Deconstructing the Marauders V.9

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 ...

In PoA, Peter runs away to find Voldemort, and we see them together at the beginning of GoF. Peter has surely told Voldemort that Sirius is an animagus. The DEs, as you know, join Voldemort at the end of GoF.

So by the time Sirius is seen on the train platform, Malfoy already knew to look for a big dog with Harry. Sirius draws attention to himself by running alongside the train, and Malfoy, Jr., mentions the dog to Hermione and Harry.

I don't see what Snape had to do with any of that. :huh: I believe Peter is the one who told the DEs about Sirius.

(Well, I just realized that Chiev already posted that information - but I'll just leave it here, since I already typed it.) :rolleyes:

They went with their friend, Sirius of the 1970's. Even JKR says he's a bit unhinged after Azkaban.
None-the-less, he was Harry's legal guardian, and no one should be allowed to change that.

"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). If I may suggest, the - dashes - around the word "persuaded" suggest that a stronger term was being circumscribed. :eyebrows: I doubt Kreacher was willing at all.

If I may suggest, the - dashes - around the word "persuaded" suggest that a stronger term was being circumscribed. :eyebrows: I doubt Kreacher was willing at all.Also, given that Dumbledore had to use his formidable legilimency skills on the elf suggests that he was less than forthcoming with the information. (Betraying a direct order from the Master, interesting.)

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.Maybe, but it wouldn't make Sirius necessarily recognisable by Malfoy. Students seem to have all kinds of critters at the station.... :whistle:

....... Oh all right. Lee Jordan. But if Malfoy recognised Padfoot at the station, why didn't he get him arrested on the spot?
Maybe because he didn't find out it was Sirius until later .... when Snape told him.

Maybe, but it wouldn't make Sirius necessarily recognisable by Malfoy. Students seem to have all kinds of critters at the station.... :whistle:

....... Oh all right. Lee Jordan. But if Malfoy recognised Padfoot at the station, why didn't he get him arrested on the spot?
Maybe because he didn't find out it was Sirius until later .... when Snape told him.If he didn't find out about it until later, then how could Draco have known to use the taunt on the train?
"I'll be dogging your footsteps in case you step out of line."

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.They went with their friend, Sirius of the 1970's. Even JKR says he's a bit unhinged after Azkaban.She had a lot to say about Snape too, but ..... :eyebrows:

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.
That would make sense as well, but I highly doubt that Voldemort tells all of his death eaters everything that he finds out. While he may have told them to let them be on the lookout, it's pretty important and if it got out to the Order that he knew then it wouldn't be useful anymore.

If he didn't find out about it until later, then how could Draco have known to use the taunt on the train?
It's okay. I'll look for it myself. :sigh:

Her we go"I seem to have touched a nerve," said Malfoy, smirking. "Well, just watch yourself, Potter, because I'll be dogging your footsteps in case you step out of line."


Why does this mean anything more than that, as pointed out, Malfoy knows that Sirius is an animagus? If Malfoy saw Sirius at the station, why didn't he do anything about it?

It's okay. I'll look for it myself. :sigh:

Her we go"I seem to have touched a nerve," said Malfoy, smirking. "Well, just watch yourself, Potter, because I'll be dogging your footsteps in case you step out of line."


Why does this mean anything more than that, as pointed out, Malfoy knows that Sirius is an animagus? If Malfoy saw Sirius at the station, why didn't he do anything about it?
As much as it seems that Draco knew that Sirius was an animagus, it all could just be purely coincidental, looking at how JKR writes, I'm probably wrong though. I agree that if Malfoy knew that it was Sirius he would have done something, it doesn't make sense that he wouldn't.

Good question, I don't know the answer to that. I think that LV knows Snape is a spy for the Order--why hasn't LV done the AK on Snape? I do know your POV, though.
My point was, Malfoy did know it was Sirius at the train station, and shared the info with his son, prior to the train leaving.

As much as it seems that Draco knew that Sirius was an animagus, it all could just be purely coincidental, it's probably not looking at the way that JKR writes. I agree that if Malfoy knew that it was Sirius he would have done something, it doesn't make sense that he wouldn't.The fact that the word "dogging" is in italics when Malfoy says it, and that Harry confirms our suspition later by telling Sirius Malfoy knows, means its probably not a coincidence.

The fact that the word "dogging" is in italics when Malfoy says it, and that Harry confirms our suspition later by telling Sirius Malfoy knows, means its probably not a coincidence.
Which is what I was saying, but it's still a possibility, slim, but a possibility none the less.

None-the-less, he was Harry's legal guardian, and no one should be allowed to change that.I never implied that it should be changed--it is the way it is. I was wondering whether or not Sirius, as he is now, is someone who James & Lily would have chosen as a guardian for Harry.Maybe, but it wouldn't make Sirius necessarily recognisable by Malfoy. Students seem to have all kinds of critters at the station.... Why not? Surely Peter is more familiar with Sirius's animagus form than Snape is? Snape has likely only seen Sirius as an animagus once (at the end of GoF), while Peter saw him transformed countless times. I don't think that time would be a factor, since Peter is recognizable to Sirius in a newspaper picture after 12 years of having his brain affected by Dementors........ Oh all right. Lee Jordan. But if Malfoy recognised Padfoot at the station, why didn't he get him arrested on the spot? I don't understand the reference to Lee Jordan. Who was there to arrest Sirius?That would make sense as well, but I highly doubt that Voldemort tells all of his death eaters everything that he finds out. While he may have told them to let them be on the lookout, it's pretty important and if it got out to the Order that he knew then it wouldn't be useful anymore.First, Lucius Malfoy isn't just any Death Eater. He seems to be rather highly ranked in the organization. He is the leader of the group at the DoM--he orders Bellatrix around. Second, we know that Peter is on Voldemort's side and knows about Sirius's animagus form. There's no proof that Snape is working for the Death Eaters; therefore it's more likely that Peter informed Voldemort of Sirius's animagus form.It's okay. I'll look for it myself. :sigh:

Her we go"I seem to have touched a nerve," said Malfoy, smirking. "Well, just watch yourself, Potter, because I'll be dogging your footsteps in case you step out of line."


Why does this mean anything more than that, as pointed out, Malfoy knows that Sirius is an animagus? If Malfoy saw Sirius at the station, why didn't he do anything about it?I'm a bit confused by your response to kingwidgit. kingwidgit did provide the quote in her post. I checked and there is no edit note on the post. :huh:

Your argument in post #805 was that Malfoy only found out about Sirius being an animagus after the train station. If so, Draco wouldn't know to make a comment about it on the train. "Dogging your footsteps" is too close to be a coincidence.

I don't understand the reference to Lee Jordan. Lee had a giant tarantula in a box in PS, that he snuck onto the train. Harry sees it on the platform, and Fred and George mention going to see it on the train.

I never implied that it should be changed--it is the way it is. I was wondering whether or not Sirius, as he is now, is someone who James & Lily would have chosen as a guardian for Harry.
Alright, I still believe that they would have chosen him, it's obvious that Sirius cares a great deal for Harry's happiness, but then again, if Lily and James would have been around to see this Sirius then he wouldn't have been like he is now, because he would have never been to Azkaban. I do understand that this is a hypothetical situation though.
First, Lucius Malfoy isn't just any Death Eater. He seems to be rather highly ranked in the organization. He is the leader of the group at the DoM--he orders Bellatrix around. Second, we know that Peter is on Voldemort's side and knows about Sirius's animagus form. There's no proof that Snape is working for the Death Eaters; therefore it's more likely that Peter informed Voldemort of Sirius's animagus form.
I know that he's not just any Death Eater, he seems to be very important, but still, word gets around, I believe that there are things that Voldemort wouldn't tell anyone, not even his most trusted Death Eaters.
I don't understand the reference to Lee Jordan. Who was there to arrest Sirius?
I think that with Malfoy's connections with the Ministry, he could have obtained someone quite quickly to arrest Sirius if he had wanted to.

Lee had a giant tarantula in a box in PS, that he snuck onto the train. Harry sees it on the platform, and Fred and George mention going to see it on the train.Oh. . .lots of creatures at the train station. Thanks! :)I know that he's not just any Death Eater, he seems to be very important, but still, word gets around, I believe that there are things that Voldemort wouldn't tell anyone, not even his most trusted Death Eaters.If you believe that Sirius's animagus form is information of a secret and sensitive nature to Voldemort, why?I think that with Malfoy's connections with the Ministry, he could have obtained someone quite quickly to arrest Sirius if he had wanted to.Sirius could escape just as quickly.

Perhaps it's not in Malfoy's best interests to have Sirius arrested anyway. If Sirius is bold enough to go out, he might be followed to give the Death Eaters an advantage. Malfoy doesn't know that Sirius won't be seen out and about again.

I think that with Malfoy's connections with the Ministry, he could have obtained someone quite quickly to arrest Sirius if he had wanted to.
Lucious Malfoy is certainly one of LV's inner circle, but Draco doesn't seem to know anything about what's going on with the DEs. When Harry trys to contact Sirius after seeing the vision of him in the DoM, Draco interfers by catching him and his friends for Umbridge. He must not have known anything about what was going on, or he wouldn't have tried to hold Harry up. If Harry hadn't been able to get away, he might not have gone to the DoM at all, ruining LV's plans.
If he's that clueless about the family buiness so to speak, I'm curious as to how he found out about Sirius' animagus form in the first place.

If you believe that Sirius's animagus form is information of a secret and sensitive nature to Voldemort, why?
I think that some things are secrets that Voldemort doesn't tell, and that it's possible that Sirius's animagus form has the possibility of being one. I thought that I had already explaing it, but I believe that because if he told people about Sirius then if one of those people had told others about it and then the Order eventually found out, then any other possible use he could have for knowing it, would become invalid.
Sirius could escape just as quickly.
But that's the beauty of magic, you can use spells to detain people or animals. ;)
Perhaps it's not in Malfoy's best interests to have Sirius arrested anyway. If Sirius is bold enough to go out, he might be followed to give the Death Eaters an advantage. Malfoy doesn't know that Sirius won't be seen out and about again.
Yeah, that was the major flaw that I could think of in that situation.

If he's that clueless about the family buiness so to speak, I'm curious as to how he found out about Sirius' animagus form in the first place.Good question. I'm sure Draco is not informed of the Death Eaters' plans. Perhaps he just overheard it? He seems to have a lot of partial information that he uses to annoy Harry--like the tiny bit he knows about the Chamber of Secrets.I think that some things are secrets that Voldemort doesn't tell, and that it's possible that Sirius's animagus form has the possibility of being one. I thought that I had already explaing it, but I believe that because if he told people about Sirius then if one of those people had told others about it and then the Order eventually found out, then any other possible use he could have for knowing it, would become invalid.I'm trying to understand what you're saying. You mean that Voldemort doesn't want it generally known by the Death Eaters that he knows Sirius's animagus form because he doesn't want it to get back to the Order that he knows about it?

But, wouldn't Voldemort guess that the Order already knows, since they know that Peter returned to him and would have informed him of everything? (This is the situation, since Sirius complains about his cover being blown in OotP.)

My question was more along the lines of what could Voldemort do with his knowledge of Sirius's animagus form? It doesn't sound like you had anything in particular in mind already, though?

Sorry if I've been confusing, I've been unintentionally doing that a lot today... So it's time to clarify...
I'm trying to understand what you're saying. You mean that Voldemort doesn't want it generally known by the Death Eaters that he knows Sirius's animagus form because he doesn't want it to get back to the Order that he knows about it?
The second one.
But, wouldn't Voldemort guess that the Order already knows, since they know that Peter returned to him and would have informed him of everything? (This is the situation, since Sirius complains about his cover being blown in OotP.)
Yeah, I guess, I didn't think about that sorry. :blush:
My question was more along the lines of what could Voldemort do with his knowledge of Sirius's animagus form? It doesn't sound like you had anything in particular in mind already, though?
No, just as an extra piece of information that could come in handy later.

I've always just assumed that Peter tipped off Voldemort to the form of Animagi Sirius. Why Snape would come into it I don't know? :huh: . Doesn't Sirius say in OotP that Peter would have ratted out his form? (I can't remember where!)

About what Draco said this raises an interesting question...how much does he know? Lucius isn't mentioned at having been at Kings Cross station so obviously Draco knows quite a lot of Death Eater information (I mean the Animagi form of a important member of the opposition...seems odd to me) enough to make up his own taunt that mentions Sirius's animagi form (or Lucius was there and just told Draco to say something like that to Harry to remind him that the DE's know about Sirius).

As to why Malfoy didn't try to get Sirius arrested simple...he didn't want to cause a scene. If only Draco was there to begin with where's his proof..."Honestly sir Sirius Black is an animagi"..."How did you learn this Draco?"...the questions start to get close to home. And do you think the Order is just going to let Sirius to be arrested? And considering that Ministry information puts him in Tibet.... :eyebrows: (thanks to Kingsley).

Also, given that Dumbledore had to use his formidable legilimency skills on the elf suggests that he was less than forthcoming with the information. (Betraying a direct order from the Master, interesting.)
What direct order was he betraying? Sirius told Kreacher to tell Dumbledore what happened, and where he had gone, and Kreacher told Dumbledore, while laughing, where Sirius had gone. So Kreacher had followed the order from Sirius, but what he was not willing to tell, was him going to Narcissa, and telling them things that he had not been sworn to secrecy for, and keeping Sirius away so he could lie to Harry and set Harry on the path to the MoM.

What direct order was he betraying?He was probably betraying an order from the Malfoys not to tell anyone about the set-up in the DoM and the plot against Harry.

I think you are right about Kreacher, Wooden Coyote. Kreacher wouldn't have wanted to betray Narcissa Malfoy, who is also a member of the Black family.

IAs to why Malfoy didn't try to get Sirius arrested simple...he didn't want to cause a scene. If only Draco was there to begin with where's his proof..."Honestly sir Sirius Black is an animagi"..."How did you learn this Draco?"...the questions start to get close to home. And do you think the Order is just going to let Sirius to be arrested? And considering that Ministry information puts him in Tibet.... :eyebrows: (thanks to Kingsley).Lucius Malfoy is a huge drama queen, he loves to cause a scene! He's always storming up to Hogwarts in a flap, trying to cause trouble for everyone. He thrives on creating controversy and melodrama. How great would it look on him to be the one responsible for finally catching the most feared criminal since Voldemort, especially when he had eluded the Aurors for so long? It would look great on his resume if he were to ever run for Minister for Magic. :eyebrows:

Granted, there would be much explaining to do, as you pointed out: how did he know the dog was Sirius? But Lucius has had numerous brushes with the authorities regarding his alleged dark past and they've never been able to pin anything on him before; I wouldn't put it past him to come up with a very good lie (and a very large sum of gold ;) ) that would convince people he was telling the truth of how he innocently knew Sirius' animagus form.

As for the Order, you're right, they most certainly wouldn't stand around and watch Sirius get arrested of course, but at the same time can they afford to cause a scene either? What happens to them if they're caught in the presence of an escaped criminal? They've been harbouring a fugitive, after all.

What direct order was he betraying? Sirius told Kreacher to tell Dumbledore what happened, and where he had gone, and Kreacher told Dumbledore, while laughing, where Sirius had gone. So Kreacher had followed the order from Sirius, but what he was not willing to tell, was him going to Narcissa, and telling them things that he had not been sworn to secrecy for, and keeping Sirius away so he could lie to Harry and set Harry on the path to the MoM.I was referring to Sirius ordering Kreacher to tell Dumbledore. If Kreacher is following his master's orders, he should have been able to tell Dumbledore all the information Sirius gave him with a sense of willing ease. But the impression we get from Dumbledore is that extracting information from Kreacher is like pulling teeth; Dumbledore had to resort to legilimency to find out what happened, which suggests to me Kreacher didn't willingly spill the information, and thus he went against his master's explicit orders.

This is a really long post. :evil: Sorry. :p

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).

Perhaps Harry would still have had to live at the Dursley’s house, but he could have spent a month or two (or ten) with Sirius and not have had in affect the blood protection. It would have done wonders for Harry’s self-esteem, and it would have given him some rudimentary education in the wizarding world.

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.

Yes, exactly.

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!

SIP, can I have your autograph? I like Sirius, I think he is an interesting character, but he made a lot of mistakes in getting his priorities straight. I think he had it right in GoF, but backslid when it came to OotP.

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.

I agree. Sirius thought he wanted to kill Peter for all he had done, but if that was truly his desire, he would have done it in the Shrieking Shack, instead of bowing to Harry’s wishes.

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!

But he should have chosen to take care of/be with Harry, until he was certain that the arrangements were taken care of. It also would have covered contingencies like Pettigrew getting away and no one knowing that he really was the spy. So, in a way, he was absent by choice. He chose to go after Pettigrew, and all the consequences that followed, intentioned or not, were because of that choice.

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.

He could have done a much better job of insuring Harry’s safety by hanging around to protect him, not to mention warning Dumbledore of exactly what had happened.

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

(My first try at that came out Wandering Bark, oops) James and Lily chose to change secret keepers, Sirius chose to seek revenge, regardless of the possible outcomes, some of which he (apparently) should have considered. I see a very fine line between unintended consequences and fault. And, by the way, I’m not any harder on the characters than I am on myself.

Even Dumbledore didn't know that the marauders were animagi. If Malfoy knew, then it must have been because Snape told him. Otherwise …

Hmmm…I would think that Wormtail would be more likely as the revealer of that secret.

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.

You beat me to it…Rats!

Maybe, but it wouldn't make Sirius necessarily recognisable by Malfoy. Students seem to have all kinds of critters at the station....

....... Oh all right. Lee Jordan. But if Malfoy recognised Padfoot at the station, why didn't he get him arrested on the spot?
Maybe because he didn't find out it was Sirius until later .... when Snape told him.

And how was Malfoy going to explain this sudden burst of insight? Besides, it might be difficult to be in the middle of that situation with all of those students. However, I think that Voldemort didn’t want his DE’s making a scene, what with him trying to keep his return as quite as possible.

That would make sense as well, but I highly doubt that Voldemort tells all of his death eaters everything that he finds out. While he may have told them to let them be on the lookout, it's pretty important and if it got out to the Order that he knew then it wouldn't be useful anymore.

I doubt anyone was supposed to realize that Pettigrew gave that secret up (although they should have suspected, anyway), but Draco has an unfortunate habit of talking about things I bet his father wishes he didn’t. Sometimes he knows more than he should, and sometimes he knows less. It could conceivably be either of those.

I agree. Sirius thought he wanted to kill Peter for all he had done, but if that was truly his desire, he would have done it in the Shrieking Shack, instead of bowing to Harry’s wishes.
He could have done a much better job of insuring Harry’s safety by hanging around to protect him, not to mention warning Dumbledore of exactly what had happened.
But he should have chosen to take care of/be with Harry, until he was certain that the arrangements were taken care of. It also would have covered contingencies like Pettigrew getting away and no one knowing that he really was the spy. So, in a way, he was absent by choice. He chose to go after Pettigrew, and all the consequences that followed, intentioned or not, were because of that choice.

(My first try at that came out Wandering Bark, oops) James and Lily chose to change secret keepers, Sirius chose to seek revenge, regardless of the possible outcomes, some of which he (apparently) should have considered. I see a very fine line between unintended consequences and fault. And, by the way, I’m not any harder on the characters than I am on myself.

:sigh: I'll reiterate what I said earlier and I'll elaborate on it because I thought of something more to add, if you lose someone from murder you're shocked, it's very unexpected and you don't usually think clearly. Sometimes your line of thinking can be put into a state of shock as well, and you run off of instincts alone, Sirius had never had any experience, that we've really heard about, in parenting, his natural instincts were most likely to find the man who betrayed his friends.

Okay--do all of you using the 'rat' references mean all the puns (Sirius ratted out, Rats!) you made last night?! : )

grrliz has mentioned this before in this discussion, and both of us referred to it a while further back than that...I think Voldemort targeted Sirius; I agree in suspicions that Sirius somehow provided another layer of protection to Harry and needed to be removed. I know it's pretty much speculation--except for the mysterious discussion in the beginning of GoF when Voldemort and Peter discuss another disappearance (British version) or death (US) (The very fact that there is a discrepancy about the wording tells my suspicious mind that there's something very important going on there.) Now--that disappearance/death could've been Crouch Sr: except his absence could have been and was noticed, and Voldemort explicitly said the absence would not be noticed--and it would remove a barrier between him and Harry.

So--extrapolating from there, with a healthy dose of imagination: Sirius. And to find Sirius, it is very, very useful to know that he is an unregistered Animagus. And why it wouldn't have been Pettigrew to 'rat' Sirius out, I have no idea; little else makes sense--Pettigrew has very good, unknown-otherwise information to give to his master to get in good with Voldemort. It would not only be logical, but also typical of Pettigrew to trade such information about someone else for his own benefit.

If I may suggest, the - dashes - around the word "persuaded" suggest that a stronger term was being circumscribed. :eyebrows: I doubt Kreacher was willing at all.

I am aware of that. However, there is a subtle difference between the two quotations,

"it was the elf who told me - laughing fit to burst - where Sirius had gone."
"I - persuaded him - to tell me the full story,"

It appears that Kreacher was very willing to tell Dumbledore where Sirius had gone (he was probably very proud that he had sent them to a presumed death - assuming that the noble DEs would be more skillful than the blood traitors). However, Dumbledore had to 'persuade' him to tell the whole story about his treachery. That was my interpretation, anyway.


But he should have chosen to take care of/be with Harry, until he was certain that the arrangements were taken care of. It also would have covered contingencies like Pettigrew getting away and no one knowing that he really was the spy. So, in a way, he was absent by choice. He chose to go after Pettigrew, and all the consequences that followed, intentioned or not, were because of that choice.

