved, which gives the teachers more autonomy and less oversight. I think that works in the books to create more outrageous situations, and to emphasize the times when parents do interact, such as when Mrs. Weasley comes to visit during the Triwizard Tournament, or when she sends the howler. Of course, the most "involved" parent at Hogwarts seems to be Lucius Malfoy, unfortunately. Every time Draco gets a boo-boo, he is up there threatening Dumbledore with mayhem.:tu: This was precisely my point; there isn't much interaction between parents and teachers, so I don't expect that Sirius should have all that much experience with dealing with them than the next parent (especially given his absenteeism after being framed). Although it's interesting that the most "involved" parent gets on well with Snape (or so we're told); maybe Snape is quite charmer with parents and should hold more parents' nights in the Potions class?

Congratulations if you finished reading this. I apologize for the length of it, but I wanted to do my own analysis of this scene line by line. Feel free to tear apart what I've written. :)No, that was excellent! Well, mainly because I agree with most of it, but can you blame me? :lol:

Regarding Harry getting zeros for his potions work, I don't consider getting a zero for one (or a few) day(s) to be failing the class, since a class grade is based on many days' work. However, I would point out that Harry's work during those classes where he received zeros was, for the most part, poor and he likely deserved a zero. There's no reason why Snape wouldn't give his other students zeros, if their potions were poor, even if he allowed them to turn them in. I agree that it's very nasty to single Harry out and give him no uncertainty that he will be receiving a zero for the class like that. As I said, though, that's not to say that the zero mark isn't undeserved.

Really I think the person that can most be considered the legal guardian of Harry is Dumbledore. It was Dumbledore that left Harry at the Dursleys and makes most of the important decisions in Harry's life. If Molly or Sirius wanted to do something with Harry and Dumbledore disagreed it wouldn't happen.Good point. Dumbledore even has standing above the Dursleys. Harry is at the Dursleys as Dumbledore wishes and would be taken away, if Dumbledore ever felt that Harry would be better off/safer somewhere else, as in the beginning of OotP when he goes to 12 GP.Congratulations if you finished reading this. I apologize for the length of it, but I wanted to do my own analysis of this scene line by line. Feel free to tear apart what I've written. :)For the most part, I agree with your comprehensive analysis. (It reminds me of one we had for SWM a long time ago. :lol: ) I think it's interesting that you point out the scene showing the difference in Sirius and Snape's approaches--one is a man of action, the other a man of words. I think my question remains, though. Sirius and Snape both use words to insult one another. Snape's are surgical strikes, but aren't Sirius's intended to be? His use of "Snivellus" is particularly bad--probably the insult that correlates most closely with Snape calling Sirius a coward. I still don't see how Snape's words particularly escalate the situation and Sirius's words don't. Or, is that not what you were getting at?

Just for fun, here is a story about the teacher who JKR based Snape (at least partially) on: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/1731602.stm

The part that makes me laugh is this:

"Mr Nettleship was first challenged over the link by reporters from Britain's national newspapers.

It was then that he discovered his friends and family had already made the connection between himself and the terrifying teacher long before the story hit the big screen.


Mr Nettleship was shocked to learn that his wife, Shirley, agreed that JK Rowling had used him as a template for the character.

He said: "I was rather distressed about this but Shirley said 'I'm afraid so: I realised that a long time ago but I didn't dare tell you'."

Bahahahaha! I haven't read that in a while. Do you remember in Book One, when Hermione and Harry have to solve the logic puzzle to get to the stone? One of the bottles holds "nettle wine." :p

Did you also know that JKR's mother worked in the lab with Mr. Nettleship, and once a whole box of beetles got loose, and her mother told that story for years. I'm sure that influenced all the "beetle smashing" that is done in Potions lab, lol.

Here is another article that talks about Nettleship, another teacher, JKR's mother in the lab, as well as JKR being bullied! This is really fun to read - listen to Nettleship patting himself on the back for teaching her about the Philosopher's Stone, lol :rotfl:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:we9ute8xhcIJ:thescotsman.scotsman.c om/s2.cfm%3Fid%3D662772003+anne+rowling+john+nettlesh ip&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

. . . (One) teacher, Mrs Sylvia Morgan, was a strict, intimidating woman, who frightened Joanne as a child and whose presence would work its way into the less sympathetic masters of Hogwarts. By the age of ten, Joanne was a keen Brownie, a voracious reader and a serious student who raced to get her hand up first. "I was the epitome of a bookish child, short and squat, thick National Health glasses, living in a world of complete daydreams."

When she made the move to secondary school, Joanne found herself accompanied by her mother. After 12 years bringing up her daughters, Anne Rowling secured the position of lab technician at Wyedean Comprehensive under the supervision of John Nettleship, the school’s head of science. Nettleship remembers Joanne, whom he taught, as a bright but quiet girl and considers himself an early inspiration for Professor Snape. "I think chemistry maybe made the most impact on her because I did teach her about the philosopher’s stone, the alchemist’s stone. Possibly she knew about it already, but I did include it in my lessons and explained how it turned things to gold." He then chuckles before adding: "It seems to have worked for her, hasn’t it." Although bright, she was not the most enthusiastic student, as Nettleship, who is now retired, recalls: "Her attitude in the science lessons was more like Harry’s in the potions class rather than Hermione’s."

Anne Rowling, meanwhile, was delighted to be around the beakers and chemicals and working once again after such a long absence. "She was absolutely brilliant, a sparkling character, totally reliable, very interested in words and stories and things like that. Although her job was on the technical side, she was also very imaginative," says Nettleship.

A brief encounter with bullying led Joanne to spend her break walking to the science block to collect her dinner money, rather than face the intimidating atmosphere of the playground. A larger girl in her own year picked a fight with her. "I didn’t have a choice. It was hit back or lie down and play dead. For a few days I was quite famous because she hadn’t managed to flatten me. The truth was, my locker was right behind me and it held me up."

Ok, I’ve taken the liberty of typing up the scene in question, and adding my own interpretation of it. Beware, this is long (sorry!). :)
Brilliant. You took it apart beautifully.

A couple of things come to mind. I believe that Malfoy knew Sirius was the dog with Harry at the station the same way that Voldemort knew Harry was watching the attack on Mr Weasley through the snake's eyes. Very simply, Snape told them.

Now that we have a clear understanding of how Snape manipulates Sirius, go forward to the day the kids flew to the MoM.

When Snape got his sweet time around to informing the Order of the kids' disappearance, (after his manicure) did he provoke Sirius into going to rescue his godson? :huh:

That makes the fourth murder that I suspect Snape to be complicit in. :eyebrows:

Regarding Harry getting zeros for his potions work, I don't consider getting a zero for one (or a few) day(s) to be failing the class, since a class grade is based on many days' work. disclaimer:
My statement about Snape deliberately failing Harry in class after class refers to individual classes in the first half of Harry's fifth year, not his final grade for any particular year.

disclaimer:
My statement about Snape deliberately failing Harry in class after class refers to individual classes in the first half of Harry's fifth year, not his final grade for any particular year.I figured that out after you posted a longer response to SIP. Actually, the statement from me that you just quoted was my disclaimer about it. ;) (I originally denied that Harry had failed any classes, but I meant for the year.)

Bahahahaha! I haven't read that in a while. Do you remember in Book One, when Hermione and Harry have to solve the logic puzzle to get to the stone? One of the bottles holds "nettle wine." :p It's been awhile, so I forgot that part. :lol: This is really fun to read - listen to Nettleship patting himself on the back for teaching her about the Philosopher's Stone, lol :rotfl:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:we9ute8xhcIJ:thescotsman.scotsman.c om/s2.cfm%3Fid%3D662772003+anne+rowling+john+nettlesh ip&hl=en&ie=UTF-8Thanks, I hadn't seen that before. His claim would be more believable if she had Harry learning about the Philosopher's Stone from Snape, instead of from the back of a chocolate frog card. :rolleyes: :p

Good point. Dumbledore even has standing above the Dursleys. Harry is at the Dursleys as Dumbledore wishes and would be taken away, if Dumbledore ever felt that Harry would be better off/safer somewhere else, as in the beginning of OotP when he goes to 12 GP.Dumbledore has the responsibility to command the OotP. In that capacity, he does call the shots for Harry as well as the members of the Order.

Within that framework, Sirius is accepted as Harry's guardian, as James and Lily intended. Thus, his signature is accepted as valid on Harry's Hogsmeade permission slip and such decisions concerning Harry that don't fall directly under Dumbledore's jurisdiction as the leader of the Order, would fall to Sirius Black. Unfortunately, who Harry is, means that very few decisions fall outside Dumbledore's direct interest. For the most part, I agree with your comprehensive analysis. (It reminds me of one we had for SWM a long time ago. :lol: ) I think it's interesting that you point out the scene showing the difference in Sirius and Snape's approaches--one is a man of action, the other a man of words. I think my question remains, though. Sirius and Snape both use words to insult one another. Snape's are surgical strikes, but aren't Sirius's intended to be? His use of "Snivellus" is particularly bad--probably the insult that correlates most closely with Snape calling Sirius a coward. I still don't see how Snape's words particularly escalate the situation and Sirius's words don't. Because Snape strikes first, just as he attempted to do in SWM, and Sirius retalliates. Snape strikes first, every time beginning here I know you like to feel . . . involved.” Sirius is on the defensive after that. Snape has learned he can't outwand Sirius, so he manipulates his emotions. He does the same thing to Harry. It looks to me as though, if Snape can't have the weapon, he will control it where it is. By manipulating Harry's emotions, Snape can control the bomb that is the "one with the power"

I think my question remains, though. Sirius and Snape both use words to insult one another. Snape's are surgical strikes, but aren't Sirius's intended to be? His use of "Snivellus" is particularly bad--probably the insult that correlates most closely with Snape calling Sirius a coward. I still don't see how Snape's words particularly escalate the situation and Sirius's words don't. Or, is that not what you were getting at?No, I don’t believe that Sirius’s words don’t escalate the situation, but I do believe that for the majority of the time, Sirius’s words were aimed at addressing Snape’s insulting comments. But by the same token, for the majority of the time, Snape’s words are aimed at addressing Sirius’s actions: raising his wand, standing up to face him, etc. You're definitely right in saying that some of Sirius's words are intended to escalate the situation- especially toward the end of the scene, and that some of them actually do escalate it, but in seems to me that in general it is Sirius’s actions and Snape’s words that do the escalating, respectively. Overall, it’s kind of like a chain reaction, though I can’t say who specifically started it- they probably both did. I hope I was clearer that time. :)

Because Snape strikes first, just as he attempted to do in SWM, and Sirius retalliates. Snape strikes first, every time beginning here I know you like to feel . . . involved.” Sirius is on the defensive after that. Actually, Sirius began the scene with some aggressive posturing before that.I hope I was clearer that time. :)Yes, thank you. :tu:

Really I think the person that can most be considered the legal guardian of Harry is Dumbledore. It was Dumbledore that left Harry at the Dursleys and makes most of the important decisions in Harry's life. If Molly or Sirius wanted to do something with Harry and Dumbledore disagreed it wouldn't happen.
When James and Lily asked Sirius to be Harry's godfather at his christening and Sirius accepted, in effect, they were appointing him their son's guardian should anything happen to them, and he willingly accepted the responisibility this incurred. It's an old christian custom that is not taken as seriously as it used to be. Now, if I understand correctly, all the church asks is that the godparents accept responsibility for the child's christian education. Essentially, asking someone to stand godparent for a child is asking them to take some form of responsibility for that child should the parents be unable to fulfill their duties.

Dumbledore, as head of the OotP, has the responsibility of everyone in the Order. As Harry is pivotal to the Order's interests, Dumbledore clearly has a great deal of control in decisions concerning Harry. But Sirius is his guardian.

I wonder what would have happened if Dumbledore hadn't suspected Sirius in James and Lily's betrayal?

Do you mean in regards to where Harry would live? Harry would still go to the Dursleys. Due to the protection and the fact that DD knows best no one should question him.

Which is why Sirius had to die. Sorry really am not a DD fan.

Do you mean in regards to where Harry would live? Harry would still go to the Dursleys. Due to the protection and the fact that DD knows best no one should question him.

Which is why Sirius had to die. Sorry really am not a DD fan.Why kill Sirius off for that? There are so many other ways to have Harry go to Dumbledore that don't involve killing off major characters. JK said Sirius was one of her favorites. She wouldn't have offed him unless she had a very good reason and there was no other choice. She says so herself.

Sirius is Harry's legal guardian. It's his signature that adorn's Harry's Hogsmeade permission form. At the end of PoA he states that James and Lily "appointed me your guardian". The Dursleys complicate this. In Sirius' absence they seem to be his guardians; Uncle Vernon apparently would have legitimately been able to sign Harry's Hogsmeade permission form as well, which suggests some level of guardianship. However, once Sirius returns, it seems that he takes over in terms of legal issues. The only reason that The Dursleys retain any level of guardianship over Harry is because of the blood-protection, no other real reason.

Neither Dumbledore nor Molly Weasley have any real claim over Harry in terms of guardianship. They love him and want what's best for him, obviously, but I think guardianship is beyond the realm of both their responsibility and desire.

Sirius is Harry's legal guardian. It's his signature that adorn's Harry's Hogsmeade permission form. At the end of PoA he states that James and Lily "appointed me your guardian". The Dursleys complicate this. In Sirius' absence they seem to be his guardians; Uncle Vernon apparently would have legitimately been able to sign Harry's Hogsmeade permission form as well, which suggests some level of guardianship. However, once Sirius returns, it seems that he takes over in terms of legal issues. The only reason that The Dursleys retain any level of guardianship over Harry is because of the blood-protection, no other real reason.

Neither Dumbledore nor Molly Weasley have any real claim over Harry in terms of guardianship. They love him and want what's best for him, obviously, but I think guardianship is beyond the realm of both their responsibility and desire.

:tu: I agree. The reason the Potters didn't leave Harry in the care of the Dursleys was because they wanted and trusted Sirius to act in Harry's best interest. They didn't leave that responsibility to Dumbledore or Molly.

If Sirius were never imprisoned, do you think Dumbledore would have placed Harry with the Durlseys? I think it's possible he may have tried, but I don't think it's very likely Sirius would let Harry stay with his aunt and uncle when James and Lily had trusted him to take on that responsibility.

Dumbledore took on the plans to care for Harry because he thought Sirius was the spy and later that Peter was dead. To Dumbledore, there was no one left to provide adequate protection for Harry. He says that numerous families would have loved to take Harry in, but there was no way to be sure of Harry's well being once Voldemort returned, therefore he had to dwell in the house of his mother's blood.

Dumbledore has been acting on Harry's behalf for so long, it seems natural that he should continue to do so. However, Dumbledore is not the person to whom that task was delegated. Sirius is. Yes, Dumbledore still retains authority over Harry because the Order's job is to fight Voldemort and protect Harry, but he doesn't have authority in the way that Sirius does. Sirius is Harry's guardian. Dumbledore is not.

Going back to Snape's "I was supposed to see you alone" comment. Dumbledore can't actually prevent Sirius from being there because, as Harry's guardian, Sirius has ever right to be present. I tend to agree with those who say Dumbledore likely meant Snape was to deliver the information to Harry away from the other children.

I wonder why Dumbledore would tell Snape to go to Grimmauld Place, into Sirius' home, and then direct Snape to exclude Sirius from a discussion that concerns Sirius' godson. Is it possible Dumbledore merely gave Snape a general instruction to talk to Harry alone, but never specified where, and Snape took it upon himself to travel to Grimmauld Place and deliver the message rather than waiting until term started again?

If Sirius was "appointed guardian," then there must be a will somewhere. Are we ever going to see it? I hope so. It may also be the case that Sirius made a will while he was staying at Grimmauld Place - perhaps to help Harry inherit his home or money. That would be interesting to know about, too.

It means alot to Harry that Sirius is his Godfather. However, it is almost weird to me that Sirius was never in Harry's life one day past the death of Harry's Parents, yet he springs himself from prison, and suddenly, voila - instant guardian.

The truth is, in the real world that would never happen. But since others have brought up the symbolic duties of a godparent, let's have a look at those, shall we?

I have no idea which Church James and Lily attended - I'm assuming a Protestant Church, since JKR is a Protestant. This is from an Anglican Church, but I'm aware that JKR is Presbyterian or Church of Scotland.

Frankly, I don't think Sirius is a stellar choice for Godfather, according to these guidelines. But what do I know? :huh: It is strange that Sirius would have been Baptised himself, since he comes from such a Slytherin/Dark Magic type of family - and also knowing his mother! Of course, perhaps some churches are more relaxed about that fact - I don't know.

http://www.holytrinitystcolumba.org.uk/godparen.htm

The Baptism service begins with

The Duties of Parents and Godparents.

Children who are too young to profess the Christian faith are baptised on the understanding that they are brought up as Christians within the family of the Church. As they grow up they need the help and encouragement of that family so that they learn to be faithful in public worship and private prayer, to live by trust in God, and to come to confirmation.

Parents and Godparents, the children whom you have brought for baptism depend chiefly on you for the help and encouragement they need.

Are you willing to give it to them by your prayers, by your example, andby your teaching?

WHAT QUALIFIES ME TO BE A GODPARENT?

If you can answer Yes to the above, and if you've been baptised yourself, you need no other qualification. But please remember that this promise is made to God and that in making it you commit yourself, as well as the child to Him

You will be invited to a meeting to discuss the meaning of baptism.

Here are some suggestions as to how this promise can be carried out.

WHAT CAN I DO FOR MY GODCHILD?

Remember him daily in my prayers. Each prayer is an expression of love for your godchild.

Mark each anniversary of his baptism: send a card and a sign to him of my love and care.

Gifts of books, posters can also help him to learn more about God.

Keep in regular touch. Write or phone and share what is happening.

Help him to see by the example of your life that Christianity is not a 'Sundays only' affair.

Make our relationship one of godparent to godchild. Be willing to talk about faith, prayer and God. Spend whatever time is possible and available in encouraging his interest and participation in the life of faith and of the local church. Take him to church when possible.

Encourage him to look forward to being confirmed and becoming a communicant member of the church.

If Sirius was "appointed guardian," then there must be a will somewhere. Are we ever going to see it? I hope so. It may also be the case that Sirius made a will while he was staying at Grimmauld Place - perhaps to help Harry inherit his home or money. That would be interesting to know about, too.