The fact that he spent time arguing with Hagrid and then agreed for Hagrid to take him, suggests that Hagrid explained to him what Dumbledore had planned (and also that Hagrid was trustworthy - for those who were suggesting he wasn't). Sirius assumed that Peter would try to make a run for it, and therefore time was a priority. If he went to chat with Dumbledore, Peter could have got away.

(My first try at that came out Wandering Bark, oops) James and Lily chose to change secret keepers, Sirius chose to seek revenge, regardless of the possible outcomes, some of which he (apparently) should have considered. I see a very fine line between unintended consequences and fault. And, by the way, I’m not any harder on the characters than I am on myself.

So you do blame James and Lily for dying and leaving Harry an orphan?

Lucius Malfoy is a huge drama queen, he loves to cause a scene! He's always storming up to Hogwarts in a flap, trying to cause trouble for everyone. He thrives on creating controversy and melodrama. How great would it look on him to be the one responsible for finally catching the most feared criminal since Voldemort, especially when he had eluded the Aurors for so long? It would look great on his resume if he were to ever run for Minister for Magic. :eyebrows:Yes, I think a scene would have been exactly what Malfoy would have wanted. The more I think about it, the more odd it seems that Malfoy didn't try to apprehend Sirius.

I'm not sure he'd even have that much explaining to do either. After all, if someone pulls in the most wanted wizard in the country, the Ministry is hardly going to ask all that many questions are they? :huh: Even if they do, I think Malfoy could get out of it fairly easily.

In PoA Lupin uses a spell to force Peter out of his animagus form. I'm guessing Malfoy could have simply used the same spell on SiriusDog and then started waving his arms (robes a-swooshing, hair a-flutter) shouting 'LOOK, LOOK, IT'S SIRIUS BLACK! C'mon everyone, let's get him!' There must have been dozens of parents there who would have helped him to detain Sirius. The fact that Lucius caused the transformation might well be overlooked in the confusion, or he could simply claim to have had a flash of inspiration - 'Naturally Cornelius I have been keeping my eyes open at all times, and I couldn't help but notice that suspicious-looking hound sniffing around Potter. I thought to myself - what is Potter doing with that big BLACK dog?' To which Fudge replies, 'Order of Merlin, first class for such an ingenious deduction!'

It is true that the Order wouldn't have wanted to cause a scene at the station either, and I'd go further than that. It would be disastrous for the Order to have several of its members caught defending of Sirius Black - if Malfoy had caused a scene he could have effectively 'flushed out' several Order members.
Originally posted by subtle science
So--extrapolating from there, with a healthy dose of imagination: Sirius. And to find Sirius, it is very, very useful to know that he is an unregistered Animagus. And why it wouldn't have been Pettigrew to 'rat' Sirius out, I have no idea; little else makes sense--Pettigrew has very good, unknown-otherwise information to give to his master to get in good with Voldemort. It would not only be logical, but also typical of Pettigrew to trade such information about someone else for his own benefit.I've been giving the whole 'who told whom' question a fair amount of thought.

It makes sense that Peter told Voldemort that Sirius was an animagus. The very fact that Peter is one strongly suggests Sirius might be too, and Voldemort could have used Legilimency on him anyway. Voldemort may or may not have passed this information on to his DEs. Voldemort may have kept this information to himself if the theory about Sirius providing a layer of magical protection for Harry is correct. (For more on this see grrliz' earlier post and the All About Sirius Black thread passim). Voldemort wants Sirius dead, and allowing him to be captured is not good enough for him - he might get a trial this time and be let off, or it might be that the Dementor's Kiss wouldn't revoke the magical protection that Sirius provides because he is still alive. This would make Sirius' identity important enough for Voldemort to keep it a secret.

So how does Malfoy know, if he does? Snape could have told him (I'm not sure he did, but it is possible). I don't think Snape is a double-agent, but there are other reasons for him to spill this information. First and foremost is that he hates Sirius. He doesn't think Sirius does anything worthwhile for the Order, so he doesn't think it would matter too much if Sirius were captured. Snape is a spy, but he is supposed to be spying on Dumbledore - he has to give Voldemort/other high-ranking DEs (?) some genuine information, all spies do. Revealing that Sirius is an animagus would be something Snape could probably justify doing if Dumbledore questioned him; it isn't that big a secret because Peter knows and Sirius is in hiding anyway.

Alternatively - Malfoy didn't know (or at least, not at King's Cross). The dogging comment is great because the first thing it makes Harry and Hermione (and us) wonder is 'how much does Draco know?' It seems very unlikely that it was a coincidence, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Draco knows everything. Sometimes making your enemy think you know more that you do can be a very useful tactic. It is possible that Lucius noticed SiriusDog and thought something was up, but didn't know what. So he pulls little Draco to one side and has a few quiet words in his shell-like - 'that dog seems odd...tell Harry you'll be, er, dogging his footsteps this year, then owl me about his reaction...'

Lucius could have worked it out later, maybe helped by Snape, maybe not. This would account for his not doing anything at King's Cross - he couldn't act until he was sure.

In PoA Lupin uses a spell to force Peter out of his animagus form.I don't have my books with me, but I thought that just happened in the movie?It is true that the Order wouldn't have wanted to cause a scene at the station either, and I'd go further than that. It would be disastrous for the Order to have several of its members caught defending of Sirius Black - if Malfoy had caused a scene he could have effectively 'flushed out' several Order members.It would make more sense for them to sacrifice Sirius at that time. Harry wouldn't understand, but Sirius should.Voldemort may have kept this information to himself if the theory about Sirius providing a layer of magical protection for Harry is correct. (For more on this see grrliz' earlier post and the All About Sirius Black thread passim). Voldemort wants Sirius dead, and allowing him to be captured is not good enough for him - he might get a trial this time and be let off, or it might be that the Dementor's Kiss wouldn't revoke the magical protection that Sirius provides because he is still alive. This would make Sirius' identity important enough for Voldemort to keep it a secret.This is also a good argument for why Lucius wouldn't have Sirius apprehended at the station--it would be hard to kill him in Azkaban. Sirius might have recieved the Dementor's kiss, but maybe not, since so much time has passed since his escape and the MoM still doesn't know that he's an animagus.

I don't have my books with me, but I thought that just happened in the movie?No, its in the book too [ pg. 268-269 UK deluxe ]

Quote from shaggydogstail:
Yes, I think a scene would have been exactly what Malfoy would have wanted. The more I think about it, the more odd it seems that Malfoy didn't try to apprehend Sirius.

I'm not sure he'd even have that much explaining to do either. After all, if someone pulls in the most wanted wizard in the country, the Ministry is hardly going to ask all that many questions are they? Even if they do, I think Malfoy could get out of it fairly easily.
But we don't even know for sure that Lucius Malfoy was there (I picture one of the servants as taking Draco to the train station :p ). And the spell to force an animagi to reveal themselves could be obscure magic probably known only people who have studied animagi (unless it's a simple revealing charm). Also does Lucius really strike you as that brave? He seems more the type to have a plan before acting rashly (even if it's a bad plan).

So--extrapolating from there, with a healthy dose of imagination: Sirius. And to find Sirius, it is very, very useful to know that he is an unregistered Animagus.As whiz would say, who is Sirius Black? :eyebrows: I can never find the passage when I need it, but doesn't Sirius say he was planning on going into hiding himself? It seems those in hiding are those whom Voldemort is after specifically, so why is Voldemort after Sirius? I have no answers, only questions.

In PoA Lupin uses a spell to force Peter out of his animagus form. I'm guessing Malfoy could have simply used the same spell on SiriusDog and then started waving his arms (robes a-swooshing, hair a-flutter) shouting 'LOOK, LOOK, IT'S SIRIUS BLACK! C'mon everyone, let's get him!' There must have been dozens of parents there who would have helped him to detain Sirius. The fact that Lucius caused the transformation might well be overlooked in the confusion, or he could simply claim to have had a flash of inspiration - 'Naturally Cornelius I have been keeping my eyes open at all times, and I couldn't help but notice that suspicious-looking hound sniffing around Potter. I thought to myself - what is Potter doing with that big BLACK dog?' To which Fudge replies, 'Order of Merlin, first class for such an ingenious deduction!':tu: Great all around post, but I'll go you one further with Malfoy using the ol "switch 'em back to human" spell: he doesn't even have to pretend that he recognized the dog and switched him back to his human form; once he forces him to show himself as a human, Malfoy could claim that he simply saw Sirius Black as a man at Kings Cross, a man no doubt so desperate to finish Harry Potter off that he's come out of hiding and is trying to kill the boy (the one thing standing between him and the Dark Lord's return :rolleyes: ) before he goes back to Hogwarts at the start of the year. Killing him amidst the hustle and bustle of Kings Cross only further demonstrates Black's derrangement (etc. :rolleyes: ). Malfoy doesn't ever have to own up to knowing about Sirius' animagus form.

But we don't even know for sure that Lucius Malfoy was there (I picture one of the servants as taking Draco to the train station :p). And the spell to force an animagi to reveal themselves could be obscure magic probably known only people who have studied animagi (unless it's a simple revealing charm).Draco makes his comment about Sirius ("dogging") on the train, which means he either knew about Sirius' animagus form himself prior to coming to the train station (possible, but I don't think very likely, Lucius doesn't ever seem to tell Draco anything terribly important, just enough to whet his appetite) or Lucius himself was there and told Draco once he spotted Sirius. (Or the Malfoy servants know about Sirius animagus form too.) Hermione often speaks for JKR, and I think it's Hermione who says that Lucius Malfoy recognized Sirius; it's not cold hard fact since we didn't actually see him there, but I think we're supposed to accept Hermione's statement at face value (for once). :)

Also: don't students study animagi in school?

Also does Lucius really strike you as that brave? He seems more the type to have a plan before acting rashly (even if it's a bad plan).Not brave, but an opportunist. We don't know how long Malfoy has been sitting on this information, but it could be as long as fifteen years (i.e. Peter could have told Voldemort about the animagus forms pretty much from the beginning of his defection to Voldemort). Finally finding an opportunity to use said information is definitely something Malfoy would do; it's been a long time coming!

Jaguarundi: I think we do know that Lucius saw Sirius as a dog on the platform. Snape says it to Sirius in "Occlumency, Chap. 24, OotP:

"Speaking of dogs," said Snape softly, "did you know that Lucius Malfoy recognized you last time you risked a little jaunt outside? Clever idea, Black, getting yourself seen on a safe station platform . . . "

I'm going to change the subject a bit because we have been off-topic on Development of Snape due to my mentioning James and his supposed glasses.

The Harry Potter Lexicon says that James wore glasses in SWM, Chapter 28, OotP. But I can find no reference that Harry saw any glasses of any kind on James. I even searched through it thinking that perhaps James took them off while he played with the Snitch, but there are no glasses. I believe Subtle Science went through it, too, and didn't see any glasses.

Tao made the point on the other thread that it makes more sense for James to NOT wear glasses since Harry is supposed to have his mother's eyes. The shape of someone's eyes has alot to do with wearing glasses. My daughter and I have almost the same astigmatism (rounded eyeball shape) and our eyes are the same color. I guess it is possible to have one parent's eye color and the other's eye shape, but I'm not sure that Harry does.

I don't know - Lily hasn't been mentioned with glasses either.

At any rate, Tao was talking about fan-fiction going on with the myth of James and the glasses. I think it has to do with the movies. In Book One and Movie One (PS/SS), Harry sees James in the Mirror of Erised and he is wearing glasses - that is the canon. But . . . we know that the mirror doesn't always show the truth, but what you want or need to see. So Harry sees a sort of idealized version of his parents.

When Hagrid gives Harry the photo album in the Movie One, and we see it again in Movie Two, James is wearing those glasses. But in Book One, no mention is made of glasses at all in the photo album. In Book Two, I haven't even been able to find a reference to the photo album, but it may be there.

At any rate, the movies are inconsistant, since in Movie Three, we see a photo of James without glasses!

JKR has also said that a picture she used as wallpaper from Immeritus was "accurate" for Lupin and Sirius, but not necessarily James - she doesn't comment on his picture:

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/fansite_view.cfm?id=1
The fan art on here is very good. For a while I had a picture of the four marauders drawn by Laura Freeman on my desktop. It is a particularly accurate portrayal of Sirius and Lupin.

Here is the picture I think she is talking about:

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

Could it be that James looks to "little-boyish" in that picture? He also has a kind look on his face, reminiscent of Harry. But after reading SWM, I don't see James that way. Also, notice he is wearing glasses, but tricky JKR didn't comment on that. :evil:

I just think the eyes are important, and that what the canon says about them is important. JKR has said it isn't the color that is important, but something else.

I guess what I'm interested in is Harry's "image" of his father and what he actually sees.

I also wonder how many of you picture James with glasses?

I've never been a fan of the James that we see in the first two movies. The actor they show looks rather stuffy and old. He even seems to have a receding hairline, and James is only supposed to be about 21 in that picture. I like the "dancing" picture in the PoA movie, except that he doesn't have dark hair or look anything like Harry. I'm baffled by this, unless James is supposed to have been a metamorphmagus???

Quote form silver ink pot:
Jaguarundi: I think we do know that Lucius saw Sirius as a dog on the platform. Snape says it to Sirius in "Occlumency, Chap. 24, OotP:
Forgot about that entirely. Thanks silver!!

Tao made the point on the other thread that it makes more sense for James to NOT wear glasses since Harry is supposed to have his mother's eyes. The shape of someone's eyes has alot to do with wearing glasses. My daughter and I have almost the same astigmatism (rounded eyeball shape) and our eyes are the same color. I guess it is possible to have one parent's eye color and the other's eye shape, but I'm not sure that Harry does. I was going to mention that I think when everyone tells Harry he has his mother's eyes, I'm not sure they're refering to the shape of her eyeball and the location of her retinas so much as merely the colour. My dad has blue eyes and wears glasses, whereas I have hazel eyes and wear glasses. I guess what I mean is that if the colour is indeed not the most important part of Harry's/Lily's eyes, I agree that obviously it must be something else, but I'm not sure that the important bit is myopia. I think JKR was once asked if there was magic one could do with ones eyes and she was her typical evasive self about the answer, and I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the ability to see distant objects clearly isn't necessarily what she has in mind. (Magical as I would find that!) :D

At any rate, the movies are inconsistant, since in Movie Three, we see a photo of James without glasses! Okay, I'm very obsessive, so I just put on PoA to check because I have always been under the impression that he is wearing glasses in that scene. It's hard to tell on the small screen (*cough*Iawitfourtimesintheatres*cough*) and the pictures I have of it aren't entirely clear, but I'll add them as an attachment at the bottom of this post for those who are interested. In the picture there is the image of James and Lily at the original image size on the left, and then on the right are two enlarged (and more pixellated :( ) versions of just James -- one as he appears, and one where I've outlined where his glasses are so that you can better see them on the untouched version, since they are quite hard to see but I'm confident they're there.

I've never been a fan of the James that we see in the first two movies. The actor they show looks rather stuffy and old. He even seems to have a receding hairline, and James is only supposed to be about 21 in that picture. I like the "dancing" picture in the PoA movie, except that he doesn't have dark hair or look anything like Harry. I'm baffled by this, unless James is supposed to have been a metamorphmagus???The actor (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0712628/) is the same for all three movies, but I think by the time PoA rolled around they must have realised "Hey, he was young when he died, and it was the early eighties, let's make him look young with hip sideburns, eh?" Maybe they couldn't find an actor who looks like an adult version of Daniel Radcliffe?

I've always pictured James with glasses, but I think that largely comes a) from the movies (since I saw the PS/SS movie before I read any of the books) which is emphasized by b) my reading of a lot of Marauder-era fanfic, which is rife with James-wears-glasses, as Tao points out.

You know, I've never really set a concrete picture of James in my mind. Sometimes I imagine him with glasses, sometimes I don't. He tends to change a lot in my head :rotfl:
I've never been a fan of the James that we see in the first two movies. The actor they show looks rather stuffy and old. He even seems to have a receding hairline, and James is only supposed to be about 21 in that picture.Yes, I found him a bit stiff looking too. He didn't seem to be interacting much with the scene either.
I like the "dancing" picture in the PoA movie, except that he doesn't have dark hair or look anything like Harry. I'm baffled by this, unless James is supposed to have been a metamorphmagus???Please keep in mind, you're comparing the looks of a 13 year old child to that of a 22 year old adult. They're not going to be exactly alike. As for the hair color, didn't the photo have a yellow-ish tint? That could have thrown the tones off a little.

EDIT: NM, I got a look at the picture. You're right, his hair is brown, not black.

You are so welcome, Jaguarundi!

Hey! Updates to JKR's Official Site! She says the following about the Half-Blood Prince, which I find interesting:

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/faq_view.cfm?id=93

Section: F.A.Q.
Do you like ‘Half-Blood Prince’?

I like it better than I liked ‘Goblet’, ‘Phoenix’ or ‘Chamber’ when I finished them. Book six does what I wanted it to do and even if nobody else likes it (and some won’t), I know it will remain one of my favourites of the series. Ultimately you have to please yourself before you please anyone else!

What do you think? Will we like it, even if we hate it? :evil:

It may mean that the HBP is either Lupin or Snape, and either fandom will hate that no matter who she chooses, lol. (No we won't - we are civilized and will allow the authoress her own story, after all). :p

Edited to Add: I just saw your attachment, Grrliz. I don't see any glasses on James in that picture, though I will check my DVD later. He looks like they've put make-up to make his eyes look as if he has dark circles around them, or something. But I like your little glasses that you drew, lol. :tu:

Edited to Add: I just saw your attachment, Grrliz. I don't see any glasses on James in that picture, though I will check my DVD later. He looks like they've put make-up to make his eyes look as if he has dark circles around them, or something. But I like your little glasses that you drew, lol. :tu:Yes, I'm quite proud of those glasses myself, surely my best photoshop work thus far? Seriously, though, I was trying to decide if I thought what I think are glasses were simply bags under his eyes or something, but given that James and Lily are having a happy-go-lucky carefree moment, I can't imagine why the make-up artists would try and create the opposite effect by making him look like he's got dark circles. The other thing is there's an odd dark line on the side of his face that either looks like the arm of a pair of glasses, or the shadow from the arm, which I can't find any other explanation for. I think he's got glasses, but that's just my opinion of course. :)

grrliz - love the glasses :lol:
I think I see them in the picture, but I'll take a peek at the dvd later on. Any excuse right?
I've always pictured James with glasses, although to be honest, I have no idea what gave me that impression? In the shot of him in SS did he have glasses on in the Mirror of Erised?

As for what Jo said on HBP.... I can't wait to know what she means. It could be any number of things related to who may not like it.
Do you like ‘Half-Blood Prince’?

I like it better than I liked ‘Goblet’, ‘Phoenix’ or ‘Chamber’ when I finished them. Book six does what I wanted it to do and even if nobody else likes it (and some won’t), I know it will remain one of my favourites of the series. Ultimately you have to please yourself before you please anyone else!




Shippers - their ship is "sunk" and therefore they'll be fit to be tied. :p This actually seems fairly likely given how, um, "dedicated" some shippers can be. Jo is well aware of that fact, so I'm sure she figures there will be some uproar when one ship or another is sunk.
Finding out something about a favorite character we don't like - for example: Finding out someone we like is really a bad guy*. Be it Snape, Sirius, Lupin, etc. I'm sure there will be an awful lot of awfully bitter people if one of their favorites turns out on the wrong side or betrays Harry in some way. Although, I suspect some will continue to be devoted to their favorites regardless. :)
One of our favorites dying - We know there are deaths coming up. I can picture lots of angry fans if their favorite dies. I am dreading DD dying, but I highly suspect no matter how much I dread it, it is imminent.


*I am not making any claims in that as to who I think may be evil, if anyone. Just giving examples.

No matter what Jo does with the story, I'm going to enjoy it and continue reading. I may not like what happens, but overall it's a fantastic story and I won't stop reading until she stops writing.


Ok, since we seem to need a new topic to discuss, maybe we could discuss what may be upcoming dealing with the marauders that we wouldn't like? (taking a page from Jo's new updates)
(example)
I know that we are going to learn about why Sirius "sent" Snape to the WW. Maybe we are going to learn something that Sirius fans will not like?

I know that we are going to learn about why Sirius "sent" Snape to the WW. Maybe we are going to learn something that Sirius fans will not like?
You mean aside from him being a "bullying toerag" etc? :rotfl: I imagine some people weren't to happy to learn he was a jerk as a kid, along with James.

You mean aside from him being a "bullying toerag" etc? :rotfl: I imagine some people weren't to happy to learn he was a jerk as a kid, along with James.

I was trying really hard not to say that or even imply it. I was trying to be impartial and fair. :lol: I know some really don't see it that way, so that would be one thing that people may not like in HBP, if that is in fact what we learn.

grrliz - love the glasses :lol:
I think I see them in the picture, but I'll take a peek at the dvd later on. Any excuse right? Okay, I just rewatched the scene, only using the zoom feature on my DVD player, and there's a shot where James and Lily spin and you can definitely see the frames of his glasses outlined against a white area in the background. I'm still searching for a decent picture of it (the lengths I go to! :rolleyes: </lucius melodrama>) but I have a feeling I won't be able to find one. Maybe I can pause the DVD and take a picture of it.

I was trying really hard not to say that or even imply it. I was trying to be impartial and fair. :lol: I know some really don't see it that way, so that would be one thing that people may not like in HBP, if that is in fact what we learn.Not my fault, I'm just quoting Lily *whistles innocently* And besides, that's not something new anyway. We heard plenty about it in OotP.
I wonder what else there could be.. its always bothered me as to why Sirius sent Snape to WW. Aside from being about the least funny thing you could possibly do, he could have gotten Snape, James and Remus killed! The lack of forethought is staggering..

Not my fault, I'm just quoting Lily *whistles innocently* And besides, that's not something new anyway. We heard plenty about it in OotP.Well, technically, Lily is talking about James there, isn't she? :eyebrows: :p

I wonder what else there could be.. its always bothered me as to why Sirius sent Snape to WW. Aside from being about the least funny thing you could possibly do, he could have gotten Snape, James and Remus killed! The lack of forethought is staggering..Actually, so little is known about the scene that I think we can hardly jump to conclusions and know what anyone's intentions were or how the incident actually went down. We don't know why Sirius did it, we don't know how he convinced Snape to go to the Whomping Willow. Appearances can be deceiving, after all.

Update on the "Does James have glasses in Poa" front: taking pictures of your television does not lead to great quality images. Alas, my images did not turn out, but the glasses are definitely there. Hooray for zoom!

You mean aside from him being a "bullying toerag" etc? :rotfl: I imagine some people weren't to happy to learn he was a jerk as a kid, along with James.

Come one now - don't beat around the bush! Just say what you really think!
:rotfl:

I just blew up that picture of James, and he looks a little scruffy to me, lol. I almost see a "goatee" on his chin, but no glasses. I just don't see the bridge of glasses across his nose, for instance.:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/sip44/Jamesfaceclose-upPOA.jpg

Then, I read atherella's post and I thought: "We are going to find out that James had really bad skin and too much body hair." :evil:

I vote that there will be alot of "reversals," and the foreshadowing of that is in OotP in which so many characters are literally as well as figuratively turned upside down!

Reversals about James and Sirius could certainly be a good reason for ALOT of fans to dislike the books. :agree:

None of you are going to believe this, but I had a dream that the entire book of HBP is about "bullying," and that we are going to see it on such a scale that no one will be in any doubt this time whether it is "justified" or not. I actually dreamed I was riding in one of the Hogwarts carriages and saw someone get pushed out in a violent way, and someone else stood up for them. I didn't recognize anyone in the dream, but the message was clear - to me at least, it was my dream, lol.

Well, technically, Lily is talking about James there, isn't she? :eyebrows: :pShhh... :rotfl:

Actually, so little is known about the scene that I think we can hardly jump to conclusions and know what anyone's intentions were or how the incident actually went down. We don't know why Sirius did it, we don't know how he convinced Snape to go to the Whomping Willow. Appearances can be deceiving, after all. I know, that's why I'm so curious. The whole senario seems odd, I want to know what happened - why, how, when, what lead up to it, what came after... the whole sheebang.

None of you are going to believe this, but I had a dream that the entire book of HBP is about "bullying," and that we are going to see it on such a scale that no one will be in any doubt this time whether it is "justified" or not. I actually dreamed I was riding in one of the Hogwarts carriages and saw someone get pushed out in a violent way, and someone else stood up for them. I didn't recognize anyone in the dream, but the message was clear - to me at least, it was my dream, lol.

Are you kidding, I think we'd believe most anything here! :p

I don't know if your dream is right or not, but I think, or at least I am hoping, that once Jo explains the WW incident at least (preferably more) that there will be no doubt as to who was at fault. As much as I love the debates, I'd really like to know what really happened and put my weary mind at rest. At least on that issue! :D

I wonder what else there could be.. its always bothered me as to why Sirius sent Snape to WW. Aside from being about the least funny thing you could possibly do, he could have gotten Snape, James and Remus killed! The lack of forethought is staggering..

I'm interested to see what he did. Did he trick Snape? or did he just tell him how to get past the Whomping Willow? Did he warn Severus not to go in?

Are you kidding, I think we'd believe most anything here! :p

I don't know if your dream is right or not, but I think, or at least I am hoping, that once Jo explains the WW incident at least (preferably more) that there will be no doubt as to who was at fault. As much as I love the debates, I'd really like to know what really happened and put my weary mind at rest. At least on that issue! :D

In order to do that, she will have to go into more background on Snape, Sirius, Lupin, and James. It could be that is what HBP is all about, or it could be disappointing if it isn't.

I have a nagging suspician that she may say more about the Werewolf Incident because of some of the other things the Marauders may have done - perhaps those "close calls" Lupin talked about. I'm just hoping we will find out how James got in and out of the Shrieking Shack tunnel with that rack of antlers on his head?

I have a nagging suspician that she may say more about the Werewolf Incident because of some of the other things the Marauders may have done - perhaps those "close calls" Lupin talked about

I think, almost positive even, that Jo said we'd learn more about that incident.

I am really hoping to learn more about SWM. I think there are a lot of fans who were really bothered by that scene. Whatever she chooses to write is fine, but I'd really like to know the whole story.

I'm just hoping we will find out how James got in and out of the Shrieking Shack tunnel with that rack of antlers on his head?

I never thought of that! Now I can't get the image out of my mind! How did he get in? :lol:

I just blew up that picture of James, and he looks a little scruffy to me, lol. I almost see a "goatee" on his chin, but no glasses. I just don't see the bridge of glasses across his nose, for instance.Well, you'd hardly be able to find anything from a blow up of a blow up, now could you? Each time the image is enlarged, the quality is lost. The photo I took of the television screen was awful, and there's lots of glare from the light in the room (alas), but there is a distinct oval shape created by James' glasses on the background. I've pointed out James' ear so you can get an idea of the shape and placement of his head, since there's a large red glare blocking out the front portion of his upper skull between his ear and his eyes. Again, I'll put it in an attachment (although I don't expect you to be convinced :p).

Reversals about James and Sirius could certainly be a good reason for ALOT of fans to dislike the books. :agree: I thought we were supposed to be getting revelations about Snape in the next few books? :eyebrows: :agree:

None of you are going to believe this, but I had a dream that the entire book of HBP is about "bullying," and that we are going to see it on such a scale that no one will be in any doubt this time whether it is "justified" or not. I actually dreamed I was riding in one of the Hogwarts carriages and saw someone get pushed out in a violent way, and someone else stood up for them. I didn't recognize anyone in the dream, but the message was clear - to me at least, it was my dream, lol.:rotfl: Ah yes, only in your dreams will the entire book be about bullying!!! :lol: Seriously though, as others have mentioned, I do believe JKR said we'd learn more about the Whomping Willow incident, although she didn't specify which book. It took me forever to find the quote, but she said it at the 2004 World Book Day chat (http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm): Kyla: What made Sirius decide to send Snape to the Willow?
JK Rowling replies -> Because Sirius loathed Snape (and the feeling was entirely mutual). You'll find out more about this in due course.Entirely mutual, eh? :eyebrows:

To be completely honest, if the next book is about bullying I may just chuck it out the window, not because of who it might implicate or who it might involve, but out of sheer boredom. We've had five books now that have discussed various forms of bullying. I was talking with someone recently who mentioned that she was aghast that bullying only became an issue for people in OotP when suddenly legions of fans started to hold Snape up as a victim to be sympathied because of his past, because ... where were these people during the first four books? Why do we see no such identification with Harry or Neville or Hermione? I've heard lots of people say they identify with Snape because of the treatment he apparently recieved, and yet I rarely hear anyone ever say they identify with Harry or Neville for the same reasons, and we've seen Harry experience it far more than we've ever seen with Snape. That's really weird to me.

To be completely honest, if the next book is about bullying I may just chuck it out the window, not because of who it might implicate or who it might involve, but out of sheer boredom. Whatever happens in book 6 Liz, if you chuck it out of the window out of boredom, I'll eat a hippogriff! :rotfl:
Originally posted by grrliz
We've had five books now that have discussed various forms of bullying. I was talking with someone recently who mentioned that she was aghast that bullying only became an issue for people in OotP when suddenly legions of fans started to hold Snape up as a victim to be sympathied because of his past, because ... where were these people during the first four books? [...] That's really weird to me.So it's not just me? I'm baffled as to why the connection between Snape and bullying is almost always presented as him being the victim, when it is clear to me that he is a perpetrator of bullying in all five books!
Originally Posted by atherella
I know that we are going to learn about why Sirius "sent" Snape to the WW. Maybe we are going to learn something that Sirius fans will not like?Speaking as a hardened 'Sirius fan' I'm not sure that more information could possibly make Sirius look much worse - as it stands he betrayed Lupin and nearly got James and Snape killed! If any more information comes out that upsets people it is far more likely that it would be something that somehow 'exonerates' Sirius, but I think that is unlikely to happen as I just don't see how.
Originally posted by WoodenCoyote
I know, that's why I'm so curious. The whole senario seems odd, I want to know what happened - why, how, when, what lead up to it, what came after... the whole sheebang.Yes, I defintitely want to know more about it - there are so many things that don't add up for me. Why did Snape listen to Sirius when he told him how to get into the tunnel? Why was Sirius prepared to risk exposing Lupin's secret to get back at Snape? Why/how did Lupin forgive him for it? However it turns out I'm pretty sure Sirius will still appear very, very much in the wrong, but at the moment it doesn't really make that much sense.
Originally posted by SIP
Reversals about James and Sirius could certainly be a good reason for ALOT of fans to dislike the books. Oh I think Snape fans will cope if it turns out that James and Sirius were the good guys at school too... :whistle:

On the burning issue of James' glasses - I didn't think he was wearing any when I saw the film, but I can see them quite clearly in the pics grrliz blew up for us. Nice work! :tu:

Well, you'd hardly be able to find anything from a blow up of a blow up, now could you? Each time the image is enlarged, the quality is lost. The photo I took of the television screen was awful, and there's lots of glare from the light in the room (alas), but there is a distinct oval shape created by James' glasses on the background. I've pointed out James' ear so you can get an idea of the shape and placement of his head, since there's a large red glare blocking out the front portion of his upper skull between his ear and his eyes. Again, I'll put it in an attachment (although I don't expect you to be convinced :p).

Truthfully - I'm having trouble seeing it in your second picture worse than the first, lol. I'm going to wrestle the DVD player from my children tonight and zoom in on that. (My oldest son was home all day with the flu, and my daughter just came home and took the TV - I have no control! My youngest is about to come home and take the Playstation, so I can't even use that, lol - not enough TVs.)

I thought we were supposed to be getting revelations about Snape in the next few books? :eyebrows: :agree:

I know! Will she kill off her "gift of a character"? Or will we find out his lifestory and why Lily might take up for him?

I think HBP will be Lily's story, for various reasons, so there will be revelations all around.

:rotfl: Ah yes, only in your dreams will the entire book be about bullying!!! :lol: Seriously though, as others have mentioned, I do believe JKR said we'd learn more about the Whomping Willow incident, although she didn't specify which book. It took me forever to find the quote, but she said it at the 2004 World Book Day chat (http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm): Entirely mutual, eh? :eyebrows:

I'm glad you found that quote - I wasn't sure it existed!

To be completely honest, if the next book is about bullying I may just chuck it out the window, not because of who it might implicate or who it might involve, but out of sheer boredom. We've had five books now that have discussed various forms of bullying. I was talking with someone recently who mentioned that she was aghast that bullying only became an issue for people in OotP when suddenly legions of fans started to hold Snape up as a victim to be sympathied because of his past, because ... where were these people during the first four books? Why do we see no such identification with Harry or Neville or Hermione? I've heard lots of people say they identify with Snape because of the treatment he apparently recieved, and yet I rarely hear anyone ever say they identify with Harry or Neville for the same reasons, and we've seen Harry experience it far more than we've ever seen with Snape. That's really weird to me.

I don't think that's entirely fair. I've always felt sorry for Harry and Neville, and I've even compared Snape's experiences to theirs (ad nauseum). I think bullying is a major theme - MAJOR theme - since we have had Dudley "Big D" Dursley on deck since Book One. The children are just mirror images of the adults. And with War coming in the next two books, and with JKR saying that the Holocaust is one of her inspirations for the "Pureblood/Half-Blood" controversy, then how can the plot ignore bullying or tyranny or whatever you want to call it. Evil.

But you may have put your finger on why people won't like Book 6! :huh:

People haven't enjoyed analyzing SWM alot because it is the first instance that takes popular characters and shows them acting like bullies. But there is also a quote from JKR saying that "Evil is Attractive." I think that is what she is trying to say - just my opinion.

I think HBP will be Lily's story, for various reasons, so there will be revelations all around.I think JKR said we'd get major revelations about Lily in OotP and Book 7.

I had a really long post typed out about what I meant about lack of sympathy for Harry and Neville vs. Snape, but it turned into more of a meta-critique on the fandom in general and would probably have ruffled a few feathers, so I've decided no to post it. I wasn't speaking of anyone in general more to the larger fanbase out their beyond the forum and the kind of lines along which its sympathies are drawn. The general gist of my point was that through the first four books nary a peep was heard regarding the bullying of Harry or Neville, and Dudley was only ever really painted as a bit of a moron rather than potentially evil. OotP saw an intense shift in the interpretation of what was percieved as bullying and suddenly people were coming out of the woodwork saying how much they identified with Snape and how James and Sirius Were Bad People (sound familiar? ;) :p). I just have a problem with people largley ignoring the plight of Harry or Neville and suddenly sitting up and paying attention when it happens to Snape. I find the Harry Potter fandom weird at best (understatement of the year :rolleyes: :p) but find this particular issue stranger than most. I don't know what to chalk it up to.

Yes, I defintitely want to know more about it - there are so many things that don't add up for me. Why did Snape listen to Sirius when he told him how to get into the tunnel? Why was Sirius prepared to risk exposing Lupin's secret to get back at Snape? Why/how did Lupin forgive him for it? However it turns out I'm pretty sure Sirius will still appear very, very much in the wrong, but at the moment it doesn't really make that much sense.These are very good questions. :agree: I agree that we'll likely find out what the circumstances of this situation were- the only things we know for sure about it are that Snape saw Lupin and Madame Pomfrey going to the Willow one evening, and Sirius responded by somehow giving Snape enough information to get past the Willow. About making Sirius look worse due to this incident- it's entirely possible we could learn the full extent of what Sirius did, and that this will show Sirius in an even worse light. But it's still possible that we'll learn something that makes things a bit better in terms of Sirius's actions- after all, we still don't know all of the facts in this case.

Yeah. That's why I think James didn't last very long.

I thought Lily already had Harry with or near her when James told her to take Harry and run. And instead she stayed and made the sacrifice. Which is why I said what I said in my post in response to Silver Ink Pot.


I agree that we'll likely find out what the circumstances of this situation were- the only things we know for sure about it are that Snape saw Lupin and Madame Pomfrey going to the Willow one evening, and Sirius responded by somehow giving Snape enough information to get past the Willow. About making Sirius look worse due to this incident- it's entirely possible we could learn the full extent of what Sirius did, and that this will show Sirius in an even worse light. But it's still possible that we'll learn something that makes things a bit better in terms of Sirius's actions- after all, we still don't know all of the facts in this case.

That's true. I think Lupin says that Snape was interested in where he went every month, so Snape was on to them for some time. And Lupin also says that Sirius that it would be amusing to tell Snape how to get past the Whomping Willow and to follow the tunnel. That seems to imply that Sirius actually walked up to Snape and gave him the information. Although, I could see Sirius telling Snape in a fit of anger over Snape's spying on the Marauders or even staging a conversation for Snape to overhear.

Either way, I don't think that Sirius's actions in this circumstance will make me see him in a worse light. Short of forcing Snape at wandpoint down the tunnel, I think it's Snape's own fault for listening to someone who was clearly his enemy. I understand Snape being upset about it because that is certainly something to be upset about, but he holds as much blame as Sirius, or even more for following Sirius' "advice" of his own free will.

On the subject of James wearing glasses in PoA, although I'm not sure we're still talking about it. He does wear glasses both then and in SS/PS. In the first book, he is described as wearing glasses in the Mirror of Erised.

When I red SWM for the first time I felt exactly like Harry. Disgusted and shocked. Even mad especialy at Sirius who was ( and still is) my fav adult character next to Lupin. I grew to respect him being the person he bacame- despite his extremaly dark upbringing. And then he was showed as a total prat.
When I was rereading that chapter it opened my eyes that both James and Sirius had just 6 years of life before it' end. Both- though Sirius didn't die that night in Godric Hollow the next 12 years of his life were worse than death. And I couldn't hate them anymore. They had just 6 years while Snape is still living and breathing with the chance for new life despite the fact that his sins as DE were for sure a hell lot worse.
Yes they were disgusting jerks in that scene and nothing justyfy their action but the price they paid was definitly too high.

On the subject of James wearing glasses in PoA, although I'm not sure we're still talking about it. He does wear glasses both then and in SS/PS. In the first book, he is described as wearing glasses in the Mirror of Erised.SIP mentioned earlier that although James wears glasses in the Mirror of Erised, it isn't a true reflection of James so much as a projection of Harry's desire and what he assumes his parents would look like. That being said, having not seen an image of his parents, how would Harry get all their other features correct and magically decide that his father must also wear glasses? I'm now wondering if there's a difference between seeing his parents and how they actually appear. Ron wanted to see himself as Head Boy, and so he saw himself with all the appropriate Head Boy accessories, but all Harry wanted to see was his family, not necessarily "I want to see my father as a spitting image of myself."

Eitherway, the movies don't have any particular bearing on canon, so I think if James does or does not wear glasses, it's not all that relevant of James wears glasses in the movies. :)

SIP mentioned earlier that although James wears glasses in the Mirror of Erised, it isn't a true reflection of James so much as a projection of Harry's desire and what he assumes his parents would look like. That being said, having not seen an image of his parents, how would Harry get all their other features correct and magically decide that his father must also wear glasses? I'm now wondering if there's a difference between seeing his parents and how they actually appear.

I understand now. Thanks. :) You make some good points.

She was a very pretty woman. She had dark red hair, and her eyes - her eyes are just like mine, Harry thought, edging a little closer to the glass. Bright green, exactly the same shape, but then he noticed that she was crying: smiling but crying at the same time. The tall, thin, black-haired man standing next to her put his arm around her. He wore glasses and his hair was very untidy. It stuck up at the back, just as Harry's did.

Harry was so close to the mirror now that his nose was nearly touching that of his reflection.

'Mom?" he whispered. "Dad?"

They just looked at him, smiling. And slowly, Harry looked into the faces of the other people in the mirror, and saw other pairs of green eyes like his, other noses like his, even a little old man who looked as though he had Harry's knobbly knees - Harry was looking at his family, for the first time in his life.

There was no way Harry could have known that Lily had red hair, or the other features of the relatives he saw in the mirror. Unless he had imagined what his grandparents, great aunts and uncles and so forth looked like in great detail, what he was seeing was the true reflection of his parents.

Harry didn't know James had chronically messy hair, yet he saw him with it. In Order of the Phoenix, he sees that James did indeed have untidy hair. Also, wouldn't Harry want to see his parents happy? It seems odd that his deepesr desire would be to see them crying, even if they were smiling at the same time. Based on all of that, I'd say that James did wear glasses.

SIP mentioned earlier that although James wears glasses in the Mirror of Erised, it isn't a true reflection of James so much as a projection of Harry's desire and what he assumes his parents would look like. That being said, having not seen an image of his parents, how would Harry get all their other features correct and magically decide that his father must also wear glasses? I'm now wondering if there's a difference between seeing his parents and how they actually appear. I think Harry saw an accurate reflection of his parents. As you say, he got Lily's hair and eyes right, and James' hair so it makes sense that if he saw James wearing glasses then that is correct too.

Harry didn't have any photos of his parents then, so I suppose the image must have come from his own memory. Harry remembers his parents' dying words when the Dementors are near and this is presented as an accurate memory, so I think the Mirror may be similar. Harry might not consciously remember what his parents look like, but that information is stored in his mind somewhere and I think it can be drawn out. A bit like Muggle regression therapy but...well...magical. :eyebrows:

EDIT - HermioneLuna beat me to it! Ah, well.

Not my fault, I'm just quoting Lily *whistles innocently* And besides, that's not something new anyway. We heard plenty about it in OotP.
I wonder what else there could be.. its always bothered me as to why Sirius sent Snape to WW. Aside from being about the least funny thing you could possibly do, he could have gotten Snape, James and Remus killed! The lack of forethought is staggering..
Ah, the forethought of a teenage boy is amazing isn't it? :lol: Seriously, a lot of teenagers don't think about what they do before they do it, it's sad but true. I'm one of the most responsible kids at my school, and also think ahead and worry more than anyone I know, and even I don't always think about what I do.

You mean aside from him being a "bullying toerag" etc? :rotfl: I imagine some people weren't to happy to learn he was a jerk as a kid, along with James.
Actually, that scene in OotP made me like James and Sirius even more, I'm not a mean person and I definitally don't agree with bullying (having had a sister who's been bullied a great deal) but I liked some of the other stuff that they did. I think that people also persecute James and Sirius a lot more for bullying than they do other characters, one of the reasons I don't like Ron is because of the way he treats others, I won't discuss that though since this is a Marauders thread and I don't want to get off topic, I was just using it as a point of reference as to the fact that other characters bully as well, just more subtly.
I'm just hoping we will find out how James got in and out of the Shrieking Shack tunnel with that rack of antlers on his head?
Could he have changed after he got in? I don't know about getting out though.
To be completely honest, if the next book is about bullying I may just chuck it out the window, not because of who it might implicate or who it might involve, but out of sheer boredom. We've had five books now that have discussed various forms of bullying. I was talking with someone recently who mentioned that she was aghast that bullying only became an issue for people in OotP when suddenly legions of fans started to hold Snape up as a victim to be sympathied because of his past, because ... where were these people during the first four books? Why do we see no such identification with Harry or Neville or Hermione? I've heard lots of people say they identify with Snape because of the treatment he apparently recieved, and yet I rarely hear anyone ever say they identify with Harry or Neville for the same reasons, and we've seen Harry experience it far more than we've ever seen with Snape. That's really weird to me.
Thank goodness someone else has noticed this, Harry gets bullied a lot, by Vernan, Snape, Malfoy, Dudley, and more people, yet everyone associates getting bullied with Snape, and poor Neville gets bullied a lot as well.
So it's not just me? I'm baffled as to why the connection between Snape and bullying is almost always presented as him being the victim, when it is clear to me that he is a perpetrator of bullying in all five books!
Exactly. Snape did get bullied, and that wasn't okay, but he also does his fair share of bullying.