It means alot to Harry that Sirius is his Godfather. However, it is almost weird to me that Sirius was never in Harry's life one day past the death of Harry's Parents, yet he springs himself from prison, and suddenly, voila - instant guardian.

The truth is, in the real world that would never happen. But since others have brought up the symbolic duties of a godparent, let's have a look at those, shall we?

I have no idea which Church James and Lily attended - I'm assuming a Protestant Church, since JKR is a Protestant. This is from an Anglican Church, but I'm aware that JKR is Presbyterian or Church of Scotland.

Frankly, I don't think Sirius is a stellar choice for Godfather, according to these guidelines. But what do I know? :huh: It is strange that Sirius would have been Baptised himself, since he comes from such a Slytherin/Dark Magic type of family - and also knowing his mother! Of course, perhaps some churches are more relaxed about that fact - I don't know.

http://www.holytrinitystcolumba.org.uk/godparen.htm
I think that Sirius was a great choice for a Godfather. Many of the guidelines that he broke were forces beyond his control, he couldn't have sent cards from Azkaban. He loved and cared for Harry, he was there to protect him, and he proved his loyalty when he went to the DoM that night. Good point though, and I like that you brought up what it requires to be a Godparent, good use of facts.

EDIT: Also, several of those guidelines seem to be to try to make the child that religion, I don't see Sirius as the type to try to make Harry feel like he has to be a member of a distinct church.

I think that Sirius was a great choice for a Godfather. Many of the guidelines that he broke were forces beyond his control, he couldn't have sent cards from Azkaban. He loved and cared for Harry, he was there to protect him, and he proved his loyalty when he went to the DoM that night. Good point though, and I like that you brought up what it requires to be a Godparent, good use of facts.

EDIT: Also, several of those guidelines seem to be to try to make the child that religion, I don't see Sirius as the type to try to make Harry feel like he has to be a member of a distinct church.

I'm glad you liked my post. :blush: I am sometimes a little confused about why JKR is inserting such a religious concept into the character of Sirius Black, except that she is writing about British culture, and the Church is part of that, and she wanted a way everyone would recognize for Sirius to be "related" to Harry, but not by "blood."

I'm glad you liked my post. :blush: I am sometimes a little confused about why JKR is inserting such a religious concept into the character of Sirius Black, except that she is writing about British culture, and the Church is part of that, and she wanted a way everyone would recognize for Sirius to be "related" to Harry, but not by "blood."
You're right, I don't picture Sirius as the super religious type, but you can be a Godparent without it being very religious. My brother and I were baptized under my father's religion, which has Godparents, and my brothers Godmother is our Grandmother (my moms mother) whom doesn't practice a religion that uses Godparents, I think that now Godparents can be more symbolic, showing that you trust said Godparent with the life of your child, which is most likely the most important thing to you. I like the idea that you had about JKR showing them related, but that they didn't have to be blood related.

:tu: I agree. The reason the Potters didn't leave Harry in the care of the Dursleys was because they wanted and trusted Sirius to act in Harry's best interest. They didn't leave that responsibility to Dumbledore or Molly. If they didn't leave it to DD, then why did he have Harry's vault key? Why did he have James' invisibility cloak? This planning seems to be normal estate planning in the event of a loved one dying...DD was part of the plan, just like Sirius was.If Sirius were never imprisoned, do you think Dumbledore would have placed Harry with the Durlseys? I think it's possible he may have tried, but I don't think it's very likely Sirius would let Harry stay with his aunt and uncle when James and Lily had trusted him to take on that responsibility.Sirius did let Harry stay with the Dursley's though. He could have argued with Hagrid, he could have followed Hagrid to Surrey and told DD no, as Harry's guardian--I am the only one who can decide Harry's fate. But he didn't do any of that, he chose vengeance, instead.
As for not leaving Harry with the Dursleys now, well-----he did. He let Harry stay at the Dursleys during summer holiday, not really having contact--other than to say, stay calm, don't do magic, we'll see ya soon...yada yada yada.
When Harry was facing the Hearing, he told Sirius he would not worry so much about it, if he knew that he could come and live with Sirius, his answer was a sad smile and a "We'll see."Dumbledore took on the plans to care for Harry because he thought Sirius was the spy and later that Peter was dead.I'm sorry, but I can't really agree with this statement. No one suspected Sirius of betraying the Potters until the day after they were murdered...POA, Marauder' Map. Harry was taken to the Dursleys before Padfoot caught Wormtail...and Sirius knew where Harry was going--he didn't stop it.
As for the kitchen scene...Snape and Sirius were both out of order, frankly reminded me of 2 year olds in need of a nap. Or teenage boys who are in desperate need of attitude adjustments. Sirius used Harry as an excuse to insult Snape, and Snape did the same...enough testosterone to sink a ship in.

If they didn't leave it to DD, then why did he have Harry's vault key? Why did he have James' invisibility cloak? This planning seems to be normal estate planning in the event of a loved one dying...DD was part of the plan, just like Sirius was.
Yes, Dumbledore was an important part, but if Lily and James wanted him to be Harry's guardian they would have bestowed those rights upon him legally, in the end they chose Sirius, because they obviously thought him to be the best choice.
Sirius did let Harry stay with the Dursley's though. He could have argued with Hagrid, he could have followed Hagrid to Surrey and told DD no, as Harry's guardian--I am the only one who can decide Harry's fate. But he didn't do any of that, he chose vengeance, instead.
Yes, but don't we all do things that we don't think about beforehand in times of rage? His best friend and his best friends wife had just been murderd, betrayed by the man that they called a friend, when you lose a loved one because of murder, it's easy to become distraught, and not think clearly.
As for not leaving Harry with the Dursleys now, well-----he did. He let Harry stay at the Dursleys during summer holiday, not really having contact--other than to say, stay calm, don't do magic, we'll see ya soon...yada yada yada.
When Harry was facing the Hearing, he told Sirius he would not worry so much about it, if he knew that he could come and live with Sirius, his answer was a sad smile and a "We'll see."
He knew that it was probably best for Harry to live with the Dursley's, because he wasn't a free man yet, I believe that although he wanted Harry to live with him, he did what he thought was best for Harry.

If they didn't leave it to DD, then why did he have Harry's vault key? Why did he have James' invisibility cloak? This planning seems to be normal estate planning in the event of a loved one dying...DD was part of the plan, just like Sirius was.

I said that the Potters didn't leave the responsibility of caring for Harry to Dumbledore. I don't understand why Dumbledore having James' invisibility cloak makes him equal with Sirius in terms of authority over Harry. Also, there are a number of ways Dumbledore could have gotten Harry's vault key. Considering the vault was for James and Lily, I doubt they passed along the key unless they knew they were about to die. It seems like something that could have been found in the ruined home of the Potters or at the abandoned Grimmauld Place.

Sirius did let Harry stay with the Dursley's though. He could have argued with Hagrid, he could have followed Hagrid to Surrey and told DD no, as Harry's guardian--I am the only one who can decide Harry's fate. But he didn't do any of that, he chose vengeance, instead.
As for not leaving Harry with the Dursleys now, well-----he did. He let Harry stay at the Dursleys during summer holiday, not really having contact--other than to say, stay calm, don't do magic, we'll see ya soon...yada yada yada.
When Harry was facing the Hearing, he told Sirius he would not worry so much about it, if he knew that he could come and live with Sirius, his answer was a sad smile and a "We'll see."

No, Sirius let Hagrid take Harry to the Dursley's. That isn't the same as letting him stay there. And at a time when Muggles would start gathering around and the primary concern was Harry's safety, arguing with someone like Hagrid would be a great excercise in pointlessness. Do you really think Sirius could have stopped Hagrid even if he wanted to? So he let Harry go for the time being and sought out Peter. Had Peter not framed Sirius, I doubt Sirius would have been content to stay out of Harry's life just because Dumbledore said so.

Yes, Sirius leaves Harry there now because he has no choice. After Sirius escaped from Azkaban and throughout Harry's third year, he was a wanted man and Harry knew nothing about their past. He couldn't have just showed up on Privet Drive and taken Harry then.

In Goblet of Fire, he was a fugitive in the eyes of the Ministry. Unless he was going to take Harry with him to the places he was hiding at or make Harry live in a cave with him, he had to let Harry stay with the Dursleys.

And over the past summer, he had to let Harry stay because Dumbledore wouln't let Harry leave. And I imagine that Sirius might know about the blood protection by now and knows that's another reason he can't take Harry away.

I don't think Sirius told Harry "we'll see" if Harry could stay with him because Sirius wants him to go back to Privet Drive. Sirius didn't want to get Harry's hopes up, and he didn't want to get his hopes up that Harry might be finally coming to live with him. Add to that the fact that Harry is still the one in the prophecy even if he isn't at school and Sirius might know about the blood protection, he has good reason to be cautious in his words to Harry. Even a Harry who doesn't attend Hogwarts needs the protection of his mother's blood.

I'm sorry, but I can't really agree with this statement. No one suspected Sirius of betraying the Potters until the day after they were murdered...POA, Marauder' Map. Harry was taken to the Dursleys before Padfoot caught Wormtail...and Sirius knew where Harry was going--he didn't stop it.
As for the kitchen scene...Snape and Sirius were both out of order, frankly reminded me of 2 year olds in need of a nap. Or teenage boys who are in desperate need of attitude adjustments. Sirius used Harry as an excuse to insult Snape, and Snape did the same...enough testosterone to sink a ship in.

I disagree. Dumbledore knew, or thought he knew, that Sirius was the Secret Keeper for the Potters. If they were dead, the only explanation would be that Sirius betrayed them. Therefore Dumbledore did think that Sirius had betrayed the Potters. It just may have taken the rest of the Wizarding World a little longer.

There's not much more to say about the kitchen scene. I think it's been discussed in enough circles.

Gah, I don't have the stamina to read through the three pages I've missed since yesterday just now, so I'll just respond to what I've read so far, and leave the rest for later. :)
That's my idea of how it happened. I believe that Snape is one of those people who are they're own worst enemy. I can picture him sneering to himself as he walks away from an argument in which he used “emotional manipulation” to find out the "truth" about the Willow from Sirius. And I can picture Sirius having a good laugh about tweaking Snape's overlarge nose and giving him a lesson in humility (that's probably how he saw it...luckily for Snape James didn't agree). Sirius may not hid his emotions but that can also be an impressive diversionary act...it gives the illusion of truthfulness, because of the emotion involved, and lets old Snape, who clearly believes that control of emotions is important, think that he has the upper hand. Snape walks away thinking that he has won when really Sirius's plan was to allow Snape the illusion of victory.
If that's how it happened, Snape must have felt extremely stupid afterwards. :lol: :tu:
I would hit the roof if any teacher treated my child the way Snape treats the kids. Snape is a terrible bully and a shocking teacher - he isn't just strict or a bit snarky, as JKR clearly states:
es, teachers in general deserve respect, but sadistic teachers who abuse their power should be held to account. Harry has been bullied all his life - first by Dudley and then by Snape. When Sirius tells Snape that Snape will have him to answer to if he uses the lessons to give Harry a hard time he will have him to answer to it is the first time in Harry's entire life that an adult has stood up for him and said he shouldn't be bullied. An adult making it clear that they will not tolerate a child being bullied is not in the least bit irresponsible, in my opinion.
It never ceases to amaze me what people think is "bullying" from a teacher. I've mentioned my friend before who has a son reminiscent of Dudley. She put him in a different school because the teacher at our school asked him to please stop "humming" out loud in class. I've known parents who were upset because their child was told to sit still, like all the other kids, and the parents really believed this was "cruel and unusual."
I'm with Shaggy here. Sorry, Silver. I agree that parents shouldn't be overprotective and complain about "bullying" for every little thing. However, what Snape does to Harry is not a little thing. He's well across the line, in my opinion.

Which is why it's all the more important that we Snape fans give him some counselling, eh? :p
Physical violence is only one form of bullying. As many, many survivors of bullying (including myself) can tell you verbal and emotional abuse can be just as bad as physical abuse.
Exactly. :clap:
Then why, when Sirius gives him the mirror, does Harry immediately think to himself that he won't use it?
I think because Harry is a person who does not ask for help. He never asks for help about anything. A good example is the Triwizard clues. He's completely stuck, but he won't ask for help, and he's reluctant to accept help when it's offered to him. Another example is when he's about to set off for the Department of Mysteries. He doesn't want any of the others to come with him, he' only lets them because they insist. Harry prefers to deal with things alone - which isn't always a good idea.

Yes, I think so. Even if his goal isn’t to start a fight, as Jaguarundi has me reconsidering, he is not backing down and is trying to show his dominance—that he is no longer the weak teenager who would allow the events in SWM to happen. I’d say that’s a “power play.”
Makes sense. :agree:
This reminded me of something. When Harry enters the kitchen, Snape and Sirius were both already there and staring in opposite directions. Sirius had a letter on the table in front of him. Presumably the letter was from Dumbledore, delivered by Snape?
I think the glaring in opposite directions shows that there's already been an argument before Harry comes in. Probably about whether Sirius should be there or not, since that's what they immediately pick up on again as soon as they start to speak.

I'm with Shaggy here. Sorry, Silver. I agree that parents shouldn't be overprotective and complain about "bullying" for every little thing. However, what Snape does to Harry is not a little thing. He's well across the line, in my opinion.
I think so as well, parents need to get involved over little things that won't really be detrimental to the child's well-being, but when their child is really getting bullied by a teacher, then the situation changes, while peers can bully students, it can be worse when an adult bullies you because you're taught to respect their opinions and that they are to be respected.
Which is why it's all the more important that we Snape fans give him some counselling, eh?
Of course!
I think because Harry is a person who does not ask for help. He never asks for help about anything. A good example is the Triwizard clues. He's completely stuck, but he won't ask for help, and he's reluctant to accept help when it's offered to him. Another example is when he's about to set off for the Department of Mysteries. He doesn't want any of the others to come with him, he' only lets them because they insist. Harry prefers to deal with things alone - which isn't always a good idea.
It's always good to be independent, but you need to get help once in a while. I think he's so independent because he's had to be pretty much his whole life, but back to the Marauders.

I think the glaring in opposite directions shows that there's already been an argument before Harry comes in. Probably about whether Sirius should be there or not, since that's what they immediately pick up on again as soon as they start to speak.
That would make sense as to the situation. :agree:

If they didn't leave it to DD, then why did he have Harry's vault key? Why did he have James' invisibility cloak? This planning seems to be normal estate planning in the event of a loved one dying...DD was part of the plan, just like Sirius was.Sirius did let Harry stay with the Dursley's though. He could have argued with Hagrid, he could have followed Hagrid to Surrey and told DD no, as Harry's guardian--I am the only one who can decide Harry's fate. But he didn't do any of that, he chose vengeance, instead.
As for not leaving Harry with the Dursleys now, well-----he did. He let Harry stay at the Dursleys during summer holiday, not really having contact--other than to say, stay calm, don't do magic, we'll see ya soon...yada yada yada.
When Harry was facing the Hearing, he told Sirius he would not worry so much about it, if he knew that he could come and live with Sirius, his answer was a sad smile and a "We'll see."I'm sorry, but I can't really agree with this statement. No one suspected Sirius of betraying the Potters until the day after they were murdered...POA, Marauder' Map. Harry was taken to the Dursleys before Padfoot caught Wormtail...and Sirius knew where Harry was going--he didn't stop it.


I totally agree, and I've said the same thing many times. Sirius made a choice. He could have gone with Hagrid, and stayed with godson Harry, and explained everything to Dumbledore. That was his chance to make things right. People often say that Sirius made his decision because he didn't want anyone else to die at Peter's hand. But twenty-something muggles died when Peter blew up the street! Plus, by running off like the Lone Ranger, Sirius didn't seem to be the innocent man that he was, so Dumbledore never got him out of jail. But he had a choice, as you say, and sought revenge over staying with Harry, and there were consequences for that.

We know from Dumbledore that there is a protective reason that he stays with the Dursleys. The reason Harry always had hope of living with Sirius goes back to Book 3, when Sirius brings up living with him out of the blue. I think that was one of those idealistic things that Sirius says without thinking about it too much. It is like - "this is James son - he should live with me." But giving Harry that hope without even knowing the situation was a bad idea. In PoA, Sirius immediately says that he never expected that Harry would want to live with him - he assumes that Harry is happy with his relatives. So does he really mean it? I don't think he understands the effect the offer has on Harry, and as Sirius discovers, he really doesn't have the power to give Harry a home until they are at Grimmauld Place.

At Grimmauld Place, Sirius is often sulky and stays in his room. Harry often feels guilty for wanting to go back to school. The whole thing is dysfunctional. I also don't understand why Sirius doesn't take the time to talk to Harry more about James and Lily, except that it is painful, so he avoids it. It is maddening to me that we learn more about the Black family tree than we do about Harry's.

No, Sirius let Hagrid take Harry to the Dursley's. That isn't the same as letting him stay there. And at a time when Muggles would start gathering around and the primary concern was Harry's safety, arguing with someone like Hagrid would be a great excercise in pointlessness. Do you really think Sirius could have stopped Hagrid even if he wanted to? So he let Harry go for the time being and sought out Peter. Had Peter not framed Sirius, I doubt Sirius would have been content to stay out of Harry's life just because Dumbledore said so.

That's right - Sirius let Hagrid go to the Dursleys because he didn't have his priorities straight! And he was acting as a lone wolf, instead of a member of the Order. He couldn't have stopped Hagrid, but he could have sent a message to Dumbledore and he could have gone with Hagrid. The very fact that Sirius told Hagrid to give him the baby FIRST means that he knew that should have been his priority, but he shrugged it off. He had such faith in his own abilities to "deal" with Peter, that he didn't have the presence of mind to ask for help from other Order members. That was a choice, and a mistake.

Yes, Sirius leaves Harry there now because he has no choice. After Sirius escaped from Azkaban and throughout Harry's third year, he was a wanted man and Harry knew nothing about their past. He couldn't have just showed up on Privet Drive and taken Harry then.

In Goblet of Fire, he was a fugitive in the eyes of the Ministry. Unless he was going to take Harry with him to the places he was hiding at or make Harry live in a cave with him, he had to let Harry stay with the Dursleys.