I thought Lily already had Harry with or near her when James told her to take Harry and run. And instead she stayed and made the sacrifice. Which is why I said what I said in my post in response to Silver Ink Pot.I didn't. That's why I questioned it. The book is ambiguous. I think the closest we get to "being there" is what Harry remembers with the Dementor attack:

"Lily, take Harry and go! It's him! Go! Run! I'll hold him off--"

The sounds of someone stumbling from a room -- a door bursting open -- a cackle of high-pitched laughter -- (PoA, chapter 12)

Harry could be in Lily's arms already or in an adjacent room. Harry had been progressively remembering more details with each encounter with the Dementors. In previous memories, the additional details were sequential, so even though Harry passes out before this bit matches up with what he's already remembered, I would think that what happens next is this:

"Not Harry! Not Harry! Please -- I'll do anything --"

"Stand aside. Stand aside, girl!"

If these passages are sequential, James probably didn't last an instant and Lily wouldn't have time to put Harry in his crib. From a parent perspective, it doesn't make sense to me that she would stand and fight rather than trying to get Harry to safety.Harry didn't have any photos of his parents then, so I suppose the image must have come from his own memory. Harry remembers his parents' dying words when the Dementors are near and this is presented as an accurate memory, so I think the Mirror may be similar. Harry might not consciously remember what his parents look like, but that information is stored in his mind somewhere and I think it can be drawn out. Yes, I would think that Harry did have those memories locked somewhere in his mind. For the Mirror of Erised, though, I'm not sure that Harry seeing what he sees proves it. His own features could have been scambled into various family members. Regarding Lily's red hair, it may have been mentioned to Harry by Petunia at one time--Lily being a red-headed witch--something of which Petunia is sure to disapprove, even if she didn't mention the witch part to Harry. It also seems strange that someone of James's popularity in school would wear glasses? (I actually have no opinion one way or another on whether James did or should have worn glasses.)

James is wearing glasses in the movie, PoA. I tried what grrliz did and this is the best I could do:

http://home.earthlink.net/~lainamari/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/jamesglasses1.jpg
This is James's left eye, surrounded by a circle with a line going to his ear. I think it's glasses.

Regarding Harry having Lily's eyes, my pet theory is that, the eyes being the windows to the soul, Harry's soul is similar to Lily's--he would be one to stand up for someone being bullied.

I'll have to address the bullying issue pre-OotP later. I'm on my way out to a movie.

That seems to imply that Sirius actually walked up to Snape and gave him the information. Although, I could see Sirius telling Snape in a fit of anger over Snape's spying on the Marauders or even staging a conversation for Snape to overhear.I’ve suspected that Sirius might have staged a conversation, because I don’t see Snape as being someone who would trust information from a sworn enemy- even if he was curious (it’s obvious that he does express curiosity in wanting to know where Lupin went every month- according to Sirius, he was sneaking around trying to get them expelled). That’s why I believe that Sirius might have been a little more subtle in getting Snape to go to the Whomping Willow, ie by staging a conversation.

But I suppose I can also see it the other way: Sirius doesn’t usually exhibit subtle behavior. Just based on this fact, it is a possiblity that Sirius could have just blurted out the information to Snape without thinking about it. As I said earlier though, it doesn’t seem to follow that Snape would actually listen to Sirius, but perhaps this was one time when Snape threw caution to the wind and went on Sirius's information. At this point, I'm really not sure.

It also seems strange that someone of James's popularity in school would wear glasses?

You mean like Harry? But yeah it is unusual (although if we're going with stereotypes, shouldn't Hermione have glasses?)

Hello. This is my first time here, so let me kinda toss in my two sense about what I've read so far.

I do think that James wore glasses although I'm not quite sure what that means...? Also, I think that the whole Whomping Willow incedent will show why Snape joined the Death Eaters in the first place.

But I suppose I can also see it the other way: Sirius doesn’t usually exhibit subtle behavior. Just based on this fact, it is a possiblity that Sirius could have just blurted out the information to Snape without thinking about it. As I said earlier though, it doesn’t seem to follow that Snape would actually listen to Sirius, but perhaps this was one time when Snape threw caution to the wind and went on Sirius's information. At this point, I'm really not sure.

I don't see why Snape wouldn't try it out. Sure, Sirius might have been lying, but it wouldn't have hurt to check (as long as he had a long enough stick). Sirius could have also just shown Snape. I really don't see how Sirius did anthing terribly wrong by telling Snape. It's not like he forced Snape to go in.

What Lupin says in PoA:

"Snape had seen me crossing the grounds with Madam Pomfrey one evening as she led me toward the Whomping Willow to transform. Sirius thought it would be--er--amusing, to tell Snape all he had to do was prod the knot on the tree trunk with a long stick, and he'd be able to get in after me. Well, of course, Snape tried it--if he'd gotten as far as this house, he'd have met a fully grown werewolf--but your father, who'd heard what Sirius had done, went after Snape and pulled him back, at great risk to his life...Snape glimpsed me, though, at the end of the tunnel. He was forbidden by Dumbledore to tell anybody, but from that time on he knew what I was...." (p. 357, US paper).

Neither Sirius nor--especially--Snape contradicts this story. I say 'especially' for Snape because he is decidedly not Lupin's friend and has no reason to support him if he particularly objected to any of this.

A few interesting word choices in here. The reference to "one evening"--once. Lupin's "er" in trying to describe Sirius' motivation (I suspect there's the point about which we'll get more information). Sirius apparently tells Snape directly. Most peculiar phrasing: of course, Snape tried it: now there's a comment that needs a lot more explanation! Second most peculiar: James hears about what Sirius had done--that phrasing does not sound to me as if Sirius was the one who told James; it sounds almost like a rumor!

*Disclaimer* This is pure speculation--but the first thing I thought of that fits the "amusing," "of course," and "James had heard": a dare or challenge...and in front of others. How many and who: my speculation doesn't reach that far, as it's mostly just a gut reaction to Lupin's phrasing.

But I suppose I can also see it the other way: Sirius doesn’t usually exhibit subtle behavior. Just based on this fact, it is a possiblity that Sirius could have just blurted out the information to Snape without thinking about it. As I said earlier though, it doesn’t seem to follow that Snape would actually listen to Sirius, but perhaps this was one time when Snape threw caution to the wind and went on Sirius's information. At this point, I'm really not sure.:tu: You've made some very good points and it seems that depending on how it might have happened, at least one of them will be acting out of character at the time: if Sirius is subtle and calculating he's out of character, if Snape is rash and unthinking he's out of character. It's odd. I can't think of a situation yet where they're both in character.

You mean like Harry? But yeah it is unusual (although if we're going with stereotypes, shouldn't Hermione have glasses?)Is Harry really all that popular? He's famous, definitely, but that's not the same as popular. We often see him ostracized from his peers for one reason or another. We don't really see people clamouring to be his friend (Colin Creevey is more exciteable than desperate to be Harry's friend, I think) or to hang out with him or sit with him at dinner or hang out with him in Hogsmeade, etc.

(I read a fanfic the other day that had sixth year Hermione suddenly needing glasses and they were the ugliest glasses the author could have possibly constructed.)

*Disclaimer* This is pure speculation--but the first thing I thought of that fits the "amusing," "of course," and "James had heard": a dare or challenge...and in front of others. How many and who: my speculation doesn't reach that far, as it's mostly just a gut reaction to Lupin's phrasing.I know SIP will appreciate this and I'm sure some others might as well, but the minute I read that Sirius might have dared Snape to get under the Willow, all I could think of was Sirius saying to him "I triple dog dare you to try it, Snivellus!" :lol:

I didn't. That's why I questioned it. The book is ambiguous. I think the closest we get to "being there" is what Harry remembers with the Dementor attack:

"Lily, take Harry and go! It's him! Go! Run! I'll hold him off--"

The sounds of someone stumbling from a room -- a door bursting open -- a cackle of high-pitched laughter -- (PoA, chapter 12)

Harry could be in Lily's arms already or in an adjacent room. Harry had been progressively remembering more details with each encounter with the Dementors. In previous memories, the additional details were sequential, so even though Harry passes out before this bit matches up with what he's already remembered, I would think that what happens next is this:

"Not Harry! Not Harry! Please -- I'll do anything --"

"Stand aside. Stand aside, girl!"

If these passages are sequential, James probably didn't last an instant and Lily wouldn't have time to put Harry in his crib. From a parent perspective, it doesn't make sense to me that she would stand and fight rather than trying to get Harry to safety.

It's possible that Lily knew in advance that she was going to sacrifice herself for Harry. It's also possible she discussed it with Dumbledore. How else would he know what she had done and how else would he have made arrangements for Harry so quickly? He sent Hagrid to get Harry from Godric's Hollow and bring him to Privet Drive straight away. Also, Dumbledore had been communicating with Petunia before he left Harry on the Dursley's doorstop. It's possible he had this planned out. And he does have some sort of plan.


For the Mirror of Erised, though, I'm not sure that Harry seeing what he sees proves it. His own features could have been scambled into various family members. Regarding Lily's red hair, it may have been mentioned to Harry by Petunia at one time--Lily being a red-headed witch--something of which Petunia is sure to disapprove, even if she didn't mention the witch part to Harry.

It doesn't seem to me that Petunia ever talked about Lily or James at all, even to belittle them to Harry. The only times we know of that she spoke about them were when she told Harry they died in a car crash and in that shack on the rock when she loses her temper. Harry didn't know anything about his parents except that they were dead and Petunia got tense when even Vernon asked about Lily. If it were Harry, she'd probably react a lot stronger. I find it strange that she'd randomly mention Lily being a redhead.

:tu:You've made some very good points and it seems that depending on how it might have happened, at least one of them will be acting out of character at the time: if Sirius is subtle and calculating he's out of character, if Snape is rash and unthinking he's out of character. It's odd. I can't think of a situation yet where they're both in character.

Taking into consideration what Lupin says in the Shrieking Shack, it gets a bit more complicated, in my opinion. Maybe Sirius and Peter were talking, saw Snape lurking about and thought it might be funny to just tell him what he wanted to know. Either that, or Sirius just got fed up and told Snape. Maybe then Snape thought that if Madam Pompfrey and Lupin were doing it, it was more or less safe, so he listened to Sirius. Meanwhile, in another part of the castle, Peter was laughing with glee over what they had just done, James asked him what was so funny, and Peter told him.

I don't know that that's any more likely than any other theory out there. Only J.K. Rowling knows what really happened. I'd like to see how she does it and keeps them both true to their characters. I think it'll be interesting.

:tu: You've made some very good points and it seems that depending on how it might have happened, at least one of them will be acting out of character at the time: if Sirius is subtle and calculating he's out of character, if Snape is rash and unthinking he's out of character. It's odd. I can't think of a situation yet where they're both in character.That’s exactly the dilemma I saw, though you articulated it better than I did. :) This seems to be at the heart of the confusion over this scene: the fact that either Snape or Sirius acted in a way that they wouldn’t normally have acted.

"Snape had seen me crossing the grounds with Madam Pomfrey one evening as she led me toward the Whomping Willow to transform. Sirius thought it would be--er--amusing, to tell Snape all he had to do was prod the knot on the tree trunk with a long stick, and he'd be able to get in after me. Well, of course, Snape tried it--if he'd gotten as far as this house, he'd have met a fully grown werewolf--but your father, who'd heard what Sirius had done, went after Snape and pulled him back, at great risk to his life...Snape glimpsed me, though, at the end of the tunnel. He was forbidden by Dumbledore to tell anybody, but from that time on he knew what I was....".You brought up some good points about these lines, subtle. :tu: My take on it is that the way Lupin speaks about this incident belies the fact that he thinks it was anything but amusing- that's how I interpreted his "er". After looking at the wording of this passage, it almost sounds as if this was something premeditated on Sirius's part, though I could be totally off-base in my reading of it. The reason why I say this is that Lupin says "Sirius thought it would be amusing" to tell Snape about the Willow. In a way, this kind of seems to indicate that Sirius didn't just tell Snape in a "fit of anger", but that he thought that telling Snape would be amusing. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that he staged a conversation, but at the same time, it leaves room for Sirius's impulsiveness, because he obviously didn't think through the consequences of telling Snape this information. There are probably many problems with this interpretation, but I just wanted to provide a slightly different take on these words. :)

It doesn't seem to me that Petunia ever talked about Lily or James at all, even to belittle them to Harry. The only times we know of that she spoke about them were when she told Harry they died in a car crash and in that shack on the rock when she loses her temper. Harry didn't know anything about his parents except that they were dead and Petunia got tense when even Vernon asked about Lily. If it were Harry, she'd probably react a lot stronger. I find it strange that she'd randomly mention Lily being a redhead.I agree, in PS/SS, it says that Petunia pretended that she didn’t even have a sister. So I also find it hard to believe that she would have mentioned Lily any more than she had to, nevermind telling Harry what Lily looked like.

RemusLupinFan--I agree: the "er--amusing" is classic Lupin understatement when he doesn't really want to say something. In fact, he does the same thing only a couple sentences earlier in the same quote: "We were in the same year, you know, and we--er--didn't like each other very much." To put it mildly! I definitely get the sense that Lupin was thinking of a quite different word than 'amusing' to describe Sirius' idea. And/or that Sirius himself used a different word.

The "Sirius thought" part is a bit problematic. That could be Lupin finding out after the fact and having it explained to him by Sirius ('Hey--I thought it would be a great joke!'); it could even be that Sirius had proposed to the others before, and went ahead and did it independently of them. The former scenario would imply impulsiveness; the latter indicates premeditation. Rather falls into the category of Pettigrew and the wand behind his back : ) ...exactly what does JKR mean by her wording?

You brought up some good points about these lines, subtle. :tu: My take on it is that the way Lupin speaks about this incident belies the fact that he thinks it was anything but amusing- that's how I interpreted his "er". After looking at the wording of this passage, it almost sounds as if this was something premeditated on Sirius's part, though I could be totally off-base in my reading of it. The reason why I say this is that Lupin says "Sirius thought it would be amusing" to tell Snape about the Willow. In a way, this kind of seems to indicate that Sirius didn't just tell Snape in a "fit of anger", but that he thought that telling Snape would be amusing. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that he staged a conversation, but at the same time, it leaves room for Sirius's impulsiveness, because he obviously didn't think through the consequences of telling Snape this information. There are probably many problems with this interpretation, but I just wanted to provide a slightly different take on these words. :)

I've always assumed it was premeditated on Sirius's part. Snape describes it as a "joke" in PoA. Playing a "joke" implies that there is some planning involved, but I do think Sirius thought of it on his own, and told the others as an afterthought. I'm not sure if Lupin even knew about it beforehand, you know?

I agree, in PS/SS, it says that Petunia pretended that she didn’t even have a sister. So I also find it hard to believe that she would have mentioned Lily any more than she had to, nevermind telling Harry what Lily looked like.

I believe in PS/SS it says that the first question he remembered asking Petunia was about what happened to his parents, and after that he was told to "not ask questions." And we know that Harry had no pictures of Lily till after Hagrid gave him the photo album in PS/SS, so I don't think he knew about the red hair.

I know SIP will appreciate this and I'm sure some others might as well, but the minute I read that Sirius might have dared Snape to get under the Willow, all I could think of was Sirius saying to him "I triple dog dare you to try it, Snivellus!"

Of course I appreciate that, lol. :evil: The dreaded triple-dog dare!

And when Snape saw the werewolf, he "lay there like a slug - it was his only defense" . . . until James saved his life, lol. :)

I'm not sure if Lupin even knew about it beforehand, you know?We know that Lupin didn't know about it beforehand- he was the one who was used in the carrying out of the "joke", so there's no way he could have known about what Sirius did/had planned to do.

That's an interesting point about the use of the work "joke"- that does kind of indicate premeditation. But I wonder if the use of this word by Snape isn't accurate- after all, he wasn't the one who did it and he wasn't in Sirius's mind. Just playing devil's advocate. :evil:

And when Snape saw the werewolf, he "lay there like a slug - it was his only defense" . . . until James saved his life, lol. :)See there's the source of Snape's problems right there: laying around in the tunnel rather than running in the opposite direction! Funny thing is, fandom likes to give Lupin "yellow" (well, golden) eyes -- so help me god, yellow eyes! :lol:

I am setting a bad example. Back on topic.

Just to sort things out and because I like to make lists: Lupin calls it a "trick", and Snape calls it a "joke". Does Sirius call it anything? As the instigator, it might be interesting to note what he calls it. (I don't think he actually does call it anything, I think he just responds to Lupin calling it a "trick" without calling it anything himself.)

although if we're going with stereotypes, shouldn't Hermione have glasses?That would definitely be a stereotype, but I'm not sure if the kid with glasses not being popular would be. I think popular kids are perceived as close to perfect by others--they exude confidence. I don't think that a kid with glasses would naturally fall into that role, unless they weren't self-conscious at all. Are kids with glasses ever not self-conscious? (I was always very self-conscious about everything, including wearing glasses, so I can't really answer. :lol: )Neither Sirius nor--especially--Snape contradicts this story.I'm not sure if that means Snape agreed with it, though. He was pretty intent on Sirius when he revealed himself. Prior to that scene, he always believed that James had been involved in the set-up; either he accepted what Lupin said as truth or he chose not to voice any disagreement. I would think the latter because I don't think he suddenly had any kind of epiphany that James might not be as bad as he'd always thought. Most peculiar phrasing: of course, Snape tried it: now there's a comment that needs a lot more explanation! Definitely! I like your idea of a dare--it would fit Sirius's impulsiveness and Snape's pride; however, I don't see them being in a situation in which would lead to Sirius daring Snape to do something. I know SIP will appreciate this and I'm sure some others might as well, but the minute I read that Sirius might have dared Snape to get under the Willow, all I could think of was Sirius saying to him "I triple dog dare you to try it, Snivellus!" :lol: :rotfl:It's possible that Lily knew in advance that she was going to sacrifice herself for Harry. It's also possible she discussed it with Dumbledore. How else would he know what she had done and how else would he have made arrangements for Harry so quickly? He sent Hagrid to get Harry from Godric's Hollow and bring him to Privet Drive straight away. Also, Dumbledore had been communicating with Petunia before he left Harry on the Dursley's doorstop. It's possible he had this planned out. And he does have some sort of plan.Where does it say that Dumbledore had communication with Petunia ahead of time? I thought Harry being left on the doorstep was all the notice she got.

Why would Lily have made a plan and James not know about it? Could Dumbledore have deduced what Lily must have done because Harry survived? It doesn't seem to me that Petunia ever talked about Lily or James at all, even to belittle them to Harry. That's probably true.

Regarding the bullying issue that was discussed earlier, I always recognized that Snape was a nasty guy, but I never saw his behavior as bullying. I don't think what Snape does to Harry (or Neville) is on the same level as what the Dursleys have done to him. Harry is bullied by Dudley and Draco in earlier books and I think most readers pay attention to it, but nothing they do is as horrific as what James & Sirius did to Snape. I felt sorry for Harry, but never identified him as a victim (although, he obviously is a victim of several things).

I would see bullying as being of a physical nature, a mental nature, or both. Physical violence is so much easier to identify, which is one of the reasons that SWM sticks out. The acts of James & Sirius against Snape in SWM are of both a physical and mental nature. We have a solid description of physical violence. Mental anguish is harder to gauge, but, given Snape's mental state 20 years later, is there any doubt of this? IMO, what James & Sirius do in SWM is infinitely worse than anything I've seen Snape do so far.

Snape causes Neville mental anguish, no doubt, or he wouldn't be Neville's boggart. However, I don't think his purpose is to torture Neville, I think it's to make Neville pay more attention or study harder. I don't think Snape causes Harry any particular mental anguish. Harry doesn't like him, but he doesn't care what Snape thinks either. I think Snape's lowest point (in terms of dealing with the kids) is when he makes the comment about Hermione's teeth--it was purely mean. I took notice of that when I read it the first time and it made me question Snape's character. Just like so many feel about James & Sirius, though, one really bad thing and several questionable things doesn't make me think that he's "bad" overall, especially given his role in the grand scheme.

A funny quote about jokes:

"A joke is a very serious thing." :p

~ Winston Churchill

That would definitely be a stereotype, but I'm not sure if the kid with glasses not being popular would be.

Where does it say that Dumbledore had communication with Petunia ahead of time? I thought Harry being left on the doorstep was all the notice she got.


Snape causes Neville mental anguish, no doubt, or he wouldn't be Neville's boggart. However, I don't think his purpose is to torture Neville, I think it's to make Neville pay more attention or study harder.

I think that is totally a stereotype (a conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.) that a kid with glasses is necessarily unpopular. There are of course popular kids who where glasses.

From JKR's website:
What did Dumbledore's Howler to Aunt Petunia mean? ('Remember my last'?)

Well, it is a relief to move on after the Mark Evans fiasco. This time, two out of the three poll questions had interesting answers (or so I think) and thank goodness you chose one of them.

So: Dumbledore is referring to his last letter, which means, of course, the letter he left upon the Dursleys' doorstep when Harry was one year old. But why then (you may well ask) did he not just say 'remember my letter?' Why did he say my last letter? Why, obviously because there were letters before that…

Now let the speculation begin, and mind you type clearly, I'll be watching…

This is where it refers to communication between DD and Petunia.

Snape may not intend to cause Neville anguish, but he certainly does, as you stated yourself. The road to hell is paved with good intentions as they say.

:Where does it say that Dumbledore had communication with Petunia ahead of time? I thought Harry being left on the doorstep was all the notice she got.

J.K. Rowling said that the letter Dumbledore left with Harry was not the first. That means there was other correspondence between Dumbledore and Petunia. Which makes me think the theory that they knew beforehand might have some credibility. Why else would Dumbledore talk to Petunia who is a Muggle who destests magic in all forms?

Why would Lily have made a plan and James not know about it? Could Dumbledore have deduced what Lily must have done because Harry survived?

I never said they didn't tell James. Even with prior knowledge, James would tell Lily to run. I hardly think James could see Voldemort and say "Well, this is it. You go stand beside Harry and I'll die. Don't worry. We'll see each other in a few minutes."

However, if James didn't know, it could just be because Lily didn't want to worry him and made the plan as an absolute last resort. It's just a theory, but I don't see any other way Dumbledore would know what Lily had done. In other words, how would he know it wasn't James?

I think that is totally a stereotype (a conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.) that a kid with glasses is necessarily unpopular. There are of course popular kids who where glasses.I've just never known any, I guess; although I've known plenty of unpopular kids who didn't wear glasses.

Thanks for the quote from JKR--I hadn't seen that before.

Just to sort things out and because I like to make lists: Lupin calls it a "trick", and Snape calls it a "joke". Does Sirius call it anything? As the instigator, it might be interesting to note what he calls it. (I don't think he actually does call it anything, I think he just responds to Lupin calling it a "trick" without calling it anything himself.)When it comes up in PoA, all Sirius says is that Snape deserved it. He isn't specific about whether he thinks its a trick or a joke etc.

Abak: McGonagall also humiliates Neville, and chastises him in front of his entire house. That is because he doesn't do what he is supposed to do in PoA - he writes down the passwords and leaves them where Sirius can find them, after being told not to.

Neville is a child who would have trouble in regular Muggle school, too, even with nice teachers. He is sort of a mess. Sort of a Charlie Brown character, in a way.

I've said before that I had a really good chemistry teacher, but he couldn't help me overcome my nervousness during lab. My measurements were always off, or wrote things down incorrectly, or I broke the test tubes.

I was the kid in biology class who never could see anything in the microscope and was looking frantically around for help from somebody, so I understand Neville! I just don't think that a different sort of teacher is going to help him overcome his "fear" of so many things. My teachers often left us alone in lab and didn't even interact that much, which is also frightening when you don't know what you are doing.

If anything, we have proof that the pressures of Potions class may have helped Harry and Neville. When they actually have to make a potion during OWLs, they do just fine - so I would say they have learned something from Snape, right?

I never said they didn't tell James. Even with prior knowledge, James would tell Lily to run. I hardly think James could see Voldemort and say "Well, this is it. You go stand beside Harry and I'll die. Don't worry. We'll see each other in a few minutes." Then, why wouldn't she have run, if James was in on the plan and thought she should?It's just a theory, but I don't see any other way Dumbledore would know what Lily had done. In other words, how would he know it wasn't James?Perhaps it was something he taught Lily about, but not James. Also, isn't there some mysticism associated with a mother's sacrifice that isn't the same for a father's sacrifice? Perhaps only a mother could do the charm.Neville is a child who would have trouble in regular Muggle school, too, even with nice teachers. Yeah, I agree.I was the kid in biology class who never could see anything in the microscope and was looking frantically around for help from somebody, so I understand Neville! :lol: This reminds me of my high school biology class. I don't know how much time I spent after hours looking in the microscope for the Golgi complex inside cells. We were supposed to draw and label pictures of the cells. We would always ask the teacher, "Is this it, is this it?" He would always say, "no." It wasn't until I was in college that I learned the Golgi complex can really only be seen with an Electron Microscope. :rolleyes: I don't know if the teacher didn't know that or he was just yanking our chains! :rolleyes:

i think SIP has some very valid points although i think it was just a prank to sirius. if you remember he was james best friend. i think whatever feelings james had (negative ones) against snape, sirius was bound to feel the same way. i don't think he was objective with james, just like ron isn't objective with harry. hermione and lupin are both a little on the outs. hermione is friends with ron and harry but objective, just like lupin was with james and sirius.

Then, why wouldn't she have run, if James was in on the plan and thought she should?

I don't understand what you're trying to ask. Can you rephrase it?

Perhaps it was something he taught Lily about, but not James. Also, isn't there some mysticism associated with a mother's sacrifice that isn't the same for a father's sacrifice? Perhaps only a mother could do the charm.

It's never said anywhere in the books that only a mother could do the charm. At least, not that I recall. Dumbledore talks of Lily's sarcrifice and the result of it, but I don't remember him ever saying that only a mother could do it. That's almost like saying only a mother can love their child enough to do what Lily did.

I still find it odd that Dumbledore would be communicating with Petunia for no reason. And I find it even stranger that Petunia would be communicating with him for any amount of time.

From the speed and definitiveness of Dumbledore's actions, it would seem like he would have some sort of advanced knowlege of what happened. Dumbledore sent Hagrid to get Harry and bring him to the Dursleys. A task which Hagrid managed to complete before there was even a crowd around the Potter's home.

I would think that a house collapsing and the noise that must have been coming from it would prompt quite a large crowd to appear. So the fact that Dumbledore gave out orders fast enough for Hagrid to remove Harry before there was a crowd means that Dumbledore knew something about what was going to happen and that Harry would survive. Either that or Dumbledore is some sort of seer.

I think that is totally a stereotype (a conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.) that a kid with glasses is necessarily unpopular. There are of course popular kids who where glasses.Hmm, like Chiev's own experience, I've never really encountered a lot of popular kids who wear glasses. Or rather, I should say that I've encountered popular kids who are supposed to wear glasses, but don't because they don't like the way they look in them. I was completely shocked to find out one day in English class that one of the most popular boys in my grade wore glasses; he always avoided wearing them whenever possible because he thought they made him look geeky (they actually made him look more intelligent, but that could be my own bias creeping in because I had a crush on him, and coincidentally today is his birthday :rolleyes: ).

Abak: McGonagall also humiliates Neville, and chastises him in front of his entire house. That is because he doesn't do what he is supposed to do in PoA - he writes down the passwords and leaves them where Sirius can find them, after being told not to.Just a couple of things here. 1) She doesn't actually humiliate him in front of his peers in that scene; he is described as "trembling from head to fluffy-slippered toes", which speaks more to the shock and fear of Sirius Black's break in (McGonagall's own voice is described as "shaking") than to being humiliated. His humiliation comes afterwards when she bans him from Hogsmeade (an appropriate punishment) and refuses to let him have the passwords (another appropriate course of action, given what he did with the first set of passwords). Neville is in "total disgrace" because of this, but I'm at a loss as to how else Neville should have been disciplined as a result of his actions. The humiliation comes from the punishments incurred as a result of his "abysmally foolish" actions (action/reaction) and not from McGonagall standing there and reaming him out in front of his peers.

Regardless, though, I think putting the safety of the entire school at risk is a bit different than the types of situations Neville gets chastised for in Potions. Potions isn't life and death; behaving so irresponsibly that a mass murder gets hold of secret passwords and can try and gain entrance to the Gryffindor dormitories is. McGongall's dressing down of Neville is actually pretty tame; she calls him "abysmally foolish" which is both accurate and not nearly as harsh as she could have and probably should have been. I'm trying to imagine what Snape might have said in the same situation, and I'm having trouble picturing him delivering his own dressing down with the same degree of politesse.

I was unaware I felt so strongly about Neville! :lol:

If anything, we have proof that the pressures of Potions class may have helped Harry and Neville. When they actually have to make a potion during OWLs, they do just fine - so I would say they have learned something from Snape, right?I agree that Neville would probably be hopeless in Potions regardless, but I don't think anything he has learned has been because of Snape's exemplary teaching methods and ability to reach out to his students. Are they learning because of Snape or despite Snape? After SWM, Snape begins to ignore Harry in class and suddenly Harry's ability to perform seems to dramatically increase:In fact, compared to what he usually had to endure from Snape in the way of taunts and snide remarks, he found the new approach something of an improvement, and was pleased to find that when left well alone, he was able to concot an Invigoration Draught quite easily.Potions is like cooking: you've got your ingredients, you've got your recipe, and it's a matter of putting it all together. Some people are probably hopeless cooks regardless of how easy the recipe is, and some people are hopeless cooks because their Head Chef :evil: is constantly breathing down their necks and expecting them to fail. Left to his own devices, Harry's a pretty decent cook.

I maintain that Snape would be an excellent candidate for teaching correspondance courses.

It's never said anywhere in the books that only a mother could do the charm. At least, not that I recall. Dumbledore talks of Lily's sarcrifice and the result of it, but I don't remember him ever saying that only a mother could do it. That's almost like saying only a mother can love their child enough to do what Lily did. I don't want to speak for Chiev, but I don't think she was implying that canon stated only a mother could perform certain tasks, I think she was merely making the suggestion that in terms of concepts of magic and mysticism in the world, there is often an extra "special" magic that exists between mothers and their children; this could be the "ancient magic" that was envoked when Lily died to protect her child.

Totally off topic: was Draco aware in PoA that Sirius is his mother's cousin?

So you do blame James and Lily for dying and leaving Harry an orphan?

Wow, I’m going to get fried for this one. Some, yes, as they knew the situation they faced and they made decisions, on the advice of their friend (well-intentioned or not) that led to their demise. Before everyone tells me how unfair I’m being, I would blame myself if I did the same thing (although, I’d be dead, so it wouldn’t really matter). As I said before, there is a fine line between unintended consequences and fault. I don’t think they are totally at fault, but yes, I do think that some of the fault should fall on them, as well. Take it for what it is. :shrug:

I don't see why Snape wouldn't try it out. Sure, Sirius might have been lying, but it wouldn't have hurt to check (as long as he had a long enough stick). Sirius could have also just shown Snape. I really don't see how Sirius did anthing terribly wrong by telling Snape. It's not like he forced Snape to go in.

Somehow, I don’t think Lupin appreciated this joke anymore than Snape did. It would have made Lupin a murderer (or at least, made Lupin feel like a murderer, even though it wouldn’t have been his fault). The fact that Snape could have died, made it wrong. The fact that it betrayed Lupin’s trust in Sirius made it wrong.

Regarding the bullying issue that was discussed earlier, I always recognized that Snape was a nasty guy, but I never saw his behavior as bullying. I don't think what Snape does to Harry (or Neville) is on the same level as what the Dursleys have done to him. Harry is bullied by Dudley and Draco in earlier books and I think most readers pay attention to it, but nothing they do is as horrific as what James & Sirius did to Snape. I felt sorry for Harry, but never identified him as a victim (although, he obviously is a victim of several things).

I would see bullying as being of a physical nature, a mental nature, or both. Physical violence is so much easier to identify, which is one of the reasons that SWM sticks out. The acts of James & Sirius against Snape in SWM are of both a physical and mental nature. We have a solid description of physical violence. Mental anguish is harder to gauge, but, given Snape's mental state 20 years later, is there any doubt of this? IMO, what James & Sirius do in SWM is infinitely worse than anything I've seen Snape do so far.

Snape causes Neville mental anguish, no doubt, or he wouldn't be Neville's boggart. However, I don't think his purpose is to torture Neville, I think it's to make Neville pay more attention or study harder. I don't think Snape causes Harry any particular mental anguish. Harry doesn't like him, but he doesn't care what Snape thinks either. I think Snape's lowest point (in terms of dealing with the kids) is when he makes the comment about Hermione's teeth--it was purely mean. I took notice of that when I read it the first time and it made me question Snape's character. Just like so many feel about James & Sirius, though, one really bad thing and several questionable things doesn't make me think that he's "bad" overall, especially given his role in the grand scheme.

:tu: I can’t think of anything to add to that.

Snape may not intend to cause Neville anguish, but he certainly does, as you stated yourself. The road to hell is paved with good intentions as they say.

Exactly. But, being a jerk doesn’t make someone evil, either. If we were going to use that as a measure of good and evil, I hate to point out that we would probably have to include James and Sirius in that, perhaps even Lupin, due to his inaction. Snape is a very big jerk, that doesn’t make him evil. Or, as Sirius said, “The world isn’t divided into good people and Death Eaters.”

I don't understand what you're trying to ask. Can you rephrase it?This discussion got started because of the idea that Lily didn't really try to run away with Harry, but decided to stay and make a stand, sacrificing herself in the process. You proposed that Lily's sacrifice was already planned and, even if James knew about it, he would've told Lily to run anyway. My question is: Why wouldn't she try to run? Even if the plan was made, why would she make a stand and sacrifice herself rather than try to get away with Harry? Doesn't that make James's sacrifice, to give her a chance to escape, meaningless?he always avoided wearing them whenever possible because he thought they made him look geeky (they actually made him look more intelligent, but that could be my own bias creeping in because I had a crush on him, and coincidentally today is his birthday :rolleyes: ).Had? :huh: ;) :pI don't want to speak for Chiev, but I don't think she was implying that canon stated only a mother could perform certain tasks, I think she was merely making the suggestion that in terms of concepts of magic and mysticism in the world, there is often an extra "special" magic that exists between mothers and their children; this could be the "ancient magic" that was envoked when Lily died to protect her child. Yes, thank you. That's exactly what I was getting at.Totally off topic: was Draco aware in PoA that Sirius is his mother's cousin?Good question. . . My guess is "no?"

Hmm, like Chiev's own experience, I've never really encountered a lot of popular kids who wear glasses. Or rather, I should say that I've encountered popular kids who are supposed to wear glasses, but don't because they don't like the way they look in them.

My daughter would rather be caught in hair curlers than with glasses on. I made her wait till she was 14 to get contacts, and she certainly thinks she looks better without glasses.

I can think of only a very few people I've ever know who were "popular" and who wore glasses. But I have known some adults who put off getting glasses because they hate the way they think they would look.

Just a couple of things here. 1) She doesn't actually humiliate him in front of his peers in that scene; he is described as "trembling from head to fluffy-slippered toes", which speaks more to the shock and fear of Sirius Black's break in (McGonagall's own voice is described as "shaking") than to being humiliated. His humiliation comes afterwards when she bans him from Hogsmeade (an appropriate punishment) and refuses to let him have the passwords (another appropriate course of action, given what he did with the first set of passwords). Neville is in "total disgrace" because of this, but I'm at a loss as to how else Neville should have been disciplined as a result of his actions. The humiliation comes from the punishments incurred as a result of his "abysmally foolish" actions (action/reaction) and not from McGonagall standing there and reaming him out in front of his peers.

Well, that is a roundabout appraisal of what happens, but the fact is, Neville has to stand outstide the Gryffindor Common Room and wait for someone to help him get in. Therefore, his entire house sees his humiliation and knows about it.

PoA, Chapter 14:

Neville was in total disgrace. Prof. Mcgonagall was so furious with him she had banned him from all future Hogsmeade visits, given him a detention, and forgidden anyone to give him the password into the tower. Poor Neville was forced to wait outside the common room every night for somebody to let him in, while the security trolls leered unpleasantly at him.


Regardless, though, I think putting the safety of the entire school at risk is a bit different than the types of situations Neville gets chastised for in Potions. Potions isn't life and death;

:huh: Well, potions could be "life and death," if you are talking about poisons, or antidotes (which Harry and Ron ignore in every book), or the Wolfsbane Potion, or the Strengthening Solution, or the Draught of Peace (Draught of the Living Dead), or any number of things they have to make. Potions are meant to be "taken," so they have to be in proper form. Most of the students just don't understand that.

I'm trying to imagine what Snape might have said in the same situation, and I'm having trouble picturing him delivering his own dressing down with the same degree of politesse.

Maybe so, but I don't think his punishments would have been any more severe than what McGonagall does.

I was unaware I felt so strongly about Neville! :lol:

I agree that Neville would probably be hopeless in Potions regardless, but I don't think anything he has learned has been because of Snape's exemplary teaching methods and ability to reach out to his students. Are they learning because of Snape or despite Snape? After SWM, Snape begins to ignore Harry in class and suddenly Harry's ability to perform seems to dramatically increase

Or could it be that Harry tries a little harder because he feels guilty? He certainly isn't angry at Snape, since the canon says it just reminds him of Uncle Vernon when Snape remains silent. Harry could have plotted revenge for the way Snape threw him out of the office, but he doesn't do that at all. I think he feels some guilt, but he doesn't dare approach Snape to tell him.

:Potions is like cooking: you've got your ingredients, you've got your recipe, and it's a matter of putting it all together. Some people are probably hopeless cooks regardless of how easy the recipe is, and some people are hopeless cooks because their Head Chef :evil: is constantly breathing down their necks and expecting them to fail. Left to his own devices, Harry's a pretty decent cook.

Well, you are right about following a recipe. I have a sister-in-law who cannot follow a recipe of more than 5 ingredients! Even stir fry has to have no more than 5, plus minute rice, since regular rice is too difficult. Things like gravy scare her to death. :p So I understand this!

I maintain that Snape would be an excellent candidate for teaching correspondance courses.

:lol:

I don't want to speak for Chiev, but I don't think she was implying that canon stated only a mother could perform certain tasks, I think she was merely making the suggestion that in terms of concepts of magic and mysticism in the world, there is often an extra "special" magic that exists between mothers and their children; this could be the "ancient magic" that was envoked when Lily died to protect her child.

I have three children and the love we have is like nothing else in life, except the love I had for my own mother. Fathers certainly bond with children in a different way, and it can be extremely close. But carrying a child inside you just creates something totally unique. I feel sorry for fathers, sometimes, because they sometimes feel left out of the mother-child relationship, even with older children. It certainly is as "ancient" as humanity.

Had? :huh: ;) :pEr -- yeah ... :whistle::lol: Alas, he was one of those obnoxious boys who gets under your skin. I cringe when I see him occasionally in real life now, and then I get dumb and wistful. I'm hopeless! Ugh. :p

Well, that is a roundabout appraisal of what happens, but the fact is, Neville has to stand outstide the Gryffindor Common Room and wait for someone to help him get in. Therefore, his entire house sees his humiliation and knows about it.Yes, but my point was that it isn't the same as McGonagall standing in front the house and verbally berrating the kid into humiliation. Although it doesn't explicitly say, it sounds as though McGonagall took Neville into her office to dole out his punishments; it if it had been a public event for the whole House to see we would have witnessed it (as we did her earlier, milder dressing down). She takes the time and consideration to deal with Neville's punishments on a one-on-one level. The effects of the punishments reverberate into the student body at large and that's when his humiliation begins; it's not McGonagall who is publically humiliating him.

:huh: Well, potions could be "life and death," if you are talking about poisons, or antidotes (which Harry and Ron ignore in every book), or the Wolfsbane Potion, or the Strengthening Solution, or the Draught of Peace (Draught of the Living Dead), or any number of things they have to make. Potions are meant to be "taken," so they have to be in proper form. Most of the students just don't understand that.That's not quite what I was trying to get at but I can't quite articulate what I'm trying to say (I've rewritten it about seven times now). Neville's actions in PoA put the entire school at risk; it's probably one of the most careless moments with the steepest consequences in the books. Day to day Potions lessons have nothing on that. It's not so much the potential for a properly or improperly concocted potion to kill that I'm talking about, but rather that Neville melting a cauldron or getting help from Hermione is not going to put anyone -- let alone the entire school -- at risk on the same scale that he does by leaving the passwords lying around. Obviously Neville needs to learn how to make a proper potion, but his ability to successfully make a strengthening solution won't impact Sirius Black's ability to break into Hogwarts and murder everyone in their sleep. I think that's what I was trying to say (forgive me, it's late).

Maybe so, but I don't think his punishments would have been any more severe than what McGonagall does.I was only referring to what she says to Neville in front of his peers the night Sirius breaks in; all she calls him is "abysmally foolish". I imagine Snape would have selected slightly more, er, expressive words. I think the punishments Neville received were entirely appropriate, and agree that Snape would have probably done the same thing in McGonagall's place.

Or could it be that Harry tries a little harder because he feels guilty? He certainly isn't angry at Snape, since the canon says it just reminds him of Uncle Vernon when Snape remains silent. Harry could have plotted revenge for the way Snape threw him out of the office, but he doesn't do that at all. I think he feels some guilt, but he doesn't dare approach Snape to tell him.Do we get any indication of guilt on Harry's part in that scene? He seems relieved more than anything at Snape ignoring him; his relief turns to anger when Snape accidentally-on-purpose drops his flask on the ground. Again, Harry feels at ease during his Potions OWL, which Snape is also notably absent from: The afternoon practical was not as dreadful as he had expected it to be. With Snape absent from the proceedings, he found that he was much more relaxed than he usually was while making potions. Neville, who was sitting very near Harry, also looked happier than Harry had ever seen him during a Potions class.At the very least, Snape's presence winds Harry and Neville so tight it's no wonder they feel much more relaxed in his absence.

Anyway, I'm off for the next few days, I have to go out of town for a job interview and I'm going to be visiting my sisters, so I trust everyone will have a lovely old time with lots of good discussion while I'm gone, right? :lol: :p

I don't want to speak for Chiev, but I don't think she was implying that canon stated only a mother could perform certain tasks, I think she was merely making the suggestion that in terms of concepts of magic and mysticism in the world, there is often an extra "special" magic that exists between mothers and their children; this could be the "ancient magic" that was envoked when Lily died to protect her child.

I have three children and the love we have is like nothing else in life, except the love I had for my own mother. Fathers certainly bond with children in a different way, and it can be extremely close. But carrying a child inside you just creates something totally unique. I feel sorry for fathers, sometimes, because they sometimes feel left out of the mother-child relationship, even with older children. It certainly is as "ancient" as humanity.