And over the past summer, he had to let Harry stay because Dumbledore wouln't let Harry leave. And I imagine that Sirius might know about the blood protection by now and knows that's another reason he can't take Harry away.

I don't think Sirius told Harry "we'll see" if Harry could stay with him because Sirius wants him to go back to Privet Drive. Sirius didn't want to get Harry's hopes up, and he didn't want to get his hopes up that Harry might be finally coming to live with him. Add to that the fact that Harry is still the one in the prophecy even if he isn't at school and Sirius might know about the blood protection, he has good reason to be cautious in his words to Harry. Even a Harry who doesn't attend Hogwarts needs the protection of his mother's blood.

But Sirius isn't cautious in PoA - he hardly knows the boy but offers to make a home for him. All well and good, only that does get Harry's hopes up. Later, Sirius finds out there is no choice, but he still says, "we'll see," instead of being totally honest. By then, Sirius had to know it would never happen.

Anyway, when Sirius does get a chance to live with Harry, they still don't spend enough time together, in my opinion.

I totally agree, and I've said the same thing many times. Sirius made a choice. He could have gone with Hagrid, and stayed with godson Harry, and explained everything to Dumbledore. That was his chance to make things right. People often say that Sirius made his decision because he didn't want anyone else to die at Peter's hand. But twenty-something muggles died when Peter blew up the street! Plus, by running off like the Lone Ranger, Sirius didn't seem to be the innocent man that he was, so Dumbledore never got him out of jail. But he had a choice, as you say, and sought revenge over staying with Harry, and there were consequences for that.

He would have stayed with Harry, but Hagrid took him to Dumbledore. Sirius knew that Harry would be safe with DD, so there was no reason stopping him going after Pettigrew. He was the only one who knew Peter was a DE; he had to go after Peter immediately, otherwise Peter could have escaped.

But Sirius isn't cautious in PoA - he hardly knows the boy but offers to make a home for him. All well and good, only that does get Harry's hopes up.

He could hardly have predicted that Peter would escape and he would have to go into hiding. He also couldn't have been expected to know about the blood protection. He had no reason not to get Harry's hopes up.

Sirius did let Harry stay with the Dursley's though. He could have argued with Hagrid, he could have followed Hagrid to Surrey and told DD no, as Harry's guardian--I am the only one who can decide Harry's fate. But he didn't do any of that, he chose vengeance, instead.


I know this is a fairly unpopular opinion here, but I agree with this. I can understand that Sirius may not have been emotionally "right" at the time due to the circumstances, but, when you have a child (whether it be your own, or one you are just responsible for), that child has to be the responsible adults first priority. Especially one as young as Harry.

Like I mentioned, I totally understand that Sirius was emotionally distraught, but baby Harry should have been his first priority. Part of me is speaking as a parent when I say that, and I understand that Sirius is not Harry's parent and basically had that responsibility thrust upon him in tragic circumstances, but the fact still remains that instead of accompanying Hagrid to DD with Harry, or at least making an attempt to contact DD regarding Harry and his "role" in the Potter's death, he was irresponsible and went seeking PP for revenge. Understandable to an extent, although I think a person who is responsible for a baby should be putting the need for revenge aside and taking care of the child. He knew Harry had no family (other than the Dursleys, and I can't help but think he has heard at least some unpleasant things from Lily and/or James about them), and that he was the one who was now responsible for that baby. I know he did what he thought was right at the time, but I don't think it was a good judgment call. :shrug:

To me, a perfect case scenario would have included Sirius speaking to Hagrid about what his plans for Harry were. I would have asked him to bring Harry and accompany me to speak to DD. He needs to keep in mind that he is the only "family" Harry really had at that point (not counting the Dursleys), and Harry's future rested in his hands at that moment. The choices Sirius made that day affected Harry's entire life to date. Had Sirius gone to DD and tried to straighten out what happened to the Potters and tell him that PP had been SK, there is a good chance that DD would have helped clear his name and he'd never have gone to Azkaban. If he had not gone to Azkaban, there is the chance that Harry would never have had to live with the Dursleys. I do understand there is the blood protection there, but I can't help but question if there was a way that Harry would have been allowed to be raised by Sirius and protected in another manner.

I think that was another impulisive choice Sirius made that cost both himself, and Harry dearly. I could compare that to his impulsiveness in going to the MoM. While I understand the need and concern to rescue Harry, more than likely he didn't stop to consider the consequences of his actions. By this time, he knows how miserable Harry is with the Dursleys, he also knows that LV has targeted Harry. Harry needs him more than ever. Had he not gone to the ministry that night, he'd still be alive and would be there for what Harry has to face in the near future.

His reckless choices, while probably well intentioned, have hurt Harry so much in so many ways, IMO.

atherella--Wow--excellent post; you perfectly articulated what I've thought, but I never thought of it that clearly, never mind expressed it that well. Can you hear my applause? : )

If Sirius were never imprisoned, do you think Dumbledore would have placed Harry with the Durlseys? I think it's possible he may have tried, but I don't think it's very likely Sirius would let Harry stay with his aunt and uncle when James and Lily had trusted him to take on that responsibility.

Dumbledore took on the plans to care for Harry because he thought Sirius was the spy and later that Peter was dead. To Dumbledore, there was no one left to provide adequate protection for Harry. He says that numerous families would have loved to take Harry in, but there was no way to be sure of Harry's well being once Voldemort returned, therefore he had to dwell in the house of his mother's blood. Actually, I think that's the very reason why I disagree: even if Sirius had not gone to prison after the Potters' died, the very need for Harry to dwell in the house of his mother's blood is the reason he would go to the Dursleys regardless of Sirius' guardianship; if Sirius had not gone to prison I think Harry still would have gone over to the Dursleys (reluctantly on Sirius' part, of course). Dumbledore also wanted Harry to grow up away from the Wizarding World until he had to attend Hogwarts, and he couldn't have done this if he was living with Sirius (unless Sirius decided to become a hermit).

It means alot to Harry that Sirius is his Godfather. However, it is almost weird to me that Sirius was never in Harry's life one day past the death of Harry's Parents, yet he springs himself from prison, and suddenly, voila - instant guardian.Why is that weird? He was in prison for twelve years, pretty much starting from the day after (or even the morning of) the Potters' deaths. :huh:


Harry's Christening / Sirius as Godfather
We keep assuming that there is an intensely religious component to Harry's Christening. I won't be silly enough to say that a Christening is not a Christian ceremony, but any time we see any sort of explicitly Christian related holidays or nomenclature, it's always secular in nature: Christmas is an excuse for a really great feast and some nice new jumpers, Easter is a good break between terms. As far as we see, no one in the books attends church, no one prays before meals, no one goes through confession and repentence (unless you consider detention to be repentence ;) :p). So while there have been obvious Christian holidays present in the books, they're not religious in tone.

I'm confused why JKR would suddenly start introducing actual practicing religion with the idea of Harry's Christening when she's been deliberate not to do so in all other cases.

We know from Dumbledore that there is a protective reason that he stays with the Dursleys. The reason Harry always had hope of living with Sirius goes back to Book 3, when Sirius brings up living with him out of the blue. I think that was one of those idealistic things that Sirius says without thinking about it too much. It is like - "this is James son - he should live with me." But giving Harry that hope without even knowing the situation was a bad idea. In PoA, Sirius immediately says that he never expected that Harry would want to live with him - he assumes that Harry is happy with his relatives. So does he really mean it? I don't think he understands the effect the offer has on Harry, and as Sirius discovers, he really doesn't have the power to give Harry a home until they are at Grimmauld Place.My interpretation is quite obviously the opposite of your own. What does Sirius know/think at the point when he offers Harry a home? He knows Harry is his godson, he knows that he is his guardian, he thinks (now that they've got Pettigrew) that he's going to have his name cleared, he thinks he'll be in the position to be a free man who can take on the responsibility of his godson. What doesn't Sirius know? Sirius doesn't know Harry very well at that point, having only met him an hour earlier (I really don't know how long it was, it's probably not an hour), and he doesn't know how badly the Dursleys treat Harry, thus he doesn't know how much it will mean to Harry to get away from them. One's first assumption when meeting one's godson after twelve years isn't "Hey, have your relatives been abusing you for the past twelve years?"

Sirius asks Harry if he'd want a different home, Harry says "What -- live with you? Leave the Dursleys?" If you don't know the Dursleys, if you don't know how they'd treated Harry, one could interpret Harry's statments to mean "Are you nuts? I love this family!" Thus, it's logical for Sirius then to say "Of course, I thought you wouldn't want to" -- he's covering up his disappointment that Harry wouldn't want to live with him, covering up the embarassment of having even suggested such a thing when Harry obviously already has a loving family to care for him. It's not an "out" so that Sirius can renege on his offer.

Please, let's remember what happens when Harry says he would love to live with Sirius:Sirius' gaunt face broke into the first true smile Harry had seen upon it. The difference it made was startling, as though a person ten years younger was shining through the starved mask; for a moment, he was recogniseable as the man who had laughed at Harry's parents' wedding.Does this sound like a man who doesn't actually mean it when he asks Harry to come live with him? :huh:

But Sirius isn't cautious in PoA - he hardly knows the boy but offers to make a home for him. All well and good, only that does get Harry's hopes up. Later, Sirius finds out there is no choice, but he still says, "we'll see," instead of being totally honest. By then, Sirius had to know it would never happen.Actually, since Harry has already been back to the Dursleys that summer, he could have stayed with Sirius for the length of the school year if he had been kicked out of school; "we'll" see is vague enough to cover a whole variety of reasons for not giving a straigh answer. "We'll see -- you probably won't get expelled so it's not something we need to worry about." "We'll see -- Dumbledore may have other plans if you get expelled." As Dumbledore says "You need return [to the Dursleys] only once a year, but as long as you can still call it home, whilst you are there he cannot hurt you." Harry stayed at the Dursleys for a month in OotP, and we know his stay is even shorter in HBP; the rest of the time Harry can apparently live wherever he wants, which would include Grimmauld Place with Sirius.

Anyway, when Sirius does get a chance to live with Harry, they still don't spend enough time together, in my opinion.Actually, there's a passage in there after Harry's trial where Sirius is moping around and it mentions that Sirius was spending less time with everyone, even Harry, which suggests that normally Sirius spends more time with Harry than anyone else. We may not be privy to their time spent together, but I don't think we get enough information about time spent at Grimmauld Place beyond cleaning to decide how they spend their leisure time.


Regarding what Sirius should have done the night the Potters died
Sirius gave baby Harry to Hagrid. He ensured his safety, he enabled Hagrid to deliver the baby to Dumbledore, the only one Voldemort ever feared. I'm confused why this doesn't seem to be part of the idea of putting Harry first. He could have gone with Hagrid, that I will grant those who don't hold this view, but let's also remember one other small thing: the plot. Without Sirius in prison, we lose a whole story arc of the books. Some things need to be chocked up to Plot Device, pure and simple.

I think that was another impulisive choice Sirius made that cost both himself, and Harry dearly. I could compare that to his impulsiveness in going to the MoM. While I understand the need and concern to rescue Harry, more than likely he didn't stop to consider the consequences of his actions. By this time, he knows how miserable Harry is with the Dursleys, he also knows that LV has targeted Harry. Harry needs him more than ever. Had he not gone to the ministry that night, he'd still be alive and would be there for what Harry has to face in the near future.A lot of the parents on this thread present this view on Sirius' decision to go to the DoM and I completely fail to understand it. Harry is in danger, Sirius as his godfather has gone to try and save his godchild. If your (general "your", not "your" as in "atherella") own child were in danger, would you hang back and not be reckless so that you can remain alive to help your child in the future? I don't even have children of my own, but I can't fathom not springing into action if I knew they were in mortal peril. Sirius is not psychic; he did not know what the outcome would be when he went to the DoM. He went, with the rest of the Order, to try and save Harry and his friends, and he died in the battle that ensued. Ultimately, in regards to the DoM, Sirius would be in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type situation. If he goes to the DoM, we say he's reckless; if he hangs back and stays at Grimmauld Place, we'd probably be saying he's a coward. He couldn't win in that situation.

subtle - Thanks! :D

Regarding what Sirius should have done the night the Potters died
Sirius gave baby Harry to Hagrid. He ensured his safety, he enabled Hagrid to deliver the baby to Dumbledore, the only one Voldemort ever feared. I'm confused why this doesn't seem to be part of the idea of putting Harry first. He could have gone with Hagrid, that I will grant those who don't hold this view, but let's also remember one other small thing: the plot. Without Sirius in prison, we lose a whole story arc of the books. Some things need to be chocked up to Plot Device, pure and simple.

Well sure, it's a plot device. But, since we are deconstrucing Sirius's character, it's not that impractical to analyze what we think should have been done. So, maybe we should all be thanking Sirius for giving us the HP storyline, since had he not gone to jail, we might not have had Harry's story as we know it now. (that's not sarcastic at all...honestly) :D

A lot of the parents on this thread present this view on Sirius' decision to go to the DoM and I completely fail to understand it. Harry is in danger, Sirius as his godfather has gone to try and save his godchild. If your (general "your", not "your" as in "atherella") own child were in danger, would you hang back and not be reckless so that you can remain alive to help your child in the future? I don't even have children of my own, but I can't fathom not springing into action if I knew they were in mortal peril. Sirius is not psychic; he did not know what the outcome would be when he went to the DoM. He went, with the rest of the Order, to try and save Harry and his friends, and he died in the battle that ensued. Ultimately, in regards to the DoM, Sirius would be in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type situation. If he goes to the DoM, we say he's reckless; if he hangs back and stays at Grimmauld Place, we'd probably be saying he's a coward. He couldn't win in that situation

Well, I guess I see this differently (surprise!) I would lay down my life for my son. I would put myself in front of a bullet, a train, a knife weilding psycho. I'd do anything for him. But, I've also been the one to raise and nurture him since the day he was born. I have always been responsible for my son. At the same time though, I also know that I am not the only family my son has. He has a huge, loving family who would be there to raise him should something happen to me. Basically, although Harry has a lot of people who love him, he has no "real" family. (The Dursleys don't count to me because they are not "loving" or nurturing. They are neglectful and abusive). And, I did call Sirius reckless for going, just as I would be reckless to throw myself in front of a train to save him.

This situation at the MoM is not typical of a parent/child relationship in any way. I'd compare the situation to a child being kidnapped. The FBI are handling the case. They are about to break into the house where the child is being held. The FBI are there to rescue your child and save him. They have on their bullet proof vest and whatever other tools they need. I would be a hindrance should I try to follow them into the house. I would not only be putting myself into danger and my son, I'd be putting all the cops in danger too since it was not my place to charge in there in the first place. DD had told Sirius he needed to stay put. While I really, really do understand his wanting to be there to rescue Harry because he loved him, there were a lot of responsible, talented people going to rescue Harry. Just like I shouldn't run into the house with the FBI to rescue my son, Sirius should have stayed back, no matter how difficult it was for him to do so. It isn't like there weren't other competent people going there after Harry.
I really can't think of a better way to describe this.



Godparents - I guess I just don't consider the term godparents to hold any religious meaning anymore. I know that it is originally a religious role, but these days, I often see atheists naming godparents for their children. They don't consider it to hold any religious significance, rather a special relationship with the child. Designated family, so to speak. These godparents are the ones the parents have chosen to bring up their children should anything happen to them. I know it has the word "god" in the title, but I wonder if that is just because the meaning of the term has broadened since it was first introduced? I guess in my own experience I've seen people termed "godparents" so many times without it holding religious signficance that I just don't consider it religious anymore. I consider it more an honor that parents have bestowed upon people that they want to have special meaning in their children's lives. :)

I know this is a fairly unpopular opinion here, but I agree with this. I can understand that Sirius may not have been emotionally "right" at the time due to the circumstances, but, when you have a child (whether it be your own, or one you are just responsible for), that child has to be the responsible adults first priority. Especially one as young as Harry.

Like I mentioned, I totally understand that Sirius was emotionally distraught, but baby Harry should have been his first priority. Part of me is speaking as a parent when I say that, and I understand that Sirius is not Harry's parent and basically had that responsibility thrust upon him in tragic circumstances, but the fact still remains that instead of accompanying Hagrid to DD with Harry, or at least making an attempt to contact DD regarding Harry and his "role" in the Potter's death, he was irresponsible and went seeking PP for revenge. Understandable to an extent, although I think a person who is responsible for a baby should be putting the need for revenge aside and taking care of the child. He knew Harry had no family (other than the Dursleys, and I can't help but think he has heard at least some unpleasant things from Lily and/or James about them), and that he was the one who was now responsible for that baby. I know he did what he thought was right at the time, but I don't think it was a good judgment call.

To me, a perfect case scenario would have included Sirius speaking to Hagrid about what his plans for Harry were. I would have asked him to bring Harry and accompany me to speak to DD. He needs to keep in mind that he is the only "family" Harry really had at that point (not counting the Dursleys), and Harry's future rested in his hands at that moment. The choices Sirius made that day affected Harry's entire life to date. Had Sirius gone to DD and tried to straighten out what happened to the Potters and tell him that PP had been SK, there is a good chance that DD would have helped clear his name and he'd never have gone to Azkaban. If he had not gone to Azkaban, there is the chance that Harry would never have had to live with the Dursleys. I do understand there is the blood protection there, but I can't help but question if there was a way that Harry would have been allowed to be raised by Sirius and protected in another manner.

I think that was another impulisive choice Sirius made that cost both himself, and Harry dearly. I could compare that to his impulsiveness in going to the MoM. While I understand the need and concern to rescue Harry, more than likely he didn't stop to consider the consequences of his actions. By this time, he knows how miserable Harry is with the Dursleys, he also knows that LV has targeted Harry. Harry needs him more than ever. Had he not gone to the ministry that night, he'd still be alive and would be there for what Harry has to face in the near future.

His reckless choices, while probably well intentioned, have hurt Harry so much in so many ways, IMO.

I disagree. Sirius did not make reckless choices. Baby Harry was perfectly safe. It was Sirius' duty, as Harry's godfather, to find the traitor responsible for the Potters' deaths. Sirius was the only person who knew that Peter was the traitor. After finding out that LV had been vanquished, Peter would have gone into hiding. The only way to catch Peter, would have been to get after him straight away. Sirius didn't have time to tell Dumbledore what happened. He had no reason to think that Pettigrew would frame him as a mass murderer. Sirius assumed he would get Peter, and then he could explain to Dumbledore.

This situation at the MoM is not typical of a parent/child relationship in any way. I'd compare the situation to a child being kidnapped. The FBI are handling the case. They are about to break into the house where the child is being held. The FBI are there to rescue your child and save him. They have on their bullet proof vest and whatever other tools they need. I would be a hindrance should I try to follow them into the house. I would not only be putting myself into danger and my son, I'd be putting all the cops in danger too since it was not my place to charge in there in the first place. DD had told Sirius he needed to stay put. While I really, really do understand his wanting to be there to rescue Harry because he loved him, there were a lot of responsible, talented people going to rescue Harry. Just like I shouldn't run into the house with the FBI to rescue my son, Sirius should have stayed back, no matter how difficult it was for him to do so. It isn't like there weren't other competent people going there after Harry.
I really can't think of a better way to describe this.

I think Sirius was certainly not a bad dueller. He was more than a match for Bella (she just got lucky). Kingsley didn't even survive against her for 10 seconds. Sirius was a member of the order; he was an FBI agent (or the equivalent). Are you sure that the others would have survived if Sirius wasn't there? Bellatrix was clearly out of the others' leagues. If Sirius hadn't been there to hold her off, how many of them would she have killed?

Godparents - I guess I just don't consider the term godparents to hold any religious meaning anymore. I know that it is originally a religious role, but these days, I often see atheists naming godparents for their children. They don't consider it to hold any religious significance, rather a special relationship with the child. Designated family, so to speak. These godparents are the ones the parents have chosen to bring up their children should anything happen to them. I know it has the word "god" in the title, but I wonder if that is just because the meaning of the term has broadened since it was first introduced? I guess in my own experience I've seen people termed "godparents" so many times without it holding religious signficance that I just don't consider it religious anymore. I consider it more an honor that parents have bestowed upon people that they want to have special meaning in their children's lives.

This at least we agree on :tu:

I disagree. Sirius did not make reckless choices. Baby Harry was perfectly safe. It was Sirius' duty, as Harry's godfather, to find the traitor responsible for the Potters' deaths. Sirius was the only person who knew that Peter was the traitor. After finding out that LV had been vanquished, Peter would have gone into hiding. The only way to catch Peter, would have been to get after him straight away. Sirius didn't have time to tell Dumbledore what happened. He had no reason to think that Pettigrew would frame him as a mass murderer. Sirius assumed he would get Peter, and then he could explain to Dumbledore.

I don't mind agreeing to disagree. Like I said, I know it's an unpopular opinion here. Doesn't stop me from feeling that way though. :D

I work in the law and just don't approve of the vigilante approach. While I understand the desire to extract revenge, or take the law into your own hands, I don't think it is right. Sirius could have went to DD and told him the story. He would then not be the lone person responsible for tracking down the person to betray the Potters, and he would have DD and all his resources backing him. DD was very influential over Fudge in those days. It has only been recently that Fudge stopped listening to DD. Matter of fact, the books told us that Fudge used to contact him daily about how to handle different circumstances. With DD and the ministry backing Sirius, PP would have been in a lot more danger of being caught, IMO. :)



I think Sirius was certainly not a bad dueller. He was more than a match for Bella (she just got lucky). Kingsley didn't even survive against her for 10 seconds. Sirius was a member of the order; he was an FBI agent (or the equivalent). Are you sure that the others would have survived if Sirius wasn't there? Bellatrix was clearly out of the others' leagues. If Sirius hadn't been there to hold her off, how many of them would she have killed?

I don't think I suggested Sirius was a bad dueler, only that there were others there that were capable of rescuing Harry. Of course, we won't ever know if the others would have survived, but had Sirius not gone, he'd havesurvived and Harry would still have his godfather was my only point. :)

Well sure, it's a plot device. But, since we are deconstrucing Sirius's character, it's not that impractical to analyze what we think should have been done. So, maybe we should all be thanking Sirius for giving us the HP storyline, since had he not gone to jail, we might not have had Harry's story as we know it now. (that's not sarcastic at all...honestly) :DHeh, yeah, Sirius deserves thanks for something, surely! :lol:

Well, I guess I see this differently (surprise!) I would lay down my life for my son. I would put myself in front of a bullet, a train, a knife weilding psycho. I'd do anything for him. But, I've also been the one to raise and nurture him since the day he was born. I have always been responsible for my son. At the same time though, I also know that I am not the only family my son has. He has a huge, loving family who would be there to raise him should something happen to me. Basically, although Harry has a lot of people who love him, he has no "real" family. (The Dursleys don't count to me because they are not "loving" or nurturing. They are neglectful and abusive). And, I did call Sirius reckless for going, just as I would be reckless to throw myself in front of a train to save him. I don't know, I would argue that the extended group of people who love Harry would be considered his "family". Now, I know it only happens in the PS/SS movie, but I think it holds true for the books as well: at the end of the film Hermione says "It feels good to be going home" and Harry says "I'm not really going home." Hogwarts and the larger wizarding world are his home, and those he surrounds himself with are his family. And it's not just with Harry that this happens: when Molly starts to fret over the possibility of she and Arthur dying in the war, Lupin tells her "As for who's going to look after Ron and Ginny if you and Arthur died, what do you think we'd do, let them starve?" There is a larger non-bloodline related familial network present in the books, especially in OotP. Now that Sirius is dead, there is a whole host of people who are willing to love and care for Harry (well, they were willing to do that prior to Sirius' death as well, of course), just as any extended family would. I mean, I of all people would prefer that Sirius wasn't dead :rolleyes:, but I don't think it leaves Harry in a huge lurch.*

* Obviously Sirius' death will take a huge emotional toll on Harry, but what I mean is that Harry does have a very good support system around him and he'll get through it.

This situation at the MoM is not typical of a parent/child relationship in any way. I'd compare the situation to a child being kidnapped. The FBI are handling the case. They are about to break into the house where the child is being held. The FBI are there to rescue your child and save him. They have on their bullet proof vest and whatever other tools they need. I would be a hindrance should I try to follow them into the house. I would not only be putting myself into danger and my son, I'd be putting all the cops in danger too since it was not my place to charge in there in the first place. DD had told Sirius he needed to stay put. While I really, really do understand his wanting to be there to rescue Harry because he loved him, there were a lot of responsible, talented people going to rescue Harry. Just like I shouldn't run into the house with the FBI to rescue my son, Sirius should have stayed back, no matter how difficult it was for him to do so. It isn't like there weren't other competent people going there after Harry. I've always thought of the Aurors to be the equivalent of the FBI: they're the elite defense squad that deals with really important cases like escaped convicts or catching dark wizards, etc. Regardless of that, though, if we're making a parallel between the FBI and the Order ... Sirius is a member of the Order, is he not? I understand that if you were on the FBI and your son was kidnapped, you would most likely not be assigned that case (mental anguish, etc.), but at the same time Sirius' actions in the DoM don't ever hinder anyone's abilities to rescue Harry and his own mental anguish at Harry's predicament seems to only assist him in fighting strongly against the Death Eaters. Sirius duels with various Death Eaters to keep them distracted from the kids (namely Harry), physically shoves Dolohov out of the way to prevent him from accioing the prophecy, and cuts Bellatrix off so Harry and Neville can escape. Sirius presence wasn't a detriment to the events that occured, if anything the Order desperately needed an extra set of hands to keep all the Death Eaters at bay, especially considering how many of the Order members when down in the fight.

To step back and look at it abstractly--as part of the plot devices--Sirius' decisions when the Potters died and when Harry was in the Ministry illustrate the theme of choices. As Dumbledore says, there are many threads that both contribute to and result from decisions. What Sirius chooses to do perfectly demonstrate the power and ramifications of a single decision in one moment--the dominoes start toppling in all directions.

good heavens, atherella--excellent again. Now I'm just going to bow. (By the way, I made much reference to your previous post over on Dev of Sev, as it both related to some ideas being tossed around there and also kickstarted a couple of other related ideas for me--thanks!)

I work in the law and just don't approve of the vigilante approach. While I understand the desire to extract revenge, or take the law into your own hands, I don't think it is right. Sirius could have went to DD and told him the story. He would then not be the lone person responsible for tracking down the person to betray the Potters, and he would have DD and all his resources backing him. DD was very influential over Fudge in those days. It has only been recently that Fudge stopped listening to DD. Matter of fact, the books told us that Fudge used to contact him daily about how to handle different circumstances. With DD and the ministry backing Sirius, PP would have been in a lot more danger of being caught, IMO. :)This makes me wonder, actually, what exactly the function of the Order was during Vold War I. Presumably the Ministry knew what was going on and they had Aurors out and about trying to catch Death Eaters. Why have the Order? It makes sense in the present timeline considering everyone refused to believe Voldemort was back, but not so much back then. Part of the current Order's mandate is to keep track of Death Eaters, follow their movements, find out what they're doing, etc. Was this what Sirius was doing the night of the Potters' deaths, i.e. following and keeping track of a Death Eater? We don't know that his immediate intention was to kill Peter, and like in other situations, he certainly had the means and opportunity to do so and yet didn't. Is it vigilante justice if he was just trying to catch up to Peter in order to confront him?

I'll have to catch up on the rest in about a half hour or so...my nurse is due to arrive any minute (:rolleyes: ), so rather than get stuck mid-post, I'll just leave this for now.

Is it vigilante justice if he was just trying to catch up to Peter in order to confront him?

Do any of us really believe he only wanted to confront Peter the day after the Potters were killed? Honestly?

And subtle -- thanks again. I'm starting to blush over here. :blush:
Which thread was that, maybe I'll go check it out. :)

atherella--The Development of Snape's Character Through OotP (aka, Dev of Sev)

According to Dumbledore at the end of OotP, three Aurors (Tonks, Shacklebolt, and Moody) plus Lupin were going to the MoM on Snape's information. This is a random, very minor aside: that grouping always made me re-consider the role of Lupin--Who is he? I suppose one could just say that, well, he was in the house and he's an Order member and he's a DADA expert, blah, blah, etc., etc. But I just find it intriguing that he's grouped with the Aurors................

Like I mentioned, I totally understand that Sirius was emotionally distraught, but baby Harry should have been his first priority. Part of me is speaking as a parent when I say that, and I understand that Sirius is not Harry's parent and basically had that responsibility thrust upon him in tragic circumstances, but the fact still remains that instead of accompanying Hagrid to DD with Harry, or at least making an attempt to contact DD regarding Harry and his "role" in the Potter's death, he was irresponsible and went seeking PP for revenge. Understandable to an extent, although I think a person who is responsible for a baby should be putting the need for revenge aside and taking care of the child. He knew Harry had no family (other than the Dursleys, and I can't help but think he has heard at least some unpleasant things from Lily and/or James about them), and that he was the one who was now responsible for that baby. I know he did what he thought was right at the time, but I don't think it was a good judgment call. :shrug:

That is exactly how I feel!

I think that was another impulisive choice Sirius made that cost both himself, and Harry dearly. I could compare that to his impulsiveness in going to the MoM. While I understand the need and concern to rescue Harry, more than likely he didn't stop to consider the consequences of his actions. By this time, he knows how miserable Harry is with the Dursleys, he also knows that LV has targeted Harry. Harry needs him more than ever. Had he not gone to the ministry that night, he'd still be alive and would be there for what Harry has to face in the near future.

His reckless choices, while probably well intentioned, have hurt Harry so much in so many ways, IMO.

That's right! We can't have it both ways - that choices make us what we are, as Dumbledore plainly says - or that you "have no choice," yet that is the argument given about Sirius chasing Peter. No, I just don't accept that Sirius "had no choice."

Look at it this way. A godparent is a "substitute parent," or a "future adoptive parent." If Sirius had been Harry's father and come home to find the house blown up and someone else taking the child out of the ruins, he would have devastated, yes - but he would have stayed with Harry, no doubt in my mind.

Godparents - I guess I just don't consider the term godparents to hold any religious meaning anymore. I know that it is originally a religious role, but these days, I often see atheists naming godparents for their children.

I've never heard of that! :rolleyes: That seems like the height of hypocrisy. How can you have a Christening if you are an atheist? I guess that is just the price of conformity - people go through the motions of things without even understanding what they mean anymore. It is a social thing.

They don't consider it to hold any religious significance, rather a special relationship with the child. Designated family, so to speak. These godparents are the ones the parents have chosen to bring up their children should anything happen to them. I know it has the word "god" in the title, but I wonder if that is just because the meaning of the term has broadened since it was first introduced? I guess in my own experience I've seen people termed "godparents" so many times without it holding religious signficance that I just don't consider it religious anymore. I consider it more an honor that parents have bestowed upon people that they want to have special meaning in their children's lives

Yeah, but JKR said that Harry was, indeed, Christened, and that they had to hurry to do it before they went into hiding. Why bother, if it isn't religious? It devalues the whole thing, if you ask me. A Christening is a baptism, and if it was done in a Church, which I think it was, then it was religious.

And while many things in these books are certainly secular, including parts of Christmas and Easter, she hasn't removed them altogether, which is significant. She could have been really Politically Correct and called Christmas "winter holidays," and Easter, "Spring Break," but she doesn't do that.

I'm really not as religiously conservative as I sound - OMG! And believe me, it surprises me that JKR has taken this route also, as I said in a previous post. Why introduce all these ideas and even talk about them in interviews? :huh:

It reminds me alot of C. S. Lewis, who loved to write stories with pagans, satyrs, dwarves, giants, foreign lands, other planets, etc, but was telling it all from a Christian perspective. She has mentioned Lewis before, and I think his style is sort of her model. I really find it rather brave of her.

Originally Posted by silver ink pot
It means alot to Harry that Sirius is his Godfather. However, it is almost weird to me that Sirius was never in Harry's life one day past the death of Harry's Parents, yet he springs himself from prison, and suddenly, voila - instant guardian.
Why is that weird? He was in prison for twelve years, pretty much starting from the day after (or even the morning of) the Potters' deaths.
It's weird for a number of reasons. His absence makes him a "godfather" in name only, despite all the sentimentalism about his "attachment" to Harry. He's been out of the picture. Then he is a wanted man, and in one night, he becomes Harry's best friend/uncle/brother/ father-figure/legal guardian.

I guess I'm weird, too, but I think there is more to parenting than coming "on-stage" after 12 years. Petunia is a horrible "mother-figure," but, she was "there." Anyone who's ever been a parent knows there are times when we are all just "here," and while it is often unrewarding, it is better than being "absent."

I'm not condoning the treatment of Harry by the Dursleys in any way! I hate Vernon, but Sirius made choices that rendered him "absent." You can blame Peter all you want to, but in the end, he escaped anyway, so the whole chase was pointless, and even more innocent people died. Just pointless.

I disagree. Sirius did not make reckless choices. Baby Harry was perfectly safe. It was Sirius' duty, as Harry's godfather, to find the traitor responsible for the Potters' deaths. Sirius was the only person who knew that Peter was the traitor.

As Godfather, it wasn't his "duty" to avenge the Potter's deaths. It was his duty, his "sworn duty" to take care of Harry, not hand him off to the first person he saw! And the reason no one knew about Peter is because Sirius never told anyone - another bad choice!

This whole debate has me thinking that Harry probably has two legal guardians...Sirius and Dumbledore. It was Dumbledore that put Harry at the Dursleys and makes sure that he returns there every year. And honestly if Dumbledore didn't want Harry to go to Hogsmeade then Sirius’s signature wasn't going to do anything. Dumbledore could have let Harry go to Hogsmeade but didn't until he knew Sirius wasn't risk (and to reward Harry for a mission accomplished).

Regarding the whole godparents...I'm Catholic and I do have godparents (I believe they're my aunt and uncle) but I couldn't name which aunt and uncle they are :rotfl: . They never do anything with me because I'm there godchild so to me it doesn't seem like a big deal. If my parents had died, injured, etc I think my grandparents would have looked after us and had legal guardianship. Although this doesn't really matter since I'm over 18 now and if anything happened to my parents my brother and I would look after our younger brothers.

Do any of us really believe he only wanted to confront Peter the day after the Potters were killed? Honestly?Yes, actually. There is so little known about that night and that moment that I can hardly see how we can accept as cold hard fact that Sirius Only Intention Was To Kill Pettigrew. I can't remember what version it was in where we picked the scene apart, but Sirius is given ample opportunity to kill Peter and it doesn't happen. I am a strong believer in Peter's hidden magical talent and skills, but I don't believe for a second that his duelling skills are any match for Sirius Black's (witness: his skills against the Death Eaters in the DoM, fourteen years of rustiness present in his wandmanship, and he still outduels most of them). Peter gives his little framing speech (Lily! James! How could you, Sirius? Blah blah!), during which Sirius could have killed him. He didn't. Peter then beats him to the punch in delivering a death-inducing spell? How is this possible unless Sirius didn't have his wand ready? Sirius says in PoA that he meant to kill Peter, and after thinking about it after twelve years rotting in prison after being framed by Peter he may very well have believed that. But this doesn't give us a snapshot of what Sirius was thinking at the time, only what he currently thinks he thought at the time, which may or may not be the same thing.

Yeah, but JKR said that Harry was, indeed, Christened, and that they had to hurry to do it before they went into hiding. Why bother, if it isn't religious? It devalues the whole thing, if you ask me. A Christening is a baptism, and if it was done in a Church, which I think it was, then it was religious.I guess my interpretation of if it is that the Christening is important in terms of making Sirius the godfather, not that it was important in terms of a religious event. Why was it necessary for Sirius to be the godfather? The most basic argument I've heard is that it sets Sirius apart from everyone else, including Lupin, to give him a more legitimate closer relationship with Harry: he's not just "James' Best Friend" anymore, he's The Godfather. (I'll have to redo my Don-Voldemorto pic with Sirius' head instead, and in talking about asking Harry to come live with him it will say "He made Harry Potter an offer he couldn't refuse. :p) For me, that's not enough. What's the point of having a godfather without any further extension of that? JKR says Sirius had to die for a reason, and we'll find out what that reason is. My own personal preference is that the Christening provided a magical bond of protection between Harry and Sirius; now that Sirius is gone, that protection is gone. Harry is having layers of protection stripped away each book, and I'm beginning to suspect this is another one.