I see. That makes sense. However, I still think it's odd that Dumbledore would be communicating with Petunia and she with him just as casual correspondence. If he was communicating with a Muggle who hated magic and everything about it, and she was returning his letters, then there had to be a very important reason. Dumbledore did act rather quickly after the Potters died and he seemed fairly positive Petunia would take Harry in.

I know I've said most of this before, but I'm repeating it now to add to my point. Even if the ancient magic could only be invoked by a mother, why would Dumbledore bother to talk to Petunia and why would she be willing to talk to him unless he knew something that she needed to know? How could he be so sure Petunia would accept Harry into her home unless he knew in advance? I can't think of any other reason Dumbledore would write to Petunia except to discuss Lily and the war and how it could affect her (Petunia).

And the only way it affected Petunia was that she shared the same blood as Lily, something that wouldn't make a difference if Lily hadn't sacrificed herself for Harry. So if Dumbledore were writing to Petunia to discuss Lily and how Lily's death could affect Petunia, and the only reason it would affect Petunia is because of the blood link she shared with Lily, then it's possible Dumbledore knew in advance what Lily would do.

I hope that helps you understand my point. I realize this is a thread focusing on the Marauders, but if anyone wants to continue this discussion another thread, I would be more than happy to.

Anyway, I'm off for the next few days, I have to go out of town for a job interview and I'm going to be visiting my sisters, so I trust everyone will have a lovely old time with lots of good discussion while I'm gone, right? :lol: :p

Have fun! It won't be the same without you.

Check out what Voldemort says about Lily's protection:

"His mother died in the attempt to save him--and unwittingly provided him with a protection I admit I had not foreseen.....His mother left upoon him the traces of her sacrifice....This is old magic, I should have remembered it, I was foolish to overlook it" (pp. 652-653, GoF, US paper).

"Unwittingly"--not planned?

On Snape's bullying:

Of course, Snape's bullying of Harry is unfair. One side note about Harry's ability to do better in Potions without Snape's being present: at those times, Harry is also paying attention to what he is doing, unlike in Potions class. It's actually pretty funny to go back through the books and see how many times (like nearly all) Harry is thinking about something else, not listenting to Snape, not reading the ingredients, talking to Ron, etc.

But, be that as it may, Snape's pre-judgment of Harry, assuming he's a James II, isn't fair or right. Snape looks for--and therefore, not surprisingly, finds--evidence that Harry is just like his hated father. The high drama of the books is wondering when the epiphany is going to happen--Occlumency should've provided it, but JKR decided to torment us. However, we discussed over in Dev of Sev the rather interesting 'last look' in OotP between Snape and Harry: Harry can't describe the look he's getting from Snape--he certainly doesn't classify it as the 'look of loathing Snape always reserved for him.' He doesn't know how to read this expression on Snape's face.

Snape is vile to Neville. I need more data for this one. I think it's interesting that Neville is the other topic of the prophecy...I don't know how that factors into anything! Neville is completely inept in every class. Snape's bullying may be intended to smack Neville into shape, or he may be completely intolerant of such a weak, incompetent person. It is interesting that one of Snape's first attacks on Harry in Potions class is blaming Harry for allowing Neville to fail at the potion. That's odd.

As for Snape's bullying of other students: difficult to gauge, because everything is Harry's point of view--so what we always see is Snape's bullying of Harry or his friends, and there is little attention paid to Snape's actual treatment of anybody else. Hermione and Ron are unfairly targeted as friends of the 'great Harry Potter.' And I have never been able to see "I see no difference" as anything but sheer nastiness.

As has been brought up ad nauseum, some of this behavior on Snape's part may be cover for his role of spy. Lucius Malfoy warns Draco in CoS that it isn't politically wise to be known as someone who hates Harry Potter; Snape makes no secret of it. Yet I also believe that Snape's attitude is primarily sheer prejudice. And wrong. It's the waiting for him to realize how wrong he is that creates the dramatic tension: one has hope that he'll realize it, because he has shown the ability to realize his wrongheadedness before--on a ratehr large scale: the DEs. Here's someone who has had a miserable life, who knows full well what verbal and physical abuse is like; who has pride that borders on and crosses over into arrogance; who knows what it's like to be an outcast and helpless--and he does not tolerate those who share those traits/experiences with him. A cliche says that we most hate in others what we most hate in ourselves. I think there's an element of truth to that cliche for Snape's character.

In the books, Snape is really at a crossroads: half of what he does is admirable (loyalty to Dumbledore, saving Harry, working for the Order as a spy), and half is contemptible (tormenting Neville, prejudging Harry). He really is the half empty/half full glass, which is pretty much why people fall into loathing/liking him. I can only speak for myself, but I like him, with all of his faults that I despise--because I see a progression forward. He's terribly flawed, but he appears to be working towards better. I hate his treatment of Harry and Neville (Oh, the shouting match he and I would have in class!), but I'm waiting to see what happens. I do believe he's going to be redeemed by the end of the series (that's another topic for another day and thread); obviously, he could go the other way, but, really, who wants to be sitting around reading books hoping someone--who does do good things--fails, utterly and ultimately?? Even in real life--who would hope that someone like Snape doesn't realize the error of his ways? If anyone actually feels that way...I don't want to know about it, to be frank.

None of you are going to believe this, but I had a dream that the entire book of HBP is about "bullying," and that we are going to see it on such a scale that no one will be in any doubt this time whether it is "justified" or not. I actually dreamed I was riding in one of the Hogwarts carriages and saw someone get pushed out in a violent way, and someone else stood up for them. I didn't recognize anyone in the dream, but the message was clear - to me at least, it was my dream, lol.

What that a good dream or a bad dream? ;) I seriously do not hope that HBP is about bullying. There will probably be some, because that's just part of the everyday life at Hogwarts, but I hope it's not the major theme of the book. Rather, I hope to learn more about what happened after the Marauders &co left school, and before they died. And more about Lily.
I think JKR said we'd get major revelations about Lily in OotP and Book 7.
Hurray! :clap:
Thank goodness someone else has noticed this, Harry gets bullied a lot, by Vernan, Snape, Malfoy, Dudley, and more people, yet everyone associates getting bullied with Snape, and poor Neville gets bullied a lot as well.
Exactly. Snape did get bullied, and that wasn't okay, but he also does his fair share of bullying.
:agree: I agree, Grrliz and Fire.
There's a lot of bullying going on in all 4 books, not just SWM. My list includes:
Harry (by Dudley&his gang, Vernon&Petunia, Malfoy&his gang and Snape)
Neville (by Snape)
Snape (by James, Sirius and possibly Peter)
Luna (by the Ravenclaws)
Moaning Myrtle (by Olive Hornby)

+ some occational instances which are bad enough, but I don't know whether to count them because they are isolated incidents rather than a pattern:

Ron ("Weasley is our king")
Hermione ("I see no difference")
Mark Evans (beaten up by Dudley's gang)

It's interesting how JKR includes such a range of things, from the very violent and cruel SWM to the repetitive, emotional stress of the Potions classes, to Luna's loneliness, to Dudley the brainless hooligan, to the comic relief figure Myrtle.

This discussion got started because of the idea that Lily didn't really try to run away with Harry, but decided to stay and make a stand, sacrificing herself in the process. You proposed that Lily's sacrifice was already planned and, even if James knew about it, he would've told Lily to run anyway. My question is: Why wouldn't she try to run? Even if the plan was made, why would she make a stand and sacrifice herself rather than try to get away with Harry? Doesn't that make James's sacrifice, to give her a chance to escape, meaningless?

I guess there was no time. James shouted "take Harry and run", Voldemort AKed him and came through the door. Voldemort had come through the front door, so Lily couldn't escape that way, because Voldemort would be in the way. Lily would have had to run for the back door, if there was one, or try to climb out thorugh a window - both of which would take time, especially with Harry in her arms. I think Voldemort cornered her in one of the rooms before she got a chance to escape.

I have known some adults who put off getting glasses because they hate the way they think they would look.

I think I look good in glasses. :eyebrows: But I was 20 when I got them. Suppose it's different for younger people.

I think you're right about James having glasses in the films. (Thanks for the pictures, Grrliz and Chiev!) I didn't imagine him with glasses after having read the books, but I'm good at overlooking things - for example, I also thought Dean was white ...

I have no idea what the glasses mean, though. Is Harry far sighted? I this a sort of symbol for something?

Anyway, I'm off for the next few days, I have to go out of town for a job interview and I'm going to be visiting my sisters, so I trust everyone will have a lovely old time with lots of good discussion while I'm gone, right?
Have a nice trip, Grrliz, and good luck with the job interview!

Norbertha: I think that HBP will be "about" just as many things as all the books - which means there will be lots more than one theme, of course. :) How lucky we will feel to have something new to talk about and more background for the characters!

But I think my dream was just my unconscious reassuring myself that this theme won't go away while JKR talks about something else. I think it just shows that, as a theme, it means something to me and I'm trying to figure out what JKR is saying about it. :blush:

Subtle: About Neville - I think one missing piece is what Snape's relationship was to Neville's parents. They were aurors, so Snape may not have been on good terms with them. On the other hand, if they were at school together, Snape might have actually liked them better than he liked James. I'm not sure what to think because we don't have any clues about Frank and Alice beyond the fact that they were tortured.

I agree, Grrliz and Fire.
There's a lot of bullying going on in all 4 books, not just SWM. My list includes:
Harry (by Dudley&his gang, Vernon&Petunia, Malfoy&his gang and Snape)
Neville (by Snape)
Snape (by James, Sirius and possibly Peter)
Luna (by the Ravenclaws)
Moaning Myrtle (by Olive Hornby)

+ some occational instances which are bad enough, but I don't know whether to count them because they are isolated incidents rather than a pattern:

Ron ("Weasley is our king")
Hermione ("I see no difference")
Mark Evans (beaten up by Dudley's gang)

It's interesting how JKR includes such a range of things, from the very violent and cruel SWM to the repetitive, emotional stress of the Potions classes, to Luna's loneliness, to Dudley the brainless hooligan, to the comic relief figure Myrtle.

Don't forget Neville being bullied by Draco.

Harry by Draco? Is it really bullying? Bullying, for me, requires an imbalance of power; the victim can't fight back. Harry and Draco seem to be equal (Harry is just as nasty to Draco, as Draco is to him.)

What about Fred and George? are they bullies? Their treatment of Montague: funny or cruel?

Edit: Excellent post on Snape, Subtle :tu:

I guess there was no time. James shouted "take Harry and run", Voldemort AKed him and came through the door. Voldemort had come through the front door, so Lily couldn't escape that way, because Voldemort would be in the way. Lily would have had to run for the back door, if there was one, or try to climb out thorugh a window - both of which would take time, especially with Harry in her arms. I think Voldemort cornered her in one of the rooms before she got a chance to escape.I'd always thought Harry was in his cot already when LV came. James was killed as Lily ran to get him, but didn't get there fast enough and was cornered in the bedroom by LV, where she died.

I have no idea what the glasses mean, though. Is Harry far sighted? I this a sort of symbol for something?JK says they're a symbol of Harry's vunerability and human-ness. The flawed hero, etc, both physically as well as mentally/emotionally

I have no idea what the glasses mean, though. Is Harry far sighted? I this a sort of symbol for something?

I've always took the simplistic veiw on Harry having his mother's eyes. I think it just means that he sees the world the way his mother did, ie SWM. I think Harry's reaction to seeing that in the pensieve was a good indicator. Both Lily and Harry saw that as something wrong, and I think that Harry's compassion will be one of his strengths.

Glasses, I started wearing contacts as soon as I could get my mother to let me. I'd been wearing heavy perscription lenses since third grade, and I hated them. I think there was one popular kid at my school with glasses. I do think it looks like James is wearing them in PoA.

Grrliz, good luck, hope you do well.

Yes, but my point was that it isn't the same as McGonagall standing in front the house and verbally berrating the kid into humiliation. Although it doesn't explicitly say, it sounds as though McGonagall took Neville into her office to dole out his punishments; it if it had been a public event for the whole House to see we would have witnessed it (as we did her earlier, milder dressing down). She takes the time and consideration to deal with Neville's punishments on a one-on-one level. The effects of the punishments reverberate into the student body at large and that's when his humiliation begins; it's not McGonagall who is publically humiliating him.I'm not sure this is a fair assessment. McGonagall does humiliate Harry in front of the entire class in GoF when she, essentially, tells him not to embarrass them in front of the visiting schools by admitting that he can't do a simple spell. I see that as on par with Snape's comments in the classroom. Also, I think that the phrase "abysmally foolish" sounds exactly like something Snape would say. When does Snape really berate Harry in front of the entire class? In CoS, Ron & Harry are in private when they get in trouble for flying the car to Hogwarts. Snape doesn't parade them into the Great Hall and dress them down in front of the whole school. In PoA, when Snape knows Harry is returning from Hogsmeade, although they are in a hallway, it still takes place in private since no one else is around. I think Snape doesn't treat Harry & Neville any differently in class than McGonagall; although, I would be willing to agree that Snape's nasty comments are more frequent than McGonagall's in class (although we don't really know that either, I think it's likely). Check out what Voldemort says about Lily's protection:

"His mother died in the attempt to save him--and unwittingly provided him with a protection I admit I had not foreseen.....His mother left upoon him the traces of her sacrifice....This is old magic, I should have remembered it, I was foolish to overlook it" (pp. 652-653, GoF, US paper).

"Unwittingly"--not planned? I wouldn't trust Voldemort to be right about that. Voldemort is so selfish and obsessed with immortality that he wouldn't understand Lily sacrificing herself for Harry--ironic, since his mother sacrificed herself for his life. Anyway, it makes sense to me that Voldemort would interpret this as having been unwitting because why would someone purposely do what she did (from Voldemort's perspective)? I think Lily would have tried to run, but Voldemort just caught up with her before she'd gotten anywhere--this could also lead Voldemort to believe that it was unwitting. who wants to be sitting around reading books hoping someone--who does do good things--fails, utterly and ultimately?? Even in real life--who would hope that someone like Snape doesn't realize the error of his ways?Needless to say, I completely agree. :tu:I guess there was no time. James shouted "take Harry and run", Voldemort AKed him and came through the door. Voldemort had come through the front door, so Lily couldn't escape that way, because Voldemort would be in the way. Lily would have had to run for the back door, if there was one, or try to climb out thorugh a window - both of which would take time, especially with Harry in her arms. I think Voldemort cornered her in one of the rooms before she got a chance to escape.I'd always thought Harry was in his cot already when LV came. James was killed as Lily ran to get him, but didn't get there fast enough and was cornered in the bedroom by LV, where she died.That's what I thought, as well, but some others suggested that Lily planned to stay and sacrifice herself at that time. A page or so ago, grrliz suggested that Lily had run into a dead-end to make her stand.Anyway, I'm off for the next few days, I have to go out of town for a job interview and I'm going to be visiting my sisters, so I trust everyone will have a lovely old time with lots of good discussion while I'm gone, right? :lol: :pYes, good luck!

That's what I thought, as well, but some others suggested that Lily planned to stay and sacrifice herself at that time. A page or so ago, grrliz suggested that Lily had run into a dead-end to make her stand.But reading the text, it sounds like the she was crying and pleading for Harry's life. If she was "making a stand" and planning to be killed, why all the begging and screaming? Wouldn't she have said something deffiant or at least a little more forceful than "not Harry please" [ I would have told him to shove it, but that's just me... ]

grrliz--Ack: I forgot to wish you luck in my last post (probably because I was too busy swearing at myself for accidently deleting what I'd already typed--what an idiot!). So--forgive my rudeness, please!

For no good reason whatsoever, I'll chime in on the personal experience with glasses: atrociously bad vision; got contacts; and then, joy of joy, clever people invented LASIK surgery and I have lived happily ever after (except now I'm old and need my 'half-moon' reading glasses...which, actually, all teachers shoudl wear even if they don't need them--it so adds to the intimidation factor!).

silver ink pot--My thoughts exactly on the Neville front: that's why I can't quite develop any idea in depth other than Bad Snape for being mean to Neville , because the background information is missing. We also know that the Longbottoms were very popular (can we speculate that, since Neville is so nice--when he's not dithering over his inept schoolwork--that his parents were also...I mean nice, not dithering....), and that they were tortured into insanity after the fall of Voldemort--a double outrage to the rest of the wizarding world. In Snape's complicated psychology, is he picking on Neville out of his own guilt? Not that Snape was involved in the torturing, but that, as the key spy for the Order, he missed that piece of information? Just as when he looks at Harry he sees James, does he look at Neville and see the two people he 'let down' by not picking up on the DEs' plans? Was there complacency after the fall of Voldemort--not only on the part of wizarding society and the Order, but Snape? Is Snape afraid Neville is too weak and dithery to protect himself, as Snape should've protected Neville's parents, and so drives him hard--even abusively (since Snape doesn't seem to know where the border lies between hard and abusive...hmmm: can anyone say, 'Daddy's example, possibly?') in order to try to force Neville to be stronger? Snape, for all of his hideous qualities, clearly has a very strong protective streak, so is this his backwards way of going about it? Of course, the hard/abusive way doesn't work on Neville--it just makes him go to pieces; grandmother seems to be of a very similar mindset to Snape's, and she isn't successful, either. Stating the obvious: Lupin's and Harry's methods of calm, patient instruction are what work--even to Neville's own shock. All I can do--as I've just demonstrated--is generate speculative questions, because the information is so limited about the Longbottoms...look how long it took for Harry to find out anything about them.

Harry by Draco? Is it really bullying? Bullying, for me, requires an imbalance of power; the victim can't fight back. Harry and Draco seem to be equal (Harry is just as nasty to Draco, as Draco is to him.)

What about Fred and George? are they bullies? Their treatment of Montague: funny or cruel?
Harry doesn't always let Draco get to him - which impresses me. :clap: <-- for Harry
But, sometimes Harry is hurt by Draco: For example, when he mocks him for fainting because of the Dementor - he exploits that for everything it's worth, and it does get to Harry.

Fred, George and Montague: I don't know ... We discussed it before, and I can't make up my mind. I agree this was a nasty thing to do. But this seems to me like a single incident. Fred and George don't target Montague specifically. I generally don't count single incidents, with no story before or after, as bullying, but rather as an attack.

I'd always thought Harry was in his cot already when LV came. James was killed as Lily ran to get him, but didn't get there fast enough and was cornered in the bedroom by LV, where she died.

Yeah, that's what I think too. Lily would first have had to get Harry out of his cot, then find a way out which wasn't blocked by Voldemort. However, there was so little time that all she managed to do before Voldemort caught up with her, was start the process of running through, grabbing Harry, finding a window and climbing out. She only got as far as running through to Harry before Voldemort came in.

JK says they're a symbol of Harry's vunerability and human-ness. The flawed hero, etc, both physically as well as mentally/emotionally
Aha. :)

A cliche says that we most hate in others what we most hate in ourselves. I think there's an element of truth to that cliche for Snape's character.
:tu: Very well said!
Which also explains why Hermione's bookishness (is that a word?) annoys him.
For no good reason whatsoever, I'll chime in on the personal experience with glasses: atrociously bad vision; got contacts; and then, joy of joy, clever people invented LASIK surgery and I have lived happily ever after (except now I'm old and need my 'half-moon' reading glasses...which, actually, all teachers shoudl wear even if they don't need them--it so adds to the intimidation factor!).
:rotfl:
Why haven't wizards invented the equivalent to laser treatment yet? :huh:

Neville's parents: I was under the impression that they are quite a bit older than James, Snape & co. In St. Mungo's, they look grey and old - but that could be because they have been ill for so long, of course. what I'm trying to say, is that I didn't think Snape knows them personally, since they are quite a bit older. But I agree there is some funny business going on regarding Snape, Neville, Harry and the prophecy. Hm.

But reading the text, it sounds like the she was crying and pleading for Harry's life. If she was "making a stand" and planning to be killed, why all the begging and screaming? Wouldn't she have said something deffiant or at least a little more forceful than "not Harry please" [ I would have told him to shove it, but that's just me... ]That makes perfect sense to me!

Ahhh--my favorite piece of nearly baseless speculation (and, with some luck and JKR's cooperation, it will either fly or be emphatically shot down in HBP): what if the reason Lily is not particularly forceful in her pleading is she is speaking to Snape, not Voldemort?
It's shameless speculation, just for fun (unless, of course, JKR doesn't give the full story in HBP, despite what looks like is going on on the US cover...in which case, there will be loud screaming emanating from my house).............

When it comes up in PoA, all Sirius says is that Snape deserved it. He isn't specific about whether he thinks its a trick or a joke etc.Just because I'm a nerd*, I decided to look up the different connotations of "trick" and "joke". This is what I came up with (from dictionary.com):

Trick- 1. An act or procedure intended to achieve an end by deceptive or fraudulent means.
2. A mischievous action; a prank.
3. A stupid, disgraceful, or childish act or performance.

Joke- 1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
2. A mischievous trick; a prank.
3. An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.

From this, I'd say that from the information we have, "trick" sounds like a more appropriate word to describe what Sirius did. It seems like definition #3 kind of fits with what Sirius did: it was, from what we can tell, a stupid, rather childish action that had sirius, er, serious consequences. I suspect that by calling it a "joke", Snape was being sarcastic.

*I wear glasses too, but I wear my contacts more often. I only feel comfortable wearing my glasses around my family.