Actually, when looking up some other stuff, I found something interesting today. Dumbledore is explaining the prophecy and the blood protection to Harry: "You need return there only once a year, but as long as you can still call it home, whilst you are there he cannot hurt you. Your aunt knows this. I explained whta I had done in the letter I left, with you, on her doorstep. She knows that allowing you houseroom may well have kept you alive for the past fifteen years."

"Wait," said Harry. "Wait a moment."

He sat up straighter in his chair, staring at Dumbledore.

"You sent that Howler. You told her to remember -- it was your voice --"

"I thought," said Dumbledore, inclining his head slightly, "that she might need reminding of the pact she had sealed by taking you. I suspected that the Dementor attack might have awoken her to the dangers of having you as a surrogate son."

"It did," said Harry quietly. "Well -- my uncle more than her. He wanted to chuck me out, but after the Howler came she -- she said I had to stay."

He stared at the floor for a moment, then said, "But what's this got to do with --"

He could not say Sirius's name.

"Five years ago, then," continued Dumbledore, as though he had not paused in his story, "you arrived at Hogwarts, neither as happy nor as well-nourished as I would have liked, perhaps, yet alive and healthy..."Lots of talk about blood protection, magical bonds, guardianship, etc. Harry brings up Sirius (he does not say his name, although I suspect Dumbledore knew exactly what he was talking about) and Dumbledore completely ignores it and keeps talking. And we all know that when someone says something that gets cut off like that, something more important is hidden in the answer. What does Sirius have to do with blood protection and magical bonds and guardianship? I don't know, but this is an odd scene.

It's weird for a number of reasons. His absence makes him a "godfather" in name only, despite all the sentimentalism about his "attachment" to Harry. He's been out of the picture. Then he is a wanted man, and in one night, he becomes Harry's best friend/uncle/brother/ father-figure/legal guardian.

I guess I'm weird, too, but I think there is more to parenting than coming "on-stage" after 12 years. Petunia is a horrible "mother-figure," but, she was "there." Anyone who's ever been a parent knows there are times when we are all just "here," and while it is often unrewarding, it is better than being "absent." Well of course there's more to being a parent than suddenly showing up after twelve years, but he wasn't absent by choice. Yes, he did choose to go after Peter, but he certainly didn't choose to get framed by him! Unlike Petunia or Molly or any other number of parents, Sirius has never been in a position where he can parent effectively. He's either on the run or in hiding or having his authority usurped by any number of mollycoddling meddling people :evil:. I'd say given what he had to work with he did a pretty decent job.

As Godfather, it wasn't his "duty" to avenge the Potter's deaths. It was his duty, his "sworn duty" to take care of Harry, not hand him off to the first person he saw! And the reason no one knew about Peter is because Sirius never told anyone - another bad choice!Sirius didn't "hand off" Harry to the first person he saw; he was reluctant to give him up to Hagrid! As Hagrid tells it: " An' then he says, 'Give Herry ter me, Hagrid, I'm his godfather, I'll look after him --'. " I'm actually of the mindset that if Hagrid had let Sirius take Harry, Sirius would never have gone after Pettigrew. Also, let's lump Lily and James in there with Sirius as people who made bad choices, since they never told anyone who the Secret Keeper was either, especially considering that Peter was their Secret Keeper, not Sirius'.

I've never heard of that! :rolleyes: That seems like the height of hypocrisy. How can you have a Christening if you are an atheist? I guess that is just the price of conformity - people go through the motions of things without even understanding what they mean anymore. It is a social thing.

The people I mentioned that name godparents, but aren't Christians, don't have a Christening, or any other type of ceremony. They simply name "godparents" to their children. :shrug:

Anyhow, back to my nurse who seems ready to put down her paperwork. :td:

Regarding what Sirius should have done the night the Potters died
Sirius gave baby Harry to Hagrid. He ensured his safety, he enabled Hagrid to deliver the baby to Dumbledore, the only one Voldemort ever feared. I'm confused why this doesn't seem to be part of the idea of putting Harry first. :tu: It is clear to me that Harry was Sirius' first priority that night. The very first thing he did when he arrived at Godric's Hollow was to ensure that Harry was taken to a place of safety. This is entirely responsible and obviously the right thing to do.

I don't agree that by going after Peter Sirius was prioritising revenge over Harry's welfare. Based on the information that Sirius had at that point, Peter posed a severe and immediate danger to Harry. Sirius didn't know at that point that Voldemort had been almost destroyed that night and he didn't know how Harry had survived - what he did know was that Peter had taken part in an attempt on Harry's life and was still at large. Sirius had every reason to believe that Peter would make another attempt on Harry's life, or assist Voldemort to do so. The only things Sirius could do to protect Harry were a) send him to a place of safety (which he did), and b) apprehend the person who was most likely to kill Harry (which he attempted to do).
Originally posted by grrliz
A lot of the parents on this thread present this view on Sirius' decision to go to the DoM and I completely fail to understand it.Heh I'm a parent and I don't understand it either! I would have done exactly the same as Sirius and I honestly don't understand anyone who wouldn't - there is no risk or danger I would hang back from if my daughter was in mortal peril. Come to that, I would do the same for anyone I loved.

I don't see that Sirius had any real choice - for me that impulse to go to the aid of someone you love when they are in danger, regardless of the risks you might face is overwhelming. Nothing else makes any sense to me.
Originally posted by grrliz
Sirius is not psychic; he did not know what the outcome would be when he went to the DoM. I agree and, furthermore, we don't know what the outcome would have been if Sirius hadn't been there. Including Sirius there were only five Order members battling with six Death Eaters (Malfoy, Bellatrix, MacNair, Dolohov, Rookwood and one unnamed). Without Sirius the Order would have been seriously outnumbered and the outcome of the battle might have been much worse. If Sirius hadn't taken out the unnamed Death Eater, helped Harry take out Dolohov and kept Bellatrix occupied while Harry and Neville tried to escape, any one of them might have killed Harry. Sirius would still have been alive if he had stayed at Grimmauld Place but we just don't know that the outcome would have been better overall if Sirius had stayed behind. Given how much he contributed in the battle, it is likely that other people could have died.

I think it is odd that on this thread Sirius has been accused of making grand empty statements ('you should have died rather than betray your friends, as we would have done for you', 'some things are worth dying for') yet when he demonstrates beyond all doubt how sincere he is, he is accused of being reckless. :huh:
Originally posted by atherella
Just like I shouldn't run into the house with the FBI to rescue my son, Sirius should have stayed back, no matter how difficult it was for him to do so. It isn't like there weren't other competent people going there after Harry. The difference is, you aren't an FBI agent and in that situation the average parent isn't a competent person because they don't have the relevant skills.

An easier comparison for me would be a boating accident. Let's imagine that a boat containing several children has capsized in rough waters. There are some life guards around, but no-one can be sure if they will be able to rescue all the kids. If a parent* is watching they will doubtless want to intervene - whether or not it is a good idea for them to do so depends on whether or not they will be any use. If they are poor swimmers they should hold back because they might drown and would impede the rescue mission. If they are an excellent swimmer with several life-saving badges under their belt then it would be right for them to get involved, as they can help the rescue mission.

In the MoM battle, Sirius falls into the latter part of my analogy - he is a competent person - a powerful wizard who is good at duelling. If he had nothing to offer it might have been better for him to stay behind, but it was right for him to go because he could, and did, do something.

(* I keep saying 'parent', but really it could be anyone who loves someone - I'm sure non-parents can think of people they would risk their own lives for - we parents don't have the monopoly on love!)

Nice post Shaggy :tu:

I'm not condoning the treatment of Harry by the Dursleys in any way! I hate Vernon, but Sirius made choices that rendered him "absent." You can blame Peter all you want to, but in the end, he escaped anyway, so the whole chase was pointless, and even more innocent people died. Just pointless.

You can't blame Sirius for being "absent". That's like blaming James and Lily for making Harry an orphan.


As Godfather, it wasn't his "duty" to avenge the Potter's deaths. It was his duty, his "sworn duty" to take care of Harry, not hand him off to the first person he saw! And the reason no one knew about Peter is because Sirius never told anyone - another bad choice!

POA p154 UK Ed.

An' then he says, "Give Harry ter me, Hagrid, I'm his godfather, I'll look after him -" Ha! But I'd had me orders from Dumbledore, an' I told Black no, Dumbledore said Harry was ter go ter his aun an' uncle's. Black argued, but in the end he gave in.

I don't think 'hand him off to the first person he saw' is an accurate description of what happened.

:tu: It is clear to me that Harry was Sirius' first priority that night. The very first thing he did when he arrived at Godric's Hollow was to ensure that Harry was taken to a place of safety. This is entirely responsible and obviously the right thing to do.

In my opinion, he let someone else take care of Harry while he did something else which led to disaster. What is the better thing to do? What would have had the better outcome?

I don't agree that by going after Peter Sirius was prioritising revenge over Harry's welfare. Based on the information that Sirius had at that point, Peter posed a severe and immediate danger to Harry. Sirius didn't know at that point that Voldemort had been almost destroyed that night and he didn't know how Harry had survived - what he did know was that Peter had taken part in an attempt on Harry's life and was still at large.

If he was that worried about Harry, why let him fly away with Hagrid? Peter could have followed Hagrid, you know?

The reason Sirius didn't know Voldemort was vanquished was because he didn't take the time to find out anything from Dumbledore.

Sirius had every reason to believe that Peter would make another attempt on Harry's life, or assist Voldemort to do so. The only things Sirius could do to protect Harry were a) send him to a place of safety (which he did), and b) apprehend the person who was most likely to kill Harry (which he attempted to do).

Or c)stay with Harry and protect him in case of an attack. If my child is in danger, I'm not going to leave him/her with a babysitter while I go out stalking the killer. Meanwhile, the killer could be breaking into the babysitter's house, for all I know.

I don't see that Sirius had any real choice - for me that impulse to go to the aid of someone you love when they are in danger, regardless of the risks you might face is overwhelming. Nothing else makes any sense to me.

Everyone has a choice. It is the choice between what is hard and what is easy. It is an easy choice to defend people. It is much more difficult to be patient and "stay-put" even when it is in Harry's best interest.


I agree and, furthermore, we don't know what the outcome would have been if Sirius hadn't been there. Including Sirius there were only five Order members battling with six Death Eaters (Malfoy, Bellatrix, MacNair, Dolohov, Rookwood and one unnamed). Without Sirius the Order would have been seriously outnumbered and the outcome of the battle might have been much worse. If Sirius hadn't taken out the unnamed Death Eater, helped Harry take out Dolohov and kept Bellatrix occupied while Harry and Neville tried to escape, any one of them might have killed Harry. Sirius would still have been alive if he had stayed at Grimmauld Place but we just don't know that the outcome would have been better overall if Sirius had stayed behind. Given how much he contributed in the battle, it is likely that other people could have died.

Maybe - there are certainly alot of variables about the DoM. But I might point out that the fighting had nearly stopped when Sirius kept dueling with Bella. Plus, Dumbledore was already there, so Harry was safe, but Sirius kept on fighting.

I think it is odd that on this thread Sirius has been accused of making grand empty statements ('you should have died rather than betray your friends, as we would have done for you', 'some things are worth dying for') yet when he demonstrates beyond all doubt how sincere he is, he is accused of being reckless. :huh:

That's because Sirius sees everything in terms of "life or death." There is no in-between. Either he is on the edge of death, or he is bored. If he is bored, he is looking for something risky to do, or for Harry to do. It is an extremist view - either life, or death. It is never - "quiet life over risky death."

Here is the way I look at it. Sirius sees things "worth dying for." He doesn't see that it is just as important to find things "worth living for."


The difference is, you aren't an FBI agent and in that situation the average parent isn't a competent person because they don't have the relevant skills.

I wasn't aware that Sirius was an FBI agent, or even an Auror?


In the MoM battle, Sirius falls into the latter part of my analogy - he is a competent person - a powerful wizard who is good at duelling. If he had nothing to offer it might have been better for him to stay behind, but it was right for him to go because he could, and did, do something.

Well, Sirius hasn't done much dueling in about 12 years. Has he practiced with Lupin? Maybe, but we don't know. He seems to be enjoying the challenge at the DoM, anyway.

That's right! We can't have it both ways - that choices make us what we are, as Dumbledore plainly says.But the intention behind the choice is as important as the outcome. Just because a choice leads to (unforeseen) bad outcomes, doesn't mean the person making it was wrong to do so. If it did, Sirius' 'worst' choice would be sparing Peter's life as killing Peter would have prevented Voldemort's resurrection and the deaths of Cedric Diggory, Bertha Jorkins, Frank Bryce, Broderick Bode and Sirius himself.
Originally posted by SIP
Yeah, but JKR said that Harry was, indeed, Christened, and that they had to hurry to do it before they went into hiding. Why bother, if it isn't religious? It devalues the whole thing, if you ask me. A Christening is a baptism, and if it was done in a Church, which I think it was, then it was religious.I agree with grrliz that Sirius being made Harry's godfather probably has magical connotations, as well as formalising his role. Christian ideas about what a godparent does vary between denominations and individual churchgoers, but the notion of guardianship on some level or other is pretty much universal. It makes sense to me that their would be a magical element to this guardianship in the wizarding world.
Originally posted by SIP
She has mentioned Lewis before, and I think his style is sort of her model. I really find it rather brave of her.I think JKR said somewhere that she wants the Christian themes in HP to be more subtle than Lewis's, but they probably are there. I think it is possible that she is using the Christian ideals of a godparent - someone who guides, protects and cares for a child, but without the didactic role of religious instructor that sometimes goes with it. I've probably said this before, but I don't think Lily and James were hoping that Sirius would take Harry to Sunday School on the back of his flying motorbike! :p

The novels appear to promote what could be described as Christian values of love, fellowship, tolerance, mercy and purity of spirit but in a way that is not overtly religious. I see the godfather role in a similar way, with broadly Christian values, but not 'churchy' as those values are universal.
Originally posted by SIP
It's weird for a number of reasons. His absence makes him a "godfather" in name only, despite all the sentimentalism about his "attachment" to Harry. When Dumbledore talks to Harry about the fact that Harry loved Sirius more than anyone else in the world, and that Harry was the most important person to Sirius, I don't think that this is sentimental, and I don't think this incredibly strong attachment requires quotation marks - it is very real. Harry's love for Sirius saved his life - it couldn't be any more deep or profound.
Originally posted by grrliz
Originally Posted by atherella
Do any of us really believe he only wanted to confront Peter the day after the Potters were killed? Honestly?
Yes, actually. There is so little known about that night and that moment that I can hardly see how we can accept as cold hard fact that Sirius Only Intention Was To Kill Pettigrew. Honestly, I agree with grrliz! I doubt even Sirius had a clear idea of exactly what he was going to do when he caught up with Peter. If Sirius had been 100% certain and determined to kill Peter he could have done it - just as he could have killed him in the Shrieking Shack if he had been wholly determined to do so.

EDITED TO ADD
Originally posted by SIP
Well, Sirius hasn't done much dueling in about 12 years. Has he practiced with Lupin? Maybe, but we don't know. He seems to be enjoying the challenge at the DoM, anywayAnd, as my previous post outline, he does a pretty fine job of it - he is one of the best ones there. When you're still fighting after an auror and a former head auror have been taken down, it's pretty clear your duelling skills aren't too shabby!

Remember that Tonks and Moody had both gone down before Dumbledore arrived - if Sirius hadn't been there it would have just been Kingsley and Lupin against Bellatrix, Dolohov, Malfoy, Rookwood and AN other DE ('cos Neville took out Macnair - Yay Neville! :clap: ) Kingsley and Lupin are pretty good, but they've only got a wand apiece!

In my opinion, he let someone else take care of Harry while he did something else which led to disaster. What is the better thing to do? What would have had the better outcome?He left Harry to the care of a wizard who was more powerful than he could ever be. Hagrid said he was giving the boy to Dumbledore. As far as Sirius knew, LV was still after Harry - who could protect him better than the only wizard Voldemort feared? Sirius wasn't being heartless giving Harry up! He was admitting that he wasn't strong enough to take care of him. He put his pride on the shelf, for once.
The reason Sirius didn't know Voldemort was vanquished was because he didn't take the time to find out anything from Dumbledore. I agree with you on this one. It was a rash and foolish choice to go after Peter. But again he thought he was doing the right thing. Peter was out there running loose. He was LV's spy, he knew all about the Order and everyone in it, a danger to the people Sirius held dear.
Everyone has a choice. It is the choice between what is hard and what is easy. It is an easy choice to defend people. It is much more difficult to be patient and "stay-put" even when it is in Harry's best interest.He made a bad call not following Hagrid, or even telling him what had really happened with the Secret-keepers, but Sirius isn't exactly famous for good judgement, as we've seen.

Remember that Tonks and Moody had both gone down before Dumbledore arrived - if Sirius hadn't been there it would have just been Kingsley and Lupin against Bellatrix, Dolohov, Malfoy, Rookwood and AN other DE ('cos Neville took out Macnair - Yay Neville! ) Kingsley and Lupin are pretty good, but they've only got a wand apiece!

Might I add that Kingsley was taken out by Bellatrix immediately after he took Sirius' place. The idea that they would have survived without him is ludicrous, and if he hadn't gone, we would rightly have asked why Sirius stayed behind and let the others die.

He made a bad call not following Hagrid, or even telling him what had really happened with the Secret-keepers, but Sirius isn't exactly famous for good judgement, as we've seen.

I disagree. What could be gained by Sirius following Hagrid? Hagrid had persuaded him that it was best for Harry to go to the Dursleys (swallowing his pride and admitting that Dumbledore knew best). Why shouldn't he go after Pettigrew? Pettigrew was a secret DE; he was dangerous.

I disagree. What could be gained by Sirius following Hagrid. Hagrid had persuaded him that it was best for Harry to go to the Dursleys (swallowing his pride and admitting that Dumbledore knew best). Why shouldn't he go after Pettigrew? Pettigrew was a secret DE; he was dangerous.What about his not telling Hagrid that Peter was the Secret-keeper and spy? Keeping that information to himself cost him 12 years in Azkaban!

What about his not telling Hagrid that Peter was the Secret-keeper and spy? Keeping that information to himself cost him 12 years in Azkaban!

Would they believe him without Pettigrew?

Would they believe him without Pettigrew?Maybe, maybe not. But If Hagrid knew, he would have told Dumbledore, and that's a start. The more people finding out the truth the better. They certainly didn't believe him later when he was standing in the street surrounded by dead muggles and the remains of the supposedly late Peter Pettigrew.

In my opinion, he let someone else take care of Harry while he did something else which led to disaster. What is the better thing to do? What would have had the better outcome?

If he was that worried about Harry, why let him fly away with Hagrid? Peter could have followed Hagrid, you know?Peter could have also followed Sirius as well, so I'm not sure what your point is. Also, Peter doesn't have a flying motorbike :eyebrows:. Seriously though, how strongly was Sirius supposed to fight with Hagrid? Hagrid is a known and trusted member of the Order of the Phoenix; he says he knew James and Lily well, so I imagine he also knew Sirius quite well as well. Sirius is resistant, but reluctantly hands baby Harry, probably because he trusts Hagrid to take Harry to Dumbledore, another trustworthy Order member. Hagrid is not a "babysitter", he is a member of the Order of the Phoenix and capable of taking just as much responsibility as anyone else.

The reason Sirius didn't know Voldemort was vanquished was because he didn't take the time to find out anything from Dumbledore.Actually, even ten years later at the start of PS/SS there is still much confusion about that night; a lot of people still think he's out there while others think he's as dead as dead can be. I can imagine how confusing it must have been to actualy experience it first hand, the way Sirius et al had to. When we first encounter McGonagall at the start of the first chapter of PS/SS, even she doesn't know that Voldemort has been vanquished, and presumably she knows more than most considering she's been stationed at the Dursleys' all day. Dumbledore seems to be providing the full story to absolutely no one. Time is of the essence, and Sirius doesn't know what happened other than that Peter had betrayed them all and had a huge hand in trying to get Harry killed. Best be off to find the one person he's sure of rather than the one person (Voldemort) he's not.

Everyone has a choice. It is the choice between what is hard and what is easy. It is an easy choice to defend people. It is much more difficult to be patient and "stay-put" even when it is in Harry's best interest.That depends on the situation, doesn't it now? Was it "easy" for anyone to defend Snape in SWM? Or was it "easier" to stay put and not do anything? I don't think putting your life in danger to help someone else who is in danger is an "easy" choice; or perhaps if it is an easy choice, it's also the right choice. I agree with Wandering Bard that if Sirius hadn't gone, we'd all be questioning why he was such a big coward. No matter what, the guy can't do the right thing in most people's eyes. :sigh:

Maybe - there are certainly alot of variables about the DoM. But I might point out that the fighting had nearly stopped when Sirius kept dueling with Bella. Plus, Dumbledore was already there, so Harry was safe, but Sirius kept on fighting.It takes two to duel, which means it also takes two to stop dueling. I imagine if Sirius had said, "Alright, dear cousin, Dumbledore's here now, you can put away your wand" she would have avada kedavraed him right on the spot. It would have been illogical of him to stop duelling.

Here is the way I look at it. Sirius sees things "worth dying for." He doesn't see that it is just as important to find things "worth living for."I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you think Sirius doesn't think Harry is worth living for, so he behaves recklessly and takes the "worth dying for" path instead?

I wasn't aware that Sirius was an FBI agent, or even an Auror?I wasn't awayre that any of them were FBI agents, or that Lupin or Dumbledore were Aurors either?

Well, Sirius hasn't done much dueling in about 12 years. Has he practiced with Lupin? Maybe, but we don't know. He seems to be enjoying the challenge at the DoM, anyway.Regardless of whether or not he's been practicing with duelling or if his talent is "first nature" and is coming back to him with ease, his skill is fairly evident: "Thanks!" Harry said to Neville, pulling him aside as Sirius and his Death Eater lurched past, duelling so fiercely that their wands were mere blurs.


The novels appear to promote what could be described as Christian values of love, fellowship, tolerance, mercy and purity of spirit but in a way that is not overtly religious. I see the godfather role in a similar way, with broadly Christian values, but not 'churchy' as those values are universal.I think it's also important to point out that these aren't explicitly Christian values, they're basic human values that pop up in both the lives of the non-religious as well as those of other religious affiliations.

I think it's also important to point out that these aren't explicitly Christian values, they're basic human values that pop up in both the lives of the non-religious as well as those of other religious affiliations. :tu: Yes, of course. I was trying to say this as well, but I didn't express it properly. I'm such a terrible heathen that I always tie myself up in knots when I attempt to address any religious topics, so I think I'd better stop now. :blush:

Well, the tone is certainly heading towards acrimonious again...

The mention of Hagrid's being a trusted member of the Order made me wonder--in a time of such uncertainty, when it wasn't clear who was faithful and who was not, and a traitor was known to be in their midst: how did Sirius know he could entrust Harry to Hagrid? What was the proof that was given?

And Sirius' telling Dumbledore and not having Pettigrew as proof...in that alternate track, it seems likely that Dumbledore could've wielded enough influence to 'save' Sirius: after all, he was successful with Snape.

Off haring after yet another idea...yes, the Potters did make a bad choice by switching Secret Keepers. Especially without telling Dumbledore (which seems to be a bit of a theme here). Bad choices don't necessarily make for bad people; it's just that the choice was not the wisest course of action.

Again--the running theme of choices--and all of their ramifications and variables. It just goes to show the complexities....

The mention of Hagrid's being a trusted member of the Order made me wonder--in a time of such uncertainty, when it wasn't clear who was faithful and who was not, and a traitor was known to be in their midst: how did Sirius know he could entrust Harry to Hagrid? What was the proof that was given?It's true that it was hard to know who to trust and who not to, but my guess would be that since by that point Sirius knew Peter was the traitor and spy, all bets were off regarding other suspects. Peter is the spy therefore Hagrid isn't, so he can trust Hagrid with Harry. Hagrid also has an incredibly fierce loyalty to Dumbledore that seems well known and that we see time and time again; perhaps Hagrid wasn't on the list of possible suspects because of this.

Off haring after yet another idea...yes, the Potters did make a bad choice by switching Secret Keepers. Especially without telling Dumbledore (which seems to be a bit of a theme here). Bad choices don't necessarily make for bad people; it's just that the choice was not the wisest course of action.:tu: Exactly.

The Hagrid trust factor is still a nagging little detail. Pettigrew, too, was completely trusted...that didn't work out. And Rookwood had a 'network of spies'--while I believe the phrasing was that the Order knew there was a spy among them, surely they didn't think there would be only one spy? Dumbledore himself had a number of useful spies.........

Ah--just one of those questionable little bits.............

Quote from subtle science:
The mention of Hagrid's being a trusted member of the Order made me wonder--in a time of such uncertainty, when it wasn't clear who was faithful and who was not, and a traitor was known to be in their midst: how did Sirius know he could entrust Harry to Hagrid? What was the proof that was given?
Simple...Sirius didn't have a choice where Harry went. What's he going to do? Fight Hagrid for Harry? Hagrid is immune to most low level curses and could probably beat Sirius hands down in fight. Sirius never had a choice of what to do with Harry…that choice has always rested with Dumbledore. Dumbledore had to place Harry at the Dursleys for his own safety. If Sirius didn't agree...tough luck. Hagrid is Dumbledore most loyal agent...he attacks people who insult Dumbledore! So Dumbledore obviously sent Hagrid because he knew Hagrid would not fail...no matter what.

Quote from shaggydogstail
Including Sirius there were only five Order members battling with six Death Eaters (Malfoy, Bellatrix, MacNair, Dolohov, Rookwood and one unnamed).
Actually the Lexicon puts there as having been 9 Death Eaters.

The Hagrid trust factor is still a nagging little detail. Pettigrew, too, was completely trusted...that didn't work out. :lol: I knew someone would bring that up if I failed to mention it. Peter is not Hagrid, nor Hagrid, Peter. Trusting one has nothing to do with trusting the other. Peter flew under the radar because he is cunning and knows how to decieve people; Hagrid doesn't have a deceptive bone in his body. Hagrid is a pretty straightforward kind of guy and doesn't hide his loyalty to Dumbledore; it could be argued that on the surface Peter appeared the same way and that's why everyone trusted in him, but his "loyalty" (for what it's worth) was never to Dumbledore. Just because Peter betrays his loyalty, doesn't mean Hagrid will / does. I don't know, I'm not explaining this very well.

And Rookwood had a 'network of spies'--while I believe the phrasing was that the Order knew there was a spy among them, surely they didn't think there would be only one spy? Dumbledore himself had a number of useful spies.........Sorry, when does Rookwood say this? (I honestly can't remember.)

I never said Sirius should "fight" Hagrid! I was thinking more about asking Hagrid where he was taking Harry and then going with him. Why would Hagrid "fight" him? Hagrid didn't know about the secret keeper switch.

Actually the Lexicon puts there as having been 9 Death Eaters.

I think three must have been out of the fight by the time they got to the Veil Room. One was Nott and he was injured in the Prophecy room. One was the baby-head, right? And one was hurt maybe when Luna "blew up Pluto"? I don't have my book to look at right now.


The novels appear to promote what could be described as Christian values of love, fellowship, tolerance, mercy and purity of spirit but in a way that is not overtly religious. I see the godfather role in a similar way, with broadly Christian values, but not 'churchy' as those values are universal.
I think it's also important to point out that these aren't explicitly Christian values, they're basic human values that pop up in both the lives of the non-religious as well as those of other religious affiliations.

I agree with both of you. The idea of godparents is common in many religions and cultures and would be understood in some form universally, too.

As I say, I'm not a religious fanatic! :no: I just sound like one - sorry about that. My upbringing showing, lol.


Quote:
Originally Posted by silver ink pot
Everyone has a choice. It is the choice between what is hard and what is easy. It is an easy choice to defend people. It is much more difficult to be patient and "stay-put" even when it is in Harry's best interest.
That depends on the situation, doesn't it now? Was it "easy" for anyone to defend Snape in SWM? Or was it "easier" to stay put and not do anything? I don't think putting your life in danger to help someone else who is in danger is an "easy" choice; or perhaps if it is an easy choice, it's also the right choice. I agree with Wandering Bard that if Sirius hadn't gone, we'd all be questioning why he was such a big coward. No matter what, the guy can't do the right thing in most people's eyes.

Obviously it was "easier" to not do anything for Snape, since that is what everyone except Lily did. I don't really see your point, there.

I don't think Sirius was a coward, but he cared too much about being called a coward. Something like that. He was "aching for a fight." That said, I realize there are so many factors that led to his going to the DoM that stacked the deck against him such as Hermione and Harry both forgetting about Snape, and obviously Kreacher's treachery. But Sirius didn't have to go, either. He made another choice, that is all.

Putting your life in danger is easy if you love danger more than security. It is a kind of teenage, thrill-seeking thing, if you ask me. I think people who have a problem with Sirius are just more cautious - I know I am!

I see this as if Sirius and Harry are in the "witness protection program" and the bad guys are after them. In that case it is better to keep a low profile, and tell your child to be ultra careful about everything. Is that what Sirius does? No. He makes sure some Death Eaters and their children see him, with Harry at the train, then he tells Harry that James would have wanted to take risks, and then he gives Harry a mirror but only tells him to use it about Snape - no mention of any other reason - and then the DoM happens. Plus, he doesn't bother to follow Dumbledore's advice about Kreacher and even orders him out of the house by accident! He had responsibility for Kreacher - wouldn't all of you agree? He was the last of the Blacks and Kreacher was his own elf.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you think Sirius doesn't think Harry is worth living for, so he behaves recklessly and takes the "worth dying for" path instead?

You won't like this, but that's exactly what I mean. Although Sirius never believes he will die - he has the hubris to think he is invincible, even after all he has been through. What he doesn't think about, although I'm sure someone has mentioned it to him, is that being alive to fight another day is always a good thing.

I don't know why Sirius doesn't think more about staying alive for Harry. I think he doesn't understand his role as a parent too well.

Would they believe him without Pettigrew?

Lupin knew, and even if the Ministry wouldn't listen to Lupin, Dumbledore would have, don't you think?

Maybe, maybe not. But If Hagrid knew, he would have told Dumbledore, and that's a start. The more people finding out the truth the better. They certainly didn't believe him later when he was standing in the street surrounded by dead muggles and the remains of the supposedly late Peter Pettigrew.

Sirius had no defense to go on in the first place. Everyone thought he was the Potter's secrect keeper, the only two who knew the truth were him and Peter. Since Peter was believed to be dead Sirius didn't find the need to tell anyone the truth. And even if he did tell them the truth, how easy would it be to run around the country looking for a rat with a missing toe, (even though at the time nobody knew he was really alive), and on top of that nobody would have believed him. Sirius' intentions for Harry's survival were nothing but good, and if one thing was known, it was that VD feared Dumblebore more than any other wizard and his best choice was to give Harry to him, because Sirius knew that no one could protect Harry to the extent that Dumbledore could.

I'm glad you liked my post. :blush: I am sometimes a little confused about why JKR is inserting such a religious concept into the character of Sirius Black, except that she is writing about British culture, and the Church is part of that, and she wanted a way everyone would recognize for Sirius to be "related" to Harry, but not by "blood."
Which brings me back to the question, who is Sirius Black? This is a man who laughed at the suggestion that Voldemort could teach him anything. He was the eldest son of a family that believed that to be born a Black made one practically royal. Toujours Pur.

Occasionally, the term "ancient magic" floats by. Is Sirius somehow connected with this? Did the fact that Sirius was his godfather have anything to do with Harry's survival in GH?

http://www.purecaffeine.net/images/banghead.gif

JKR said that she thought it out carefully and decided that Sirius would never marry or have any children of his own. She also says that he had to die for a reason. If Sirius is dead, (I'm not completely out of denial, yet), is it somehow important that Harry, his legal ward, is his heir? Is it important to connect Harry to the ancient and most noble house of Black? Perhaps, in fact, for Harry to be the master of this house?

And if the House of Black is connected with Death, and the power in Harry is Life, what would it mean for Harry to be the master of the House of Black?

I never said Sirius should "fight" Hagrid! I was thinking more about asking Hagrid where he was taking Harry and then going with him. Why would Hagrid "fight" him? Hagrid didn't know about the secret keeper switch.I didn't mean "fight" as in fist fight or anything like that, I meant "fight" as in exactly how long should Sirius stand there arguing with Hagrid about who should take Harry? As I said earlier, time is of the essence and neither of them can afford to stand there bickering about who gets to take Harry where.

I don't think Sirius was a coward, but he cared too much about being called a coward. Something like that. He was "aching for a fight." That said, I realize there are so many factors that led to his going to the DoM that stacked the deck against him such as Hermione and Harry both forgetting about Snape, and obviously Kreacher's treachery. But Sirius didn't have to go, either. He made another choice, that is all.Of course he made a choice, and he made the right choice. I defy any parent to sit back and wait while their child is in mortal danger. I still don't understand sitting on one's hands and waiting for someone else to sort it out. This isn't a case where the authorities are called in to deal with a bad situation; the members of the Order who go are not on official Ministry business as Aurors, they're there as Order members and people who care about Harry, a category Sirius falls into.

Putting your life in danger is easy if you love danger more than security. It is a kind of teenage, thrill-seeking thing, if you ask me. I think people who have a problem with Sirius are just more cautious - I know I am!You'd be really surprised to hear this, but I'm actually one of the most cautious people I know: I take absolutely zero risks, and I was never one for teenage thrill-seeking (or early twenties thrill seeking, for that matter). But the reason Sirius puts himself in danger at the DoM isn't because he loves danger more than security, he puts himself in danger to try and protect Harry. If Harry hadn't been at the DoM, would Sirius have jetted off to the DoM for a bit of thrill-seeking fun? My guess would be no.

He makes sure some Death Eaters and their children see him, with Harry at the train,He hardly "makes sure" that some Death Eaters see him; he didn't run up to Lucius Malfoy, wag his tail in his face, and then transform as proof of his identity :rolleyes:. That being said, I've never really understood what the problem with Sirius accompanying them to Kings Cross is: the Death Eaters (via Pettigrew) know that Sirius is an animagus at that point, they know that he's taken up with Dumbledore's crew (if Snape is doing his spy duty correctly by feeding Voldemort the right information), and they know that Harry is his godson. It shouldn't be earth shattering news to the Death Eaters if they see Sirius there in his animagus form. Lucius Malfoy reports back to Voldemort "My Lord, the animagus Black was at Kings Cross with the Weasley brood, that Muggle Granger..." "Yes, that's wonderful, Malfoy, do you have anything new to tell me?" I'm frankly more concerned at Tonks' presence at Kings Cross; if she's trying to keep quiet the fact that she's an Order member, exactly how does she explain why she's suddenly hanging out with the notorious outlaw Sirius Black? :huh:

You won't like this, but that's exactly what I mean. Although Sirius never believes he will die - he has the hubris to think he is invincible, even after all he has been through. What he doesn't think about, although I'm sure someone has mentioned it to him, is that being alive to fight another day is always a good thing.

I don't know why Sirius doesn't think more about staying alive for Harry. I think he doesn't understand his role as a parent too well.Wow, I really just don't know what to say to that. I'm going to chew that one over for a bit before I respond to it. ;)

::Edit:: Actually (for those anticipating the fabulous argument I may have come up with ;)), I don't think I want to touch that one with a thirty-nine-and-a-half-foot pole. I don't think anything I would say would really change anyone's view on it much and obviously I don't need to convince myself any! :)

Sirius had no defense to go on in the first place. Everyone thought he was the Potter's secrect keeper, the only two who knew the truth were him and Peter. Since Peter was believed to be dead Sirius didn't find the need to tell anyone the truth. And even if he did tell them the truth, how easy would it be to run around the country looking for a rat with a missing toe, (even though at the time nobody knew he was really alive), and on top of that nobody would have believed him. Which is why he should have told Hagrid or Dumblefore before going after Peter, so everyone would be on the same level and Sirius wouldn't have to go to jail needlessly. And what makes you think Sirius had no need to protest his innocence? I think not spending the rest of your life in a prison on a rock guarded by dementors, and raising your godson in a happy, loving home are two very good "needs" indeed!

Sirius' intentions for Harry's survival were nothing but good, and if one thing was known, it was that VD feared Dumblebore more than any other wizard and his best choice was to give Harry to him, because Sirius knew that no one could protect Harry to the extent that Dumbledore could.That's exactly the point I was making in my previous posts.