I would think that a house collapsing and the noise that must have been coming from it would prompt quite a large crowd to appear. So the fact that Dumbledore gave out orders fast enough for Hagrid to remove Harry before there was a crowd means that Dumbledore knew something about what was going to happen and that Harry would survive. Either that or Dumbledore is some sort of seer.I’ve suspected for some time that Lily had indeed planned to sacrifice herself in the very end if there was no other way, and I believe Dumbledore was aware of her plan. It’s quite possible that during a conversation with Dumbledore, Lily could have expressed concern that the Fidelius Charm might not be enough to protect them. After all, no charm or spell is 100% fool-proof. I imagine that Lily may have decided she would give her life for her son as a fail-safe back-up plan, just in case they were found by Voldemort. It makes sense to have in the back of your mind a plan to enact should the worst happen, and so it makes sense to me that Lily may have had this plan in the back of her mind, and that she somehow communicated this plan to Dumbledore. It’s even possible that he could have told her about the ancient blood magic that could be evoked from the sacrifice. I don’t think Lily would have told James, because first of all, he would have no doubt strongly objected to it. Following that, he’d have probably tried to stop her or talk her out of it. Also, I don’t think James would have acted the way he did if he’d known about her plan. Finally, the plan to sacrifice herself was a last attempt plan to save her child, one that Lily would probably have enacted when it was clear that there was no other way. So it doesn’t seem likely that she would tell James about her plan if there was some way she could avoid it.

Since we only have small snippets of what occurred that night at the Potters’ home, we really don’t know if the reason why Lily didn’t run for it like James said was because running was futile. I’m guessing that what Lily did what she did because she truly felt that running was no use. In short, there must have been a good reason for why Lily did what she did- I don’t think Lily is the kind of person to sit and wait for Voldemort to come and murder her. I’ll have to reread the information we have about what actually happened that night, but I recall James says “take Harry and go”, which implies that Lily had to go upstairs/in another room to collect Harry. We don’t know how long James and Voldemort dueled, so it may have been that 1) Lily went to get Harry, 2) James was killed, and 3) Lily was planning to run with Harry, but was intercepted by Voldemort and told to stand aside. I think Lily’s saying, “Please not Harry!” might have been a knee-jerk reaction. And I’m pretty sure she only screams just before she’s AK’d, but I could be wrong.

One last thing- I agree that Voldemort’s words can’t be trusted here. He probably said that to discredit Lily and/or because he didn’t understand Lily’s sacrifice.

Just a couple of things here. 1) She doesn't actually humiliate him in front of his peers in that scene; he is described as "trembling from head to fluffy-slippered toes", which speaks more to the shock and fear of Sirius Black's break in (McGonagall's own voice is described as "shaking") than to being humiliated. His humiliation comes afterwards when she bans him from Hogsmeade (an appropriate punishment) and refuses to let him have the passwords (another appropriate course of action, given what he did with the first set of passwords). Neville is in "total disgrace" because of this, but I'm at a loss as to how else Neville should have been disciplined as a result of his actions. The humiliation comes from the punishments incurred as a result of his "abysmally foolish" actions (action/reaction) and not from McGonagall standing there and reaming him out in front of his peers.:tu: I agree, I don’t think I can add any more to this. Good luck by the way on your interview. :)

Ahhh--my favorite piece of nearly baseless speculation (and, with some luck and JKR's cooperation, it will either fly or be emphatically shot down in HBP): what if the reason Lily is not particularly forceful in her pleading is she is speaking to Snape, not Voldemort?
It's shameless speculation, just for fun (unless, of course, JKR doesn't give the full story in HBP, despite what looks like is going on on the US cover...in which case, there will be loud screaming emanating from my house).............
If Snape was there, it would make the situation a lot more complex. At that point, Snape owed James a life-debt. To stand there and do nothing while LV killed James, and then his family, would most certainly have been against the terms of repayment! We don't know what a life-debt entails, but we have been given hints that it is a magical bond that is created and exists whether or not the debtor or debtee want it (think Harry and Peter). Snape should have been struck by lightning on the spot or something if he was at Godric's Hollow that night!

OK, on to a completely new topic (sorry for changing, but it's been nagging me). I read yesterday somewhere (can't relocate it today!) About Peter basically being calculating, sly, a lot smarter than we give him credit for, and has this whole complex side to him and that him turning traitor was a repayment for all this anger built up in him. I'm not saying I believe this, but it's in a thread somewhere. It did bring to my attention, though, that the Peter had been spying for over a year (check the timeline on the Lexicon (http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/main/timeline_1970-1990.html) ). Dd began to suspect that there was a spy in their midst, and describes himself as "... a sufficiently accomplished Legilimens myself to know when I am being lied to," (OotP, pg. 832). This means that he never asked Peter directly if he were the spy (I'm not sure why, but I have the feeling you need to have eye contact to perform legilimency), or he did ask and Peter is sufficiently skilled at Occulmency to have lied and gotten away with it. Hmmm, wonder where he learned that? We only know of one person so far who has successfully pulled this off (with LV, that is) and can teach Occlumency *cough* Snape.

OK, on to a completely new topic (sorry for changing, but it's been nagging me). I read yesterday somewhere (can't relocate it today!) About Peter basically being calculating, sly, a lot smarter than we give him credit for, and has this whole complex side to him and that him turning traitor was a repayment for all this anger built up in him. I'm not saying I believe this, but it's in a thread somewhere.I believe it- after all, as you say, Peter had been spying for more than a year before the Potters were killed. I also believe that one of the reasons Peter turned to the dark side was because he was disenchanted with the way he was treated by his friends while they were at school. Peter does appear to have a lot of hidden strengths/talents that only show up when he wants them to, for instance, Sirius says he underestimated Peter when Peter showed himself 1) capable of being the spy, 2) making deceitful plans to out Sirius as the traitor in public, 3) blowing up the street with one spell and killing 19 people, and 4) transforming and spending his days as a rat. Therefore, I’d say that Peter does have some hidden talents up his sleeve. For more in formation on this, The Power of Peter Pettigrew aka Wormtail (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=34211) thread is great. :)

In Snape's complicated psychology, is he picking on Neville out of his own guilt? Not that Snape was involved in the torturing, but that, as the key spy for the Order, he missed that piece of information? Just as when he looks at Harry he sees James, does he look at Neville and see the two people he 'let down' by not picking up on the DEs' plans? Was there complacency after the fall of Voldemort--not only on the part of wizarding society and the Order, but Snape? Is Snape afraid Neville is too weak and dithery to protect himself, as Snape should've protected Neville's parents, and so drives him hard--even abusively (since Snape doesn't seem to know where the border lies between hard and abusive...hmmm: can anyone say, 'Daddy's example, possibly?') in order to try to force Neville to be stronger? Snape, for all of his hideous qualities, clearly has a very strong protective streak, so is this his backwards way of going about it? Of course, the hard/abusive way doesn't work on Neville--it just makes him go to pieces; grandmother seems to be of a very similar mindset to Snape's, and she isn't successful, either. Stating the obvious: Lupin's and Harry's methods of calm, patient instruction are what work--even to Neville's own shock. All I can do--as I've just demonstrated--is generate speculative questions, because the information is so limited about the Longbottoms...look how long it took for Harry to find out anything about them.

I think that this is very insightful. I mean we can't know if this is his real motivation, but it makes a lot of sense to me.

You know what I think is so funny, Fake Moody seems to be the only teacher who actually found a good way to teach Neville albeit not in his own subject. Maybe I am wrong, but it didn't seem like Neville was particularly good at herbology, but F. Moody told him he was, and all of the sudden Neville is raising exotic plants in his dormitory. I agree with you SIP, that McGonagall is too hard on him too. (I love dear Neville btw, if you can't tell.)

It was interesting to hear all your histories with popular people and glasses. When I grew up, I really did know plenty of popular kids with glasses. My little brother always wears his glasses, and he was homecoming king. I was wondering if it was a generational thing, but I think some younger people said they didn't know too many popular kids with glasses either. Maybe it's a Midwestern thing. I have no idea.

Good Luck, grrliz!

I read yesterday somewhere (can't relocate it today!) About Peter basically being calculating, sly, a lot smarter than we give him credit for, and has this whole complex side to him and that him turning traitor was a repayment for all this anger built up in him. I'm not saying I believe this, but it's in a thread somewhere. It did bring to my attention, though, that the Peter had been spying for over a year (check the timeline on the Lexicon (http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/main/timeline_1970-1990.html) ). Dd began to suspect that there was a spy in their midst, and describes himself as "... a sufficiently accomplished Legilimens myself to know when I am being lied to," (OotP, pg. 832). This means that he never asked Peter directly if he were the spy (I'm not sure why, but I have the feeling you need to have eye contact to perform legilimency), or he did ask and Peter is sufficiently skilled at Occulmency to have lied and gotten away with it. Hmmm, wonder where he learned that? We only know of one person so far who has successfully pulled this off (with LV, that is) and can teach Occlumency *cough* Snape.

That quote may have been mine from Layers. I was deconstructing Peter over there yesterday, somewhat off-the-cuff. The post is here (http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=2089598&postcount=1425)

I'm not convinced that Peter was Severus' protegé, though. I'm more inclined to believe that Peter was able to fly under Dumbledore's radar.

I believe it- after all, as you say, Peter had been spying for more than a year before the Potters were killed. I also believe that one of the reasons Peter turned to the dark side was because he was disenchanted with the way he was treated by his friends while they were at school. Peter does appear to have a lot of hidden strengths/talents that only show up when he wants them to, for instance, Sirius says he underestimated Peter when Peter showed himself 1) capable of being the spy, 2) making deceitful plans to out Sirius as the traitor in public, 3) blowing up the street with one spell and killing 19 people, and 4) transforming and spending his days as a rat. Therefore, I’d say that Peter does have some hidden talents up his sleeve. For more in formation on this, The Power of Peter Pettigrew aka Wormtail (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=34211) thread is great. :)
Don't get me wrong - I think Peter, unlike Dudley, is a much more complex character, and more skilled, than we have been led to believe he is. I just meant that I did not necessarily agree with everything in all the posts I had read yesterday.

That quote may have been mine from Layers. I was deconstructing Peter over there yesterday, somewhat off-the-cuff. The post is here
I'm not convinced that Peter was Severus' protegé, though. I'm more inclined to believe that Peter was able to fly under Dumbledore's radar.
Thank you, ravenfeather, for that link, it was what I was referring to!

As for the Snape-Peter connection - I'm not saying I believe it myself, but I like to stir up the pot! :eyebrows:

:wow: Are we allowed to stir the pot in this thread?? :evil:

I just saw this thread in the Dev. of Snape thread by Steve from the Lexicon. I wonder if he made it in the wrong thread. In any event, it is appropriate here, so I'll post it. :)

Re: James wearing glasses and unanswered email to the Lexicon

I'm sorry that a response wasn't more forthcoming. I have to admit that I get a TON of email and I just don't get to answering things as quickly as I should. About a year ago, Penny Linsenmeyer joined the Lexicon staff to answer email and manage projects, but she's on maternity leave. I currently have literally HUNDREDS of unanswered email spiling up on me. I get to it as often as I can, but it will be a while before I get it all taken care of.

As for the glasses, I will pass that email along to Lisa, who edits the character pages. I don't know how that OP reference got on there, but I'm sure she'll take a look and do whatever editing is necessary. For canon purposes, we will continue to state that James wore glasses, since there is no reason to assume that the people in the mirror look like anyone other than who they are. Typically, I find that fans assume that Rowling is being a lot more clever than she actually is. It is highly unlikely that she thought the scene through in the kind of sub-level detail that we like to explore. If she said that James wore glasses, she almost certainly imagines him that way.

It's interesting to note that in the drawing Jo made of the Mirror scene, she clearly shows James wearing glasses. On the other hand, in her drawing of Snape, he has a pointed beard, so what's canon and what isn't?

Steve Vander Ark
The Harry Potter Lexicon

Grrliz: I was in a hurry earlier and forgot to wish you good luck!

Have a great trip and good luck with the interview!http://www.websmileys.com/sm/dressed/bek134.gif



I believe it- after all, as you say, Peter had been spying for more than a year before the Potters were killed. I also believe that one of the reasons Peter turned to the dark side was because he was disenchanted with the way he was treated by his friends while they were at school. Peter does appear to have a lot of hidden strengths/talents that only show up when he wants them to, for instance, Sirius says he underestimated Peter when Peter showed himself 1) capable of being the spy, 2) making deceitful plans to out Sirius as the traitor in public, 3) blowing up the street with one spell and killing 19 people, and 4) transforming and spending his days as a rat. Therefore, I’d say that Peter does have some hidden talents up his sleeve. For more in formation on this, The Power of Peter Pettigrew aka Wormtail thread is great.

I agree about the talents. Anyone who can talk back to Voldemort the way Peter does in GoF and live is pretty bold and sly. Of course, he also pays a high price.

On one of these threads (probably version 7 which is missing) we talked about how the treatment Peter received from the other Marauders might have "set him up" emotionally to be attracted to Voldemort - although, clearly he had to have a "bent" in that direction. The human nature factor that I see is that Peter was part of a group that sticks together, and he is considered important for his roles as yes-man, ego-booster, and partner in crime. That is really what he does for Voldemort, too, so I think he fell into the role quite easily. However, we also know that fear played a part in his decision to join Voldemort, so is that also the case with the Marauders? Or was it just that it was too frightening to be alone without the "big friends."

Just because I'm a nerd*, I decided to look up the different connotations of "trick" and "joke". This is what I came up with (from dictionary.com):

Trick- 1. An act or procedure intended to achieve an end by deceptive or fraudulent means.
2. A mischievous action; a prank.
3. A stupid, disgraceful, or childish act or performance.

Joke- 1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
2. A mischievous trick; a prank.
3. An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.

From this, I'd say that from the information we have, "trick" sounds like a more appropriate word to describe what Sirius did. It seems like definition #3 kind of fits with what Sirius did: it was, from what we can tell, a stupid, rather childish action that had sirius, er, serious consequences. I suspect that by calling it a "joke", Snape was being sarcastic.

We are really so much alike, lol. The last thing I was doing last night before my tired head hit the keyboard was looking up "joke," "trick," and "riddle" - the last of which just popped up when I was looking for the other two.

All this talk of jokes reminds me of the Weasley Twins, and while I find them highly amusing most of the time, I do think they cross a line into bullying and there are actually alot of examples. I was reading part of PoA (chapter 4) last night and the way they mistreat Percy just goes on and on - they keep hiding his Prefect badge, and then changing it so it says, "Big Head Boy," or "Pinhead." Finally, Harry has to "force a laugh" about it because it just isn't really that funny anymore, except to the two of them. Ironically, he is carrying around a bottle of rat tonic for Scabbers while the twins stand there s******ing about it all - maybe foreshadowing Percy's move to the dark side, and maybe, just maybe, drawing another parallel between the twins and James and Sirius.

Here is what I found in the Online Etymology Dictionary:

joke
1670, joque, "a jest, something done to excite laughter," from L. jocus "joke, sport, pastime," from PIE base *yek- "to speak" (cf. Bret. iez "language," O.H.G. jehan "to say," Ger. Beichte "confession"). Originally a colloquial or slang word. Meaning "something not to be taken seriously" is 1791. Joker, meaning "odd face card in the deck" is from 1885, probably from earlier slang sense of "man, fellow, chap" (1811).
"American manufacturers of playing-cards are wont to include a blank card at the top of the pack; and it is, alas! true that some thrifty person suggested that the card should not be wasted. This was the origin of the joker." ["St. James's Gazette," 1894]
Practical joke "trick played on someone for the sake of a laugh at his expense" is from 1804.

jocular
1626, from L. jocularis "funny, comic," from joculus, dim. of jocus (see joke). Implies evasion of an issue by a joke.

gag (n.)
"joke," 1823, probably related to theatrical sense of "matter interpolated in a written piece by the actor" (1847), or from slang verbal sense of "to deceive, take in with talk" (1777), both on notion of "stuff, fill" (see gag (v.)).

fun
1685, v., "to cheat, hoax," probably a variant of M.E. fon "befool" (c.1400), later "trick, hoax, practical joke," of uncertain origin. Stigmatized by Johnson as "a low cant word." Older sense is preserved in phrase to make fun of and funny money "counterfeit bills" (1938, though this may be more for the sake of the rhyme); sense of "amusement" is 1727. See also funny.

trick (n.)
c.1412, "a cheat, a mean ruse," from O.N.Fr. trique "trick, deceit, treachery, cheating," from trikier "to deceive, to cheat," variant of O.Fr. trichier, probably from V.L. *triccare, from L. tricari "be evasive, shuffle," from tricæ "trifles, nonsense, a tangle of difficulties." Meaning "a roguish prank" is recorded from 1590; sense of "the art of doing something" is first attested 1611. The verb is first attested 1595. An earlier sense of "to dress, adorn" (c.1500) is perhaps a different word entirely. Meaning "prostitute's client" is first attested 1915; earlier it was U.S. slang for "a robbery" (1865). Trickery is first attested 1800; tricky is 1786 (earlier tricksy, 1596); trickster is from 1711. Trick-or-treat is recorded from 1947.

wile
1154, wil "wile, trick," perhaps from O.N.Fr. *wile (O.Fr. guile), or directly from a Scand. source (cf. O.N. vel "trick, craft, fraud," vela "defraud"). Perhaps ultimately related to O.E. wicca "wizard" (see Wicca). Lighter sense of "amorous or playful trick" is from 1600. Wily is attested from c.1300.

shenanigan
1855, of uncertain origin. Earliest records of it are in San Francisco and Sacramento, Calif. Suggestions include Sp. chanada, a shortened form of charranada "trick, deceit," or, less likely, Ger. Schenigelei, peddler's argot for "work, craft," or the related Ger. slang verb schinäglen. Another guess centers on Ir. sionnach "fox."

calumny
1447, from M.Fr. calomnie, from L. calumnia "slander, false accusation," from calvi "to trick, deceive," from PIE base *kel-, *kol- "to deceive, confuse."

escapade
1653, from Fr. "a prank or trick," from Sp. escapada "a prank, flight, an escape," from escapar "to escape," from V.L. *excappare (see escape). Figurative sense (1814) is of "breaking loose" from rules or restraints on behavior.

prank
"a trick," 1529, of uncertain origin, perhaps related to obsolete prank "decorate, dress up," from M.L.G. prank "display" (cf. also Du. pronken, Ger. prunken "to make a show, to strut"). Prankster is Amer.Eng., attested from 1927.


*I wear glasses too, but I wear my contacts more often. I only feel comfortable wearing my glasses around my family.

I just don't like to touch my eyes or I would get contacts. When I was younger, I had allergies and watery eyes, so I couldn't imagine having to put in contacts every morning. But also, contacts were really expensive back in the day, so I've always worn glasses - thick glasses, lol. I am extremely nearsighted, and computers haven't really helped much, lol. I'm starting to need reading glasses, but I can't think about that. When I read a book at night, I sometimes just take off my glasses and squint - isn't that attractive? :angel:

Edited to Add: Thanks Atherella! I answered Steve's post on the other thread! Please check your OWLS. :)

I agree about the talents. Anyone who can talk back to Voldemort the way Peter does in GoF and live is pretty bold and sly. Of course, he also pays a high price.

Bold, maybe..but sly? In the situation you describe, Peter was able to "talk back" to Voldemort b/c he had the upper hand. Voldemort, at that point, was pretty darn useless and Peter was holding all the cards, in a manner of speaking. All he had to do was run away and take Voldy's wand with him, and Voldy was as good as done. OR Peter could have probably snuffed Voldy out right then, as he was defenseless and had a body that was not good for much of anything. Back to Vapomort, or worse if the rudimentary body didn't have the same protections for Voldy. Peter didn't do either of those things, but helped Voldemort regain his body, and I think that Peter probably made a deal with Voldy that if he helped him get a body back, he wouldn't harm him. After Peter gave his right hand and was waiting for a new one, Peter said (paraphrasing, don't have the book) - but master, you promised! Promised what? Just a new hand, or that Peter would be safe? we don't really know, do we? And if he had a promise from Voldy (who, after all, does seem to keep his promises), I think Peter would have been a little bolder in conversation with Voldy. Heck, if that was the case, that would have been pretty darn sly on his part!

Bold, maybe..but sly?

Well, OK. I don't really think he was too sly with Voldemort, but he had to have been a bit sly to fool all his supposed best friends in the last war, right?

:evil: Sometimes I throw a compliment at Peter to satisfy the Pettigrew fans. Although I still can't believe there are any. :p

Bold, maybe..but sly? In the situation you describe, Peter was able to "talk back" to Voldemort b/c he had the upper hand. Voldemort, at that point, was pretty darn useless and Peter was holding all the cards, in a manner of speaking. All he had to do was run away and take Voldy's wand with him, and Voldy was as good as done. OR Peter could have probably snuffed Voldy out right then, as he was defenseless and had a body that was not good for much of anything. Back to Vapomort, or worse if the rudimentary body didn't have the same protections for Voldy. Peter didn't do either of those things, but helped Voldemort regain his body, and I think that Peter probably made a deal with Voldy that if he helped him get a body back, he wouldn't harm him. After Peter gave his right hand and was waiting for a new one, Peter said (paraphrasing, don't have the book) - but master, you promised! Promised what? Just a new hand, or that Peter would be safe? we don't really know, do we? And if he had a promise from Voldy (who, after all, does seem to keep his promises), I think Peter would have been a little bolder in conversation with Voldy. Heck, if that was the case, that would have been pretty darn sly on his part!I think Peter has to be sly. How else could he fool James & Sirius into thinking he was weak and utterly loyal, and then betray them?

Honestly, I don't get Peter's motivation with Voldemort. Why help bring back someone who is weak, but will be a danger to you when they regain full power? I can think of 2 reasons. One, as you suggested, is that Peter has a guarantee he won't be in danger when Voldemort has regained full power. The other is that Peter may have felt Voldemort's return was inevitable (as Dumbledore did) and he'd be better off helping earlier than trying to explain later why he didn't help even though he wasn't in Azkaban. Neither one of these reasons really makes sense to me because why couldn't Peter just kill Voldemort in his weakened state? But, perhaps Peter knows it's not possible? After all, being a Death Eater, he must know something more than we do about Voldemort's powers.