Quote from silver ink pot:
I don't know why Sirius doesn't think more about staying alive for Harry. I think he doesn't understand his role as a parent too well.
But should Sirius have even tried to be a parent to Harry?

But should Sirius have even tried to be a parent to Harry?Of course. He loved Harry, very much and had been appointed his guardian if something ever happened to James and Lily, whom he also loved and cared for. He had to try to raise Harry the best he could - he just didn't do a very good job of it in the time he was allowed.

You won't like this, but that's exactly what I mean. Although Sirius never believes he will die - he has the hubris to think he is invincible, even after all he has been through. What he doesn't think about, although I'm sure someone has mentioned it to him, is that being alive to fight another day is always a good thing.

I don't know why Sirius doesn't think more about staying alive for Harry. I think he doesn't understand his role as a parent too well.

If your son's life were in danger, would you stay home and hope other people could handle it so you can be alive for him the next day? And if you would and your son died, how would you feel about it?

I suppose we could also say that Lily should have taken Harry and run, like James told her to because she should have done what she had to in order to stay alive for Harry. However, we know that her death, while tragic, helped and continues to help Harry in ways running away could never.

I'm having an extremely hard time seeing how anyone can actually condemn Sirius for putting his life on the line for, not only Harry, but also Ginny, Ron, Hermione, Neville and Luna. Yes, he could have sat at Grimmauld Place playing solitaire and hoping for the best, but when someone you love is in mortal peril, there is no option. There just isn't.

Silver, you've argued that Sirius didn't care for Harry as much as others seem to think. If he didn't love Harry deeply, would he have bothered putting his life on the line for him? Would he have cared about Harry's situation?

Quote from WoodenCoyote:
Of course. He loved Harry, very much and had been appointed his guardian if something ever happened to James and Lily, whom he also loved and cared for. He had to try to raise Harry the best he could - he just didn't do a very good job of it in the time he was allowed.
But Sirius didn't know Harry until Harry's third year. Harry's basically 14 by the time that they meet. Most of Harry's "raising" had been done already...without true parents. By the time Sirius and Harry know one another Harry has just 3 years left as a "child" (I use the term loosely).

I for one think that is good that Sirius really didn't try to "parent" Harry because it wouldn't have worked. Harry spends 10 months of the year at Hogwarts anyway and Sirius can't provide a place to stay anyway (after 3rd year). I'd rather have Sirius try to act as a big brother to Harry then try to act as a father (Harry can be the brother Sirius wished he had :eyebrows: ).

The whole point of being a successful traitor is that no one suspects you. I wasn't casting aspersions on Hagrid's character--only pointing out that, according to the characters themselves (Sirius, in fact), it was a time when no one could be certain. Pettigrew appeared quite trustworthy--if he hadn't, then why pick him as the Secret Keeper if it was obvious he was not so? As it turns out, Hagrid is trustworthy; Pettigrew was not. Both, however, were believed to be trustworthy at the time.

GoF, p. 590, US paperback, "The Pensieve": "a network of well-placed wizards, both inside the Ministry and out."


Sirius rushes off to the MoM to save Harry. He is an impetuous, impulsive character; other characters describe him as intelligent--however, he is not a particularly rational character. When the events are occurring, a group of highly qualified people is going to the DoM to see if Snape's suspicions are true. At that time, it is not known for certain where Harry is, although the very logical conclusion is the DoM. Meanwhile, Dumbledore is due at 12GP "at any moment" and needs to be informed of the unfolding events--as, apparently, at this moment, he is otherwise out of reach. All of this would matter to and influence a rational character. That's not Sirius. Hence, his decision to go: he reacted as Sirius--impetuous and impulsive; logic is not how he's going to handle the situation. In hindsight, he should have been rational about it, but then he would have been out of character. The solution is obvious: that is what heightens the tragedy.

But Sirius didn't know Harry until Harry's third year. Harry's basically 14 by the time that they meet. Most of Harry's "raising" had been done already...without true parents. By the time Sirius and Harry know one another Harry has just 3 years left as a "child" (I use the term loosely). He knew Harry for about a year when he was a baby, but too much time has passed since then. They could have gotten to know each other again, if Sirius had lived longer...

I for one think that is good that Sirius really didn't try to "parent" Harry because it wouldn't have worked. Harry spends 10 months of the year at Hogwarts anyway and Sirius can't provide a place to stay anyway (after 3rd year). I'd rather have Sirius try to act as a big brother to Harry then try to act as a father (Harry can be the brother Sirius wished he had :eyebrows: ).Again, too much time has passed between them. If Sirius had been able to raise Harry from babyhood as James and Lily had intended, he could have been a very good parent [ he might has still done a poor job too, its all speculation now ]

Quote from WoodenCoyote:
He knew Harry for about a year when he was a baby, but too much time has passed since then. They could have gotten to know each other again, if Sirius had lived longer...
Getting to know someone is different then acting like a parent to them though. By the time Sirius really knows Harry he can't parent him because Harry is too old.

Getting to know someone is different then acting like a parent to them though. By the time Sirius really knows Harry he can't parent him because Harry is too old.
You can still be a parent, even to a 15 year old [ trust me, parenting doesn't have a time-limit ]

Sirius rushes off to the MoM to save Harry. He is an impetuous, impulsive character; other characters describe him as intelligent--however, he is not a particularly rational character. When the events are occurring, a group of highly qualified people is going to the DoM to see if Snape's suspicions are true. At that time, it is not known for certain where Harry is, although the very logical conclusion is the DoM. Meanwhile, Dumbledore is due at 12GP "at any moment" and needs to be informed of the unfolding events--as, apparently, at this moment, he is otherwise out of reach. All of this would matter to and influence a rational character. That's not Sirius. Hence, his decision to go: he reacted as Sirius--impetuous and impulsive; logic is not how he's going to handle the situation. In hindsight, he should have been rational about it, but then he would have been out of character. The solution is obvious: that is what heightens the tragedy.

Sorry Subtle, but I'm not following your logic. Why shouldn't Sirius have gone to the Ministry? He was obviously needed (can you imagine the casualties if Sirius hadn't gone?). He didn't need to stay, because Kreacher was capable of telling Dumbledore everything (more than Sirius even :evil:) Is it because his life is more valuable than Harry's and the other children and his fellow order members? (Sorry, but I really don't understand :sad: )

It means alot to Harry that Sirius is his Godfather. However, it is almost weird to me that Sirius was never in Harry's life one day past the death of Harry's Parents, yet he springs himself from prison, and suddenly, voila - instant guardian. Why is that weird? He was in prison for twelve years, pretty much starting from the day after (or even the morning of) the Potters' deaths. :huh:I agree with SIP in thinking it’s strange. I’m not faulting Sirius because, you’re right, he was in Azkaban and couldn’t perform any godfatherly duties; however, I don’t believe Sirius is equipped at all to act as a child’s guardian and I’m surprised that others accept him in this role. I guess I think that Dumbledore and the Dursleys (although they do a lousy job) are Harry’s true guardians. I wonder if the Potters would’ve wanted the Sirius of 1995 to be Harry’s guardian? :huh: (I’m sure they wouldn’t have wanted the Dursleys. :grumble: ) How can you have a Christening if you are an atheist?I’ve heard of it referred to as a “Baby Dedication” ceremony. I disagree. Sirius did not make reckless choices. Baby Harry was perfectly safe. It was Sirius' duty, as Harry's godfather, to find the traitor responsible for the Potters' deaths. Sirius was the only person who knew that Peter was the traitor. This is true, but just to play devil’s advocate: How did Sirius know that Hagrid wasn’t working for Voldemort? Why would Sirius trust anyone with Harry, knowing Harry’s importance and knowing of his good friend’s, Peter’s, betrayal? :huh: I wouldn’t have trusted anyone but myself with the baby I was sworn to look after, but then I’m a naturally suspicious person.

And, I see now that subtle beat me to the punch! :p It's true that it was hard to know who to trust and who not to, but my guess would be that since by that point Sirius knew Peter was the traitor and spy, all bets were off regarding other suspects. Peter is the spy therefore Hagrid isn't, so he can trust Hagrid with Harry. Hagrid also has an incredibly fierce loyalty to Dumbledore that seems well known and that we see time and time again; perhaps Hagrid wasn't on the list of possible suspects because of this. Who’s to say that there wasn’t another one at that time? Sirius, James, and Lily trusted Peter with their lives, too. It’s unlikely that Peter was on the list of suspects, right? The betrayal being greater if it comes from an unsuspected, close friend? Hagrid doesn't have a deceptive bone in his body. How does Sirius know that after being so wrong about Peter? I agree that Peter’s betrayal would be completely separate from Hagrid, but, if I’d been wrong like that, I would be suspicious of everyone until I had indisputable proof of loyalty. I can't remember what version it was in where we picked the scene apart, but Sirius is given ample opportunity to kill Peter and it doesn't happen.I’m pretty sure it was version 7—MIA. I remember you were very happy to have “stumbled into a ‘Was Sirius capable of murder?’ discussion.” ;) Peter then beats him to the punch in delivering a death-inducing spell? How is this possible unless Sirius didn't have his wand ready?At the time of that discussion, we decided that Peter most likely had his wand behind his back and cast the spell behind him, so that it would have been aimed in the proper direction for Sirius to have cast it. If so, Sirius could have had his wand out and ready, but, not perceiving any immediate threat from Peter, Sirius was unprepared for Peter to blow up the street behind his back. After all, I’m sure Sirius had no idea that it was Peter’s plan to frame him for all those deaths. My own personal preference is that the Christening provided a magical bond of protection between Harry and Sirius; now that Sirius is gone, that protection is gone.That’s a really great idea! :tu: Harry is having layers of protection stripped away each book, and I'm beginning to suspect this is another one.Maybe I’m too tired today, but what other layers of protection have been removed? :huh: It takes two to duel, which means it also takes two to stop dueling. I imagine if Sirius had said, "Alright, dear cousin, Dumbledore's here now, you can put away your wand" she would have avada kedavraed him right on the spot. It would have been illogical of him to stop duelling.If she didn’t AK any of the other Order members and she didn’t AK Sirius to send him through the veil, why would she AK him at the cessation of dueling? I don't think Sirius was a coward, but he cared too much about being called a coward. Something like that. He was "aching for a fight."This seems like a good point to jump in with something we were discussing yesterday in the “Dev of Sev” thread. I haven’t been over there to read yet today, so I hope it hasn’t been discussed ad nauseum over there by everyone here! If so, just ignore this. :)

At the end of OotP, Harry is accusing Snape of goading Sirius into going to the DoM by having called him a coward. Dumbledore replies, ”Sirius was much too old and clever to have allowed such feeble taunts to hurt him.” I’m curious to know whether or not everyone thinks this is true. The last I left the discussion in the other thread, RemusLupinFan had said that she believed it was true—that Sirius was annoyed by Snape’s comments, but not hurt. Several others agreed with her. However, directly after the kitchen scene, Harry ”wanted to talk to Sirius, to tell him that he should not listen to a word Snape said, that Snape was goading him deliberately and that the rest of them did not think Sirius was a coward for doing as Dumbledore told him and remaining in Grimmauld Place, but he had no opportunity to do so, and wondered occasionally, eyeing the ugly look on Sirius’s face, whether he would have dared to even if he had the chance.” Why would Sirius let it bother him for so long, if he wasn’t hurt by it? It shouldn't be earth shattering news to the Death Eaters if they see Sirius there in his animagus form.I thought the danger was in knowing that Sirius was in London? I suppose we could also say that Lily should have taken Harry and run, like James told her to because she should have done what she had to in order to stay alive for Harry. However, we know that her death, while tragic, helped and continues to help Harry in ways running away could never.I thought that Lily did take Harry and run, but Voldemort just caught up to her quickly? James didn’t last very long against
him. . .

At the end of OotP, Harry is accusing Snape of goading Sirius into going to the DoM by having called him a coward. Dumbledore replies, ”Sirius was much too old and clever to have allowed such feeble taunts to hurt him.” I’m curious to know whether or not everyone thinks this is true. The last I left the discussion in the other thread, RemusLupinFan had said that she believed it was true—that Sirius was annoyed by Snape’s comments, but not hurt. Several others agreed with her. However, directly after the kitchen scene, Harry ”wanted to talk to Sirius, to tell him that he should not listen to a word Snape said, that Snape was goading him deliberately and that the rest of them did not think Sirius was a coward for doing as Dumbledore told him and remaining in Grimmauld Place, but he had no opportunity to do so, and wondered occasionally, eyeing the ugly look on Sirius’s face, whether he would have dared to even if he had the chance.” Why would Sirius let it bother him for so long, if he wasn’t hurt by it?

Interesting that there is an "ugly" look on Sirius's face. :huh: Is that the only time Sirius is described as "ugly" in all the books?


I thought the danger was in knowing that Sirius was in London?

Yes, seeing Sirius with Harry and the others in London clues the DEs into the fact that there is some sort of hiding place in London, right?

Frankly more concerned at Tonks' presence at Kings Cross; if she's trying to keep quiet the fact that she's an Order member, exactly how does she explain why she's suddenly hanging out with the notorious outlaw Sirius Black

In Chapter 10, OotP, when they go to Kings Cross, Tonks isn't in any danger of being recognized because she is dressed as an old woman with gray hair and a purple pork pie hat.

At the end of the book when she meets the Dursleys, she has her pink hair, but all the DEs are in prison at that time.

Originally posted by silver ink pot
I think three must have been out of the fight by the time they got to the Veil Room. One was Nott and he was injured in the Prophecy room. One was the baby-head, right? And one was hurt maybe when Luna "blew up Pluto"? I don't have my book to look at right now. Yup I think that is about right. By the time the Order turned up there were 6 Death Eaters against 5 Order members.

Though it is a fair point that there were originally 9 Death Eaters - presumably the Order had no idea how many DEs would be present, though they could probably make a fair guess, based on how many had escaped Azkaban, who they knew to be a Death Eater walking free etc. Which means it makes even more sense for Sirius to have gone to the DoM - without him there would have been only 4 Order members and they could have been horribly outnumbered.
Originally posted by SIP
I don't know why Sirius doesn't think more about staying alive for Harry. I think he doesn't understand his role as a parent too well.It isn't that Sirius doesn't want to stay alive for Harry, simply that he believes Harry's life is more important than his own. Harry's life was at risk in the DoM - it doesn't make sense for Sirius to prioritise keeping himself alive for Harry over keeping Harry alive.
Originally posted by subtle science
Sirius rushes off to the MoM to save Harry. He is an impetuous, impulsive character; other characters describe him as intelligent--however, he is not a particularly rational character. When the events are occurring, a group of highly qualified people is going to the DoM to see if Snape's suspicions are true.I disagree. I think it was an entirely logical thing to do.

Sirius is just as qualified and competent as the other Order members there - this is evident when we read the battle scene. Let's have a look at how the Order members fare in that battle:

MOODY - Taken out by Dolohov almost straight away.

TONKS - Possibly stuns Malfoy (he recovers), taken out by Bellatrix

SIRIUS - Takes out unnamed DE and Dolohov (with Harry), murdered by Bellatrix

KINGSLEY - Takes out Rookwood, downed by Bellatrix

LUPIN - Possibly takes out Malfoy, is last man standing.

Sirius' contribution to that battle is huge. We don't know what would have happened had he not been there, but given what he did do it is reasonable to suppose that without him there, other people, including any one of the children who were in the DoM could have died.

The way I see it is that when children's lives are at stake (or adult's lives, come to that) it is an 'all hands on deck' scenario. Anyone who can fight, should fight. Sirius did the right thing, in every sense.

EDITED TO ADD LIGHT RELIEF
Originally posted by SIP
Is that the only time Sirius is described as "ugly" in all the books?Yeah, normally he's described as very attractive... :p

Wandering Bard--Sirius was asked to remain at 12GP to inform Dumbledore of the situation. Yes--Kreacher filled Dumbledore in...once Dumbledore had "persuaded him" (p. 832, US hardcover). In other words, not willingly and not quickly, which Sirius could have and presumably would have done. Dumbledore specifies that he arrived "shortly after they had all left" (p. 831). All Sirius needed to do was wait a few moments and then he could have gone anyway; his going immediately ended up delaying Dumbledore's arrival. My point was that it is not Sirius' nature, as his character has been established, to make the logical choice of waiting those few moments.

I thought that Lily did take Harry and run, but Voldemort just caught up to her quickly? James didn’t last very long against
him. . .

If she did, she only ran to Harry's room. J.K. Rowling said that Harry was in his crib/cot or whatever when Lily died.

Quote from shaggydogstail:
Yup I think that is about right. By the time the Order turned up there were 6 Death Eaters against 5 Order members.
Not to be pricky or anything but there was 12 Death Eaters to start with...so it was 9 DE's to 5 Order members. Harry and Neville are chased from the brain room by 5 (including Bellatrix) and these are joined by "as many more" that emerge from other doors. So the Order would truly have been in dire straits unless Sirius was there (perhaps this is why Lupin didn't order him to stay).
(The Lexicon as an excellent essay on this so I trust their number of 9 and not 10)

If they didn't leave it to DD, then why did he have Harry's vault key? Why did he have James' invisibility cloak? This planning seems to be normal estate planning in the event of a loved one dying...DD was part of the plan, just like Sirius was. Isn't that comparable to leaving certain items with a lawyer? (I hate how cold that sounds.) It's very clear that as the head of the Order and apparently, a personal friend, Dumbledore is definitely part of the picture. But I think you're missing the point. A guardian is essentially, a substitute parent. Perhaps JKR chose to use a christening so that the word "godfather" could be used to identify Sirius' relationship to Harry. Otherwise, Sirius would be simply Harry's guardian and Harry would be his ward instead of his godson.

Sirius did let Harry stay with the Dursley's though. He could have argued with Hagrid, he could have followed Hagrid to Surrey and told DD no, as Harry's guardian--I am the only one who can decide Harry's fate. But he didn't do any of that, he chose vengeance, instead.Remember, Sirius' great plan was to allow people to believe that he was the Potter's secret keeper while in fact, it was Peter. When they were betrayed, he knew that everyone would assume he was responsible. Dumbledore did, and Sirius understood that. All that, and Hagrid is not easy to argue with when he's on a mission for Dumbledore.
As for not leaving Harry with the Dursleys now, well-----he did. He let Harry stay at the Dursleys during summer holiday, not really having contact--other than to say, stay calm, don't do magic, we'll see ya soon...yada yada yada.
When Harry was facing the Hearing, he told Sirius he would not worry so much about it, if he knew that he could come and live with Sirius, his answer was a sad smile and a "We'll see.By this time, Dumbledore had done the charm to protect Harry at the Dursleys and Sirius was still on the run from the Ministry. No one suspected Sirius of betraying the Potters until the day after they were murdered...POA, Marauder' Map."I met him!" growled Hagrid. "I musta bin the last ter see him before he killed all them people! It was me what rescued Harry from Lily an' James's house after they was killed! Jus' got him outta the ruins, poor little thing, with a great slash across his forehead, an' his parents dead...an' Sirius Black turns up, on that flyin' motorbike he used ter ride. Never occurred ter me what he was doin' there. I didn' know he'd bin Lily an' James's Secret-Keeper. Thought he'd jus' heard the news o' You-Know-Who's attack an' come ter see what he could do. White an' shakin', he was. An' yeh know what I did? I COMFORTED THE MURDERIN' TRAITOR!" Hagrid roared.

"Hagrid, please!" said Professor McGonagall. "Keep your voice down!"

"How was I ter know he wasn' upset abou' Lily an' James? It was You-Know-Who he cared abou'! An' then he says, 'Give Harry ter me, Hagrid, I'm his godfather, I'll look after him --' Ha! But I'd had me orders from Dumbledore, an' I told Black no, Dumbledore said Harry was ter go ter his aunt an' uncle's. Black argued, but in the end he gave in. Told me ter take his motorbike ter get Harry there. 'I won't need it anymore,' he says.

... Dumbledore knew he'd bin the Potters' Secret-Keeper. Black knew he was goin' ter have ter run fer it that night, knew it was a matter o' hours before the Ministry was after him.
I'm guessing this is your reference?

Maybe I’m too tired today, but what other layers of protection have been removed? :huh:Sorry, I should have been more clear, since few people here read the All About Sirius Black thread. What I proposed over there was that Voldemort's return marks a turning point in the books, but also the beginning of Harry's protection being slipped away. In GoF, Voldemort overcomes the blood protection, so Harry loses that layer of protection. With Sirius' death, if Harry is protected by him magically, he lost another. I suspect that Dumbledore's imminent demise in HBP (yes, those are the odds I placed at Vegas :)) will mark the final layer being removed, leaving Harry to face Voldemort alone and without any of the protection that kept him alive to get him that far. So I shouldn't have pluralized "layers", since it's only one layer that's been removed, but I suspect there are others that will need removing as well in order for Harry to fully develop. Anyway, that's not really the topic of this thread.

If she didn’t AK any of the other Order members and she didn’t AK Sirius to send him through the veil, why would she AK him at the cessation of dueling?I used AK as an example of Bellatrix's rather extreme nature; rather, my point was that if Sirius stops duelling her, any spell she uses on him will affect him negatively (unless she's using Cheering Charms, which I doubt :p). Sirius can't stop duelling until Bellatrix stops, and given her nature, she isn't bound to stop all that willingly.

At the end of OotP, Harry is accusing Snape of goading Sirius into going to the DoM by having called him a coward. Dumbledore replies, ”Sirius was much too old and clever to have allowed such feeble taunts to hurt him.” I’m curious to know whether or not everyone thinks this is true. The last I left the discussion in the other thread, RemusLupinFan had said that she believed it was true—that Sirius was annoyed by Snape’s comments, but not hurt. Several others agreed with her. However, directly after the kitchen scene, Harry ”wanted to talk to Sirius, to tell him that he should not listen to a word Snape said, that Snape was goading him deliberately and that the rest of them did not think Sirius was a coward for doing as Dumbledore told him and remaining in Grimmauld Place, but he had no opportunity to do so, and wondered occasionally, eyeing the ugly look on Sirius’s face, whether he would have dared to even if he had the chance.” Why would Sirius let it bother him for so long, if he wasn’t hurt by it?I agree with RemusLupinFan, it's easy to be annoyed without being hurt (as I often am in this thread ;)). Sirius knows he's not a coward, and he probably doesn't take much stock in what Snape thinks of him, but the suggestion that he is a coward by Snape would be more than obnoxious to Sirius. Harry monitors Sirius' expression during dinner; Sirius is described at wearing a "moody, brooding expression". We're expected to think that Sirius is moping about Snape and his insults, but that's also the Harry Filter going into effect again; Harry's the one who thinks that Snape's words have cut Sirius deeply, but as Dumbledore knows, Sirius isn't that foolish and Harry has yet to realise that. Sirius has any number of other things he could be brooding about, and I imagine that Snape's pathetic insults are the least of his worries. In fact, prior to his fight with Snape, he was already being described in much the same way: Harry did not mention his vague suspicions to Sirius, whose cheerfulness was evaporating fast now that Christmas was over. As the date of their departure back to Hogwarts drew nearer, he became more and more prone to what Mrs Weasley called "fits of the sullens", in which he would become taciturn and grumpy, often withdrawing into Buckbeak's room for hours at a time. His gloom seeped through the house, oozing under doorways like some noxious gas, so that all of them became infected by itSirius is actually positively delightful at dinner after fighting with Snape in comparison to that description! :lol:

I thought that Lily did take Harry and run, but Voldemort just caught up to her quickly? James didn’t last very long against him. . .I think James meant for Lily to run away rather than into a dead end where Voldemort could corner her.

In Chapter 10, OotP, when they go to Kings Cross, Tonks isn't in any danger of being recognized because she is dressed as an old woman with gray hair and a purple pork pie hat.

At the end of the book when she meets the Dursleys, she has her pink hair, but all the DEs are in prison at that time.Thanks for checking that, I keep forgetting that Tonks is a metamorphmagus. Although one might wonder what they're doing hanging out with a former Auror as well, especially one as famous as Mad-Eye Moody, but maybe his porter's hat really is the ultimate disguise? ;)

It isn't that Sirius doesn't want to stay alive for Harry, simply that he believes Harry's life is more important than his own. Harry's life was at risk in the DoM - it doesn't make sense for Sirius to prioritise keeping himself alive for Harry over keeping Harry alive.:tu: That's a far better explanation than I could have ever made, so now I'm glad I refrained from doing so. Great points on all other counts, as well. :)

Wandering Bard--Sirius was asked to remain at 12GP to inform Dumbledore of the situation. Yes--Kreacher filled Dumbledore in...once Dumbledore had "persuaded him" (p. 832, US hardcover). In other words, not willingly and not quickly, which Sirius could have and presumably would have done. Dumbledore specifies that he arrived "shortly after they had all left" (p. 831). All Sirius needed to do was wait a few moments and then he could have gone anyway; his going immediately ended up delaying Dumbledore's arrival. My point was that it is not Sirius' nature, as his character has been established, to make the logical choice of waiting those few moments.I hate to bring Snape back into this (well, not really :rolleyes: ) but I've never understood what would have killed him to stick around if it was simply a case of waiting "a few moments". Dumbledore says that Snape says he went to search the forest for the kids, but if a few moments wouldn't matter in terms of Sirius going off to the DoM, it doesn't seem like it would matter all that much in terms of search the forest for the kids.

Actually, question: If Sirius delegates Kreacher the task to tell Dumbledore what's happened, isn't Kreacher defying his master by not willingly doing so? Dumbledore has to coax and legillimens the information out of him, rather than Kreacher doing what a proper House-Elf should and volunteering the information willingly.

Sirius was asked to remain at 12GP to inform Dumbledore of the situation. Yes--Kreacher filled Dumbledore in...once Dumbledore had "persuaded him" (p. 832, US hardcover). In other words, not willingly and not quickly, which Sirius could have and presumably would have done. Dumbledore specifies that he arrived "shortly after they had all left" (p. 831). All Sirius needed to do was wait a few moments and then he could have gone anyway; his going immediately ended up delaying Dumbledore's arrival. My point was that it is not Sirius' nature, as his character has been established, to make the logical choice of waiting those few moments.

"it was the elf who told me - laughing fit to burst - where Sirius had gone."
"I - persuaded him - to tell me the full story,"

Kreacher gave up the information, about where they had gone, willingly (he had to, Sirius gave him an order). It was only the secrets of his betrayal (which Sirius didn't know) that Dumbledore 'persuaded' him to tell. Therefore, Sirius's quick thinking, didn't hinder Dumbledore, it just allowed an extra Order member to go save Harry. As we saw in MOM, every second counts. Those moments Sirius would have to had wasted, might have cost Harry's life.

Interesting that there is an "ugly" look on Sirius's face. :huh: Is that the only time Sirius is described as "ugly" in all the books?I don't know.If she did, she only ran to Harry's room. J.K. Rowling said that Harry was in his crib/cot or whatever when Lily died.Yeah. That's why I think James didn't last very long.I suspect that Dumbledore's imminent demise in HBP (yes, those are the odds I placed at Vegas ) will mark the final layer being removed, leaving Harry to face Voldemort alone and without any of the protection that kept him alive to get him that far. Did you really? (Yes, I can be gullible at times! :p ) Here is a page discussing the Vegas odds of the various characters dying in HBP. :lol:With the wildly popular children’s book hitting a new market, you can now wager on which of the characters will not make it through the new edition.

“The Harry Potter books have become one of the biggest franchises when it comes to children’s books, and parents love reading them too,” said Rob Gillespie, President of a .com Sports Poker Casino. “J.K. Rowling has built an unbelievable empire out of something as simple as a fantasy series of stories.”

Professor Dumbledore, the Headmaster of Hogwarts, is currently the favorite to be killed off in the upcoming Harry Potter book. Dumbledore is listed at 2/1 odds. Very close behind Dumbledore is the half-giant, and keeper of the keys and grounds at Hogwarts, Rubeus Hagrid. Hagrid is positioned at 3/1 odds. A couple others have emerged as potentials to end their run in the Harry Potter series, including Ginny Weasly at 5/1, Dobby at 7/1, and Ronald Weasly at 8/1 odds.

Hermione Granger, the first wizard to come from the Granger family, is currently listed at 12/1 odds to be the first character killed off in “Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.” Lucius Malfoy, considered to be a pure blooded sorcerer, is listed at 18/1 odds, with his son, and Potter nemesis Draco Malfoy positioned at 30/1. The long shot option for this wager is non-other than the book's namesake, Harry Potter. Potter is listed as a huge long shot at 500/1.

“I do not foresee this edition being the final Harry Potter book in the series, but you just never know if the author has had enough of the same characters,” said Gillespie. “Sometimes you need to say goodbye to a lead character to regenerate interest in the series.”Sirius has any number of other things he could be brooding about, and I imagine that Snape's pathetic insults are the least of his worries.I'd considered that might be the case, but wanted to hear other opinions.I think James meant for Lily to run away rather than into a dead end where Voldemort could corner her.I'm sure he did. I'd always thought that Lily had to run into the nursery to get Harry, but Voldemort overpowered James before she could get to him.Actually, question: If Sirius delegates Kreacher the task to tell Dumbledore what's happened, isn't Kreacher defying his master by not willingly doing so? Dumbledore has to coax and legillimens the information out of him, rather than Kreacher doing what a proper House-Elf should and volunteering the information willingly.I think Kreacher could have stalled and ironed his hands later, or some other self-punishment, unless Sirius explicitly stated that he was to give Dumbledore the information right away. Otherwise, there is room for interpretation--Kreacher fulfilled his duty by telling Dumbledore eventually.

I see this as if Sirius and Harry are in the "witness protection program" and the bad guys are after them. In that case it is better to keep a low profile, and tell your child to be ultra careful about everything. Is that what Sirius does?Yes. All through GoF and the first part of OotP. No. He makes sure some Death Eaters and their children see him, with Harry at the train, Even Dumbledore didn't know that the marauders were animagi. If Malfoy knew, then it must have been because Snape told him. Otherwise ... Plus, he doesn't bother to follow Dumbledore's advice about Kreacher and even orders him out of the house by accident! "when Sirius, apparently, shouted at him to "'get out". He took Sirius at his word, and interpreted this as an order to leave the house. He went to the only Black family member for whom he had any respect left... Black's cousin Narcissa,... wife of Lucius Malfoy" :huh: Malfoy? Snape's ... lapdog?
He had responsibility for Kreacher - wouldn't all of you agree? He was the last of the Blacks and Kreacher was his own elf.Kreacher was going to be a difficulty no matter what anyone did. His only loyalty was to Mrs Black.
Although Sirius never believes he will die - he has the hubris to think he is invincible, even after all he has been through. What he doesn't think about, although I'm sure someone has mentioned it to him, is that being alive to fight another day is always a good thing. You are sure of that? Hmmmm....

Lupin knew, and even if the Ministry wouldn't listen to Lupin, Dumbledore would have, don't you think?
Unless" - Lupin's eyes suddenly widened, as though he was seeing something beyond Black, something none of the rest could see, " - unless he was the one ... unless you switched ... without telling me?"
Lupin didn't know.

Even Dumbledore didn't know that the marauders were animagi. If Malfoy knew, then it must have been because Snape told him. Based on the information provided thus far, it makes more sense that Peter told Voldemort about Sirius being an animagus and Lucius found out that way.

If Sirius had been able to raise Harry from babyhood as James and Lily had intended, he could have been a very good parent [ he might has still done a poor job too, its all speculation now ]
Parenting is not for sissies under the best of circumstances. http://www.clubs.nl/ClubsData/127317/incoming/babyflips.gif

I don't know.Yeah. That's why I think James didn't last very long.Did you really? (Yes, I can be gullible at times! :p ) Here is a page discussing the Vegas odds of the various characters dying in HBP.No, I didn't really ... I didn't know people actually put best on this sort of thing!! :lol:

:huh: Malfoy? Snape's ... lapdog?No no, Whiz, Snape is Malfoy's lapdog, not the other way round. ;)

If your son's life were in danger, would you stay home and hope other people could handle it so you can be alive for him the next day? And if you would and your son died, how would you feel about it?

I suppose we could also say that Lily should have taken Harry and run, like James told her to because she should have done what she had to in order to stay alive for Harry. However, we know that her death, while tragic, helped and continues to help Harry in ways running away could never.

I'm having an extremely hard time seeing how anyone can actually condemn Sirius for putting his life on the line for, not only Harry, but also Ginny, Ron, Hermione, Neville and Luna. Yes, he could have sat at Grimmauld Place playing solitaire and hoping for the best, but when someone you love is in mortal peril, there is no option. There just isn't.

Silver, you've argued that Sirius didn't care for Harry as much as others seem to think. If he didn't love Harry deeply, would he have bothered putting his life on the line for him? Would he have cared about Harry's situation?
Hear, hear! :agree:



No no, Whiz, Snape is Malfoy's lapdog, not the other way round. ;) :elaugh: Are you sure? :eyebrows:

Parenting is not for sissies under the best of circumstances. http://www.clubs.nl/ClubsData/127317/incoming/babyflips.gifTell me about it.. :lol: whoever said babies are a blessing never had twins. I imagine wizarding babies are even worse...
[ your rolling beebie is adorable BTW ]

Thanks. I forget who I stole him from. :D

I agree with SIP in thinking it’s strange. I’m not faulting Sirius because, you’re right, he was in Azkaban and couldn’t perform any godfatherly duties; however, I don’t believe Sirius is equipped at all to act as a child’s guardian and I’m surprised that others accept him in this role. That was James and Lily's call, no one else's. And they went with Sirius.

No, I didn't really ... I didn't know people actually put best on this sort of thing!! :lol:People will bet on anything! :rolleyes: :lol:

Interesting that Snape and Lupin aren't on the list--must be very low odds of them being the one to die.That was James and Lily's call, no one else's. And they went with Sirius.They went with their friend, Sirius of the 1970's. Even JKR says he's a bit unhinged after Azkaban.

At the end of OotP, Harry is accusing Snape of goading Sirius into going to the DoM by having called him a coward. Dumbledore replies, ”Sirius was much too old and clever to have allowed such feeble taunts to hurt him.” I’m curious to know whether or not everyone thinks this is true. The last I left the discussion in the other thread, RemusLupinFan had said that she believed it was true—that Sirius was annoyed by Snape’s comments, but not hurt. Several others agreed with her. However, directly after the kitchen scene, Harry ”wanted to talk to Sirius, to tell him that he should not listen to a word Snape said, that Snape was goading him deliberately and that the rest of them did not think Sirius was a coward for doing as Dumbledore told him and remaining in Grimmauld Place, but he had no opportunity to do so, and wondered occasionally, eyeing the ugly look on Sirius’s face, whether he would have dared to even if he had the chance.” Why would Sirius let it bother him for so long, if he wasn’t hurt by it?He wanted to talk to Sirius, to tell him he shouldn't listen to a word Snape said, that Snape was goading him deliberately and that the rest of them didn't think Sirius was a coward for doing as Dumbledore told him and remaining in Grimmauld Place. But he had no opportunity to do so, and, eyeing the ugly look on Sirius's face, Harry wondered occasionally whether he would have dared to mention it even if he had the chance. We're looking through Harry's uninfomed eyes again. Doesn't it seem more likely that Sirius had grave reservations about what Snape might do to Harry during occlumency lessons? The possibility of Snape taking advantage of the situation? Sirius had no reason to trust Snape. None at all, and he knew perfectly what could happen.

Wandering Bard--Sirius was asked to remain at 12GP to inform Dumbledore of the situation. Yes--Kreacher filled Dumbledore in...once Dumbledore had "persuaded him" (p. 832, US hardcover). In other words, not willingly and not quickly, which Sirius could have and presumably would have done. Dumbledore specifies that he arrived "shortly after they had all left" (p. 831). All Sirius needed to do was wait a few moments and then he could have gone anyway; his going immediately ended up delaying Dumbledore's arrival. My point was that it is not Sirius' nature, as his character has been established, to make the logical choice of waiting those few moments.
And where was Snape? Why didn't he inform Dumbledore himself. What's that secret method of communication that members of the order have? A patronus-y thingy, or a phoenix feather, or whatever.

Snape wanted Sirius to stay behind. It wasn't necessary at all. Again... Snape.