Still, Peter already knows that Harry is merciful. If he knows anything about the prophecy, it seems like he would be better off taking his chances with Harry. Maybe he will.

Regarding Snape at Godric's Hollow, I'm not actually a fan of this theory; however, I'm not sure how bound Snape would be by the life-debt to save James's life. Peter already owes Harry a life-debt in the Graveyard at the end of GoF and he seems perfectly willing to see Voldemort kill Harry. :huh:

Peter is attracted to power. Voldemort, in his weakened state, is, nevertheless, potential power. Pettigrew's primary concern is for himself and his own welfare. Helping Voldemort earns him points with the boss--look at how Voldemort speaks of him in the graveyard: although he denigrates Pettigrew at every turn, he makes it clear that at least Peter aided him. Since Pettigrew accidently found (I think?) Voldemort, I think his helping results from his fear that someone else might aid Voldemort if he doesn't--then Peter will suffer the consequences. Infinitely better to be the one helps and then gets credit for that.

Peter is attracted to power. Voldemort, in his weakened state, is, nevertheless, potential power. Pettigrew's primary concern is for himself and his own welfare. Helping Voldemort earns him points with the boss--look at how Voldemort speaks of him in the graveyard: although he denigrates Pettigrew at every turn, he makes it clear that at least Peter aided him. Since Pettigrew accidently found (I think?) Voldemort, I think his helping results from his fear that someone else might aid Voldemort if he doesn't--then Peter will suffer the consequences. Infinitely better to be the one helps and then gets credit for that.It sounds like you think Peter believes that Voldemort will ulimately trumph--that he's sure of it, rather than just hoping.

Peter's situation is complicated because he betrayed the other powerful people who could help him and faked his own death. I think that's really the catch-22. If not for that, he would have more options in terms of gravitating toward power (Dumbledore; Harry; Fudge :rolleyes: ), unless he really believed Voldemort would win in the end.

I thought Peter purposely sought Voldemort and spoke with rats or something to find his way to Voldemort?

That's right--the rat network: I'd forgotten that!

I do think Pettigrew thinks/hopes Voldemort wins. Voldemort makes a comment about Peter's running from his former friends and justice--basically, that Peter has no other choice but Voldemort. Which Voldemort knows( just as he knows Malfoy isn't exactly a rock of trustworthiness). As long as Pettigrew sees it no choice, he's a loyal servant. There's nowhere else for him to go. And, as long as he's allied with Voldemort, he's allied with power--and cruelty, which Pettigrew likes. If nothing ele, Pettigrew's reward is he gets to stay alive; maybe he can gain something more from his loyalty, but at least he's guaranteed self preservation.

As long as Pettigrew sees it no choice, he's a loyal servant. That's an interesting way to phrase it, considering the major theme of choice. I wonder what it will take for Peter to fulfill the life-debt to Harry? Will Harry have to make Peter a better offer? I wonder if Peter will ever choose what is right over what is easy. . . It would certainly require some kind of major growth event for his character and I just don't see it. I mean, if he didn't choose to do the right thing for his friends, what would ever make him choose to do the right thing?

Subtle: I would call that "self-preservation at a great cost."

Like Chiev, I have a hard time understanding Peter's motivation. But as you say, Subtle, he has nowhere to go. I have an easier time understanding this from a "fear" perspective. He is afraid to go back to Dumbledore and face the music for all he has done. He also knows that if he leaves Voldemort there is no guarantee that the other DEs won't track him down and make him die a painful death. So he stays with his "Master," bowing and scraping, torturing children and mutilating himself, and doing what it takes to stay "protected," whatever that may mean in his twisted mind.

How can you feel "protected" and yet have to cut off your own hand? :huh:

If nothing ele, Pettigrew's reward is he gets to stay alive; maybe he can gain something more from his loyalty, but at least he's guaranteed self preservation.
I think it is more like Peter gets to stay alive for a little bit longer. The only reason Peter is still alive is because he still is useful. Peter is bound to screw up sooner or later and when he does, I don't see Voldemort being so kind to him.

How can you feel "protected" and yet have to cut off your own hand?
I agree. I also don't understand how anyone could feel protected by Voldemort. I do not think he is loyal to anyone but himself. Sure he is not going to kill off all his DE at one time, but I could see him doing something like killing them off slowly. As he "recruits" more DE, he could quite possibly do away with the old ones, who I am sure he feels betrayed by. Since they didn't come find him.

Like Chiev, I have a hard time understanding Peter's motivation. But as you say, Subtle, he has nowhere to go.
See, I have always had a problem with this (but then I suppose it could be because I could never betray my own friends). Peter had his friends. I don't doubt that at that time James, Sirius, or Lupin would have done anything to help out a friend. Why exactly did Peter feel that he couldn't count on his best friends anymore? Unless, as other's have said, he felt that Voldemort was going to win and no one could stop him.

Check out what Voldemort says about Lily's protection:

"His mother died in the attempt to save him--and unwittingly provided him with a protection I admit I had not foreseen.....His mother left upoon him the traces of her sacrifice....This is old magic, I should have remembered it, I was foolish to overlook it" (pp. 652-653, GoF, US paper).

"Unwittingly"--not planned?

Like others, I don't think we can trust Voldemort's word on this. He doesn't know what was going on in Lily's mind and the last thing he would want is to look like he was outsmarted by a Muggleborn. Voldemort is already known to have been brought down by a baby and, in his view, a halfblood. To admit he was also outwitted by a Muggleborn would only serve to discredit him further. At the time of his return, he tried to prove that he was indeed more powerful than Harry Potter and he (Voldemort) was the one they should follow. His entire campaign has been pureblood supremacy and saying a Muggleborn was able to beat him by dying would destroy that.

RemusLupinFan, great points on Lily's sacrifice. :tu:

How can you feel "protected" and yet have to cut off your own hand? :huh:

Peter cut off his own hand to gain a reward. He got a much better, much stronger hand. I'm sure that may boost his rather non-existant self-confidence and may help to make him feel protected. He was granted a "gift" from Voldemort himself; a gift that Voldemort did not have to bestow. No one is going to attack Peter without adequate weapons or the like when he has a hand that can crush wood into dust.

he felt that Voldemort was going to win and no one could stop him.

That must have been his reasoning. He assumed that all his friends would die anyway - why should he die with them? They were willing to die, he wasn't.

Peter cut off his own hand to gain a reward. He got a much better, much stronger hand. I'm sure that may boost his rather non-existant self-confidence and may help to make him feel protected. He was granted a "gift" from Voldemort himself; a gift that Voldemort did not have to bestow. No one is going to attack Peter without adequate weapons or the like when he has a hand that can crush wood into dust.I'm not convinced that Peter lacks self-confidence. I see his self-deprecating behavior as an act.

I also wasn't aware that we knew the properties of Peter's silver hand? I don't have my book with me, but all I remember is its "beauty" being remarked upon.

I think Voldemort had to "bestow" it or Peter wouldn't have cut off his hand in the first place. Peter's reminder of a promise implies that they had a "contract." If Voldemort broke his promise, his other Death Eaters would be less likely to "volunteer" for things in the future.

For some reason, when I read HermioneLuna's post, a character from Dr. Zhivago popped into my brain. Remember Lara's husband? I suddenly remembered his name started with a "P" as in Peter, and I was right! I had to look it up, though:

Pavel Pavlovich (Pasha, Antipov)

Peter is Pasha, I think! He is idealistic at first, but then finds he enjoys gaining what little power he can in the army, then he is captured and put in a prison camp. Lara thinks he is dead, but finds out he is alive and has changed his name to "Strelnikov." Eventually, he shoots himself because he realizes all the things he has lost - especially his wife and child.

I don't know why this character suddenly shot into my mind, except that he seems so sweet at the beginning of the movie, and then when I was reading HermioneLuna's post about Peter becoming "stronger" and "gaining self-confidence," I suddenly saw the grown up "Strelnikov," who acts as if he doesn't remember his own wife and child.

I was looking around for Strelnikov online, and found this page about a movie made a long time ago called "It Happened Here," a disturbing movie about what might have happened to British boys if Hitler had actually invaded Britain. It had this footnote:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:zTMOOyoL84MJ:www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s100here.html+pasha+strelnikov+characters&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

A real tangent: Those of you trying to figure out how George Lucas will make cute little Anakin Skywalker into Big Bad Wolf, I mean, Darth, should check out Doctor Zhivago again. Tom Cortenay's Pasha/Strelnikov character sketches a perfect arc between youthful altruist and scarred inhuman totalitarian monster. He's the most successful part of the Zhivago movie, and come to think of it, it's too bad the movie spends so little time with him. He's more central to the revolutionary theme than the soft-hearted, weak-minded medico played by Omar Sharif.

I would love to see that movie, "It Happened Here," which was partly bankrolled by Stanley Kubrick. It is sort of an alternate universe story about evil - rather like another set of books I know so well! In a way, Voldemort starting a new war in Britain is like Hitler invading!

Footnote: I just realized it says something in the quote about the "big bad wolf." I assure you, I'm not talking about Lupin, but Peter.

It's Sirius, isn't it who refers to Pettigrew's wanting to be allied with the biggest bully on the playground? While the Marauders were in school, they wielded power: James and Sirius were popular; James was a Quidditch star, and apparently Sirius was the academic star. On the negative side, we also know they didn't always use their power well: Lily makes reference to James' hexing of other students, and SWM is hardly a sterling moment. However, the power and the negative, I think, are exactly what Peter likes--of all of them, it's Pettigrew's behavior in SWM that really nauseates me: he's sadistic, not to put too fine a point on it.

Problem: the rest of the Marauders change. They join the Order. They're not doing negative things anymore. They also appear to be on the losing side, as Voldemort's power is only increasing. Peter says himself that he couldn't see a reason to resist (the line which sets off Sirius' declaration about dying for one's friends). Why not hand the Potters over to Voldemort? James isn't doing anything fun anymore, anyway; besides, they're all going to die. If Pettigrew joins Voldemort and can pass him useful information, culminating in the location of the Potters, then he has saved his own life. Same reasoning for helping Voldemort the second time around.

To me, in order for Pettigrew to be redeemed, something is going to have to reverse his completely self-centered universe. At this point, I can't see where that could come from. I don't see anything in the behavior we've seen up to this point that could be the seed of such a major reversal--that would change him from the sadistical self preservationist that he is. [Really--in my next post, I'll tell you how I really feel : ) !! ]

I don't think Voldemort would ever start killing off DEs--that's a quick way to instigate a rebellion. He was quite effective in the graveyard, subjecting select ones for Cruciatus and acidly admonishing the rest for their lack of loyalty--which was, again, self preservation for them at the time of Voldemort's fall. It's far more effective for him to save the actual killing for those who have demonstrated a complete, real lack of loyalty--who have tried to quit his service: Regulus Black...maybe Karkaroff" Bagman? Snape? For the rest, his system of reward or pain seems very effective, with the threat of AK hanging over them. But I think Voldemort understands perfectly the choice of the DEs who claimed to be under Imperius, etc.: obviously, Voldemort knows all about the desire for self preservation above all else...especially others and their well-being.

To me, in order for Pettigrew to be redeemed, something is going to have to reverse his completely self-centered universe. At this point, I can't see where that could come from. I don't see anything in the behavior we've seen up to this point that could be the seed of such a major reversal--that would change him from the sadistical self preservationist that he is. [Really--in my next post, I'll tell you how I really feel : ) !! ]

Peter put his own life before anything else. If he is to be redeemed, then he'll have to choose to die, in order to protect Harry. I think he'll be killed by Voldemort, but I don't know whether he'll let Harry escape, or he'll dive in front of an AK. I can't imagine him living to the end, nor being sent to Azkaban. He could just be killed by Voldemort for incompetence, but that wouldn't solve the life-debt.

Peter put his own life before anything else. If he is to be redeemed, then he'll have to choose to die, in order to protect Harry. I think he'll be killed by Voldemort, but I don't know whether he'll let Harry escape, or he'll dive in front of an AK. I can't imagine him living to the end, nor being sent to Azkaban. He could just be killed by Voldemort for incompetence, but that wouldn't solve the life-debt.I agree with you, but I think the issue is that nothing we've seen from Peter suggests that he is even capable of making such a choice. If he suddenly took the proverbial bullet for Harry, it wouldn't make sense with his character because his character is so selfish. How would he come to make such a choice? If the only reason he would is the life-debt, it would be a weakness of the story, IMO--magical bond or not--especially after Peter does nothing to help Harry in the graveyard.

I'm not convinced that Peter lacks self-confidence. I see his self-deprecating behavior as an act.

I also wasn't aware that we knew the properties of Peter's silver hand? I don't have my book with me, but all I remember is its "beauty" being remarked upon.

I think Voldemort had to "bestow" it or Peter wouldn't have cut off his hand in the first place. Peter's reminder of a promise implies that they had a "contract." If Voldemort broke his promise, his other Death Eaters would be less likely to "volunteer" for things in the future.

Another point we disagree on. I don't think anyone with a lot self-confidence would behave the way Peter does. It's pointless if Voldemort can see through it, and since Voldemort is skilled at Occlumency, I would think he could. I guess we just have to agree to disagree again.

I don't know what you mean by "properties," but I do remember we learn a little about the silver hand. In the chapter "The Death Eaters," when Voldemort gives Peter his new hand, Peter picks up a twig and crushes it into powder.

My point wasn't that Voldemort was kind enough to give Peter the silver hand. My point was in response to Silver ink pot's post. She asked how Peter could feel protected. I was saying that he had gotten a gift from Voldemort himself, a gift that could turn wood to dust. I would say that would make someone feel protected.

Besides, Peter doesn't have to go around telling everyone that the only reason he has the silver hand is because he made a deal with Voldemort. The fact that he's able to say he got any sort of reward from Voldemort, even leaving out the details, is probably enough to give Peter's self -confidence a boost.

It's pointless if Voldemort can see through it, and since Voldemort is skilled at Occlumency, I would think he could. Voldemort shows that he can see through it. I never said Peter was smart. ;) Still, it's the same behavior he displays in the Shrieking Shack, which is not indicative of sincere self-esteem issues, but calculating in an attempt to ingratiate himself to Sirius, Lupin, and Harry, so that he will escape unharmed.I don't know what you mean by "properties," but I do remember we learn a little about the silver hand. In the chapter "The Death Eaters," when Voldemort gives Peter his new hand, Peter picks up a twig and crushes it into powder. That's what I mean--what are the characteristics of the silver hand that make it different from a regular hand. I'm not sure how useful an extra-strong hand would be in terms of the wizarding world. Peter would have to be in a physical fight for it to matter. If it could deflect spells, that would be something useful.My point wasn't that Voldemort was kind enough to give Peter the silver hand. My point was in response to Silver ink pot's post. She asked how Peter could feel protected. I was saying that he had gotten a gift from Voldemort himself, a gift that could turn wood to dust. I would say that would make someone feel protected.I know. If you notice, I didn't disagree with you.

I've quoted this before...but it's worth seeing again, as Voldemort's "gift" of the silver hand is part of a rather sick joke by him:

"However, I do not deny that [Bertha's] information was invaluable. Without it, I could never have formed our plan, and for that, you will have your reward, Wormtail. I will allow you to perform an essential task for me, one that many of my followers would give their right hands to perform...."
"R-really, My Lord? What--" Wormtail sounded terrified again.
"Ah, Wormtail, you don't want me to spoil the surprise. Your part will come at the very end...but I promise you, you will have the honor of being just as useful as Bertha Jorkins."
"You...you..." Wormtail's voice suddenly sounded hoarse, as though his mouth had gone very dry. "You...are going...to kill me too?"
"Wormtail, Wormtail," said the cold voice silkily, "why would I kill you?" (GoF, p. 11, US paper).

Later, in "The Death Eaters," after Pettigrew has cut off his own hand, he fears Voldemort is going to kill him and whines, "My Lord...you promised...you did promise..." and, when all Voldemort wants is access to his Dark Mark, Wormtail thanks him, thinking, mistakenly, that Voldemort was going to do something to help his bleeding right arm. After the DEs are called, Voldemort tells Pettigrew, "You returned to me, not out of loyalty, but out of fear of your old friends. You deserve this pain, Wormtail. You know that, don't you....Yet you helped return me to my body....Worthless and traitorous as you are, you helped me...and Lord Voldemort rewards his helpers...." (p. 649) and gives him the silver hand. While Pettigrew does get a reward...of sorts...the scene doesn't indicate any confidence on Pettigrew's part that he's getting protection from Voldemort--he's grovelling in fear that Voldemort will punish him further and being verbally lambasted. And Voldemort's not done: he returns to the sick joke: "the potion that revived me tonight--I would need three powerful ingredients. Well, one of them was already at hand, was it not, Wormtail? Flesh given by a servant...." (p. 656).

All we really see out of Pettigrew is fear and begging. There's no indication that he feels any particular favor from Voldemort, who keeps reminding how worthless he is and makes sure Pettigrew doesn't gain any sense of security. He may have gotten a silver hand, but the price was his real hand, and the sacrifice was expected of him--and not respected, as Voldemort's puns prove.

Yes, you're right. After reading that again, I don't see how Voldemort makes Peter feel protected at all--silver hand or not.

That must have been his reasoning. He assumed that all his friends would die anyway - why should he die with them? They were willing to die, he wasn't.
This has to be the weakest reasoning ever though. Can you imagine not having any of your friends around and surrounded in this world that Voldemort wants? It just doesn't makes sense to me why he chose this way. He must have been incredibly weak which makes me wonder what exactly Sirius, James and Lupin saw in him as a friend to begin with.

But reading the text, it sounds like the she was crying and pleading for Harry's life. If she was "making a stand" and planning to be killed, why all the begging and screaming? Wouldn't she have said something deffiant or at least a little more forceful than "not Harry please" [ I would have told him to shove it, but that's just me... ]I think her words are ambigious, especially part where she says something like 'Not Harry, take me, kill me, not Harry'. This sounds like a mother simply pleading for her child's life - mothers always want bad things to happen to them instead of their children (every time my child is sick or hurt I wish there was someway I could take the pain instead of her) and life or death is the extreme of this.

The other interpretation of what she says - the one I prefer - is that she is actually using magic. When asks Voldemort to kill her instead of Harry she is making him a sort of magical bargain which, in killing her, he unwittingly accepts.

I don't think the fact that she was begging and screaming undermines the idea that her sacrifice is premeditated. Even if she was 100% certain that her plan would work, she has every reason to be desperately afraid. Her husband has just been murdered and one way or another, her son is about to be taken from her. The best case scenario for her at that moment is that her son will live, but have no mother or father and that she won't herself live to see him grow up. Under the circumstances, I think anyone would become hysterical, however good their plan was.
Originally posted by HermioneLuna
I never said they didn't tell James. Even with prior knowledge, James would tell Lily to run. I hardly think James could see Voldemort and say "Well, this is it. You go stand beside Harry and I'll die. Don't worry. We'll see each other in a few minutes." I agree. I realy have no idea whether or not Lily told James what she was planning to do. If she did, I can't imagine that James would have been entirely comfortable with this plan - after all he loved Lily as well, so a plan that involved her dying wouldn't seem very attractive to him! It is one thing to be willing to sacrifice your own life for someone you love; agreeing to someone you love doing the same for someone you both love is probably even harder. I'm sure James hoped he could protect them both, and telling Lily to run would be a natural impulse.
Originally posted by HermioneLuna
And the only way it affected Petunia was that she shared the same blood as Lily, something that wouldn't make a difference if Lily hadn't sacrificed herself for Harry. Yes. This could also be the reason why it had to be Lily who sacrificed herself for Harry and provide the magical protection, if James had no living relatives to 'bind' the protection. James did also die to protect Harry, but it doesn't have the magical significance of Lily's sacrifice.
Originally posted by clkginny
Somehow, I don’t think Lupin appreciated this joke anymore than Snape did. It would have made Lupin a murderer (or at least, made Lupin feel like a murderer, even though it wouldn’t have been his fault). The fact that Snape could have died, made it wrong. The fact that it betrayed Lupin’s trust in Sirius made it wrong.I agree with this. I don't think Snape was acting in good faith when he followed Sirius' instructions on how to get into the tunnel under the Whomping Willow, so he has to share some of the blame for that. (Though that doesn't make what Sirius did OK either - two wrongs and all that.) The responsiblilty for his betrayal of Lupin, on the other hand, lies entirely at Sirius' feet. This is also the part I find hardest to understand, as it seems out of character for Sirius, as well as being an awful thing to do.
Originally posted by grrliz
I was only referring to what she says to Neville in front of his peers the night Sirius breaks in; all she calls him is "abysmally foolish". I imagine Snape would have selected slightly more, er, expressive words. I think the punishments Neville received were entirely appropriate, and agree that Snape would have probably done the same thing in McGonagall's place. :tu: Yes, I think McGonagall's behaviour that night was fairly reasonable, under the circumstances. I think that the punishments she handed out were reasonable too. The only time I think she was out of line with Neville is when she makes the comment about the Switching Spell. This is balanced out however by her comment that she is confident Neville will get good marks in his Transfiguration OWL, because the only thing that is wrong with him is that he needs more confidence - a fairly accurate description.

To me Snape is very different. He humilates Neville without any cause, like his comment to Lupin at the start of his first DADA lesson (I think the timing is very deliberate as the stark contrast illustrates Lupin's superior abilities as a teacher).

To be honest, I don't see many similarities between Snape and McGonagall other than that they are both strict teachers. JKR describes Snape as a very sadistic teacher who was based on a horrible teacher she once had, whereas she says McGonagall is a 'great teacher' who is 'a bit of a softie' underneath her 'gruff exterior' and that she was influenced by one of her favourite teachers. I think they are very different characters and this certainly appears to be JKR's intention.
Originally posted by subtle science
Peter is attracted to power. Voldemort, in his weakened state, is, nevertheless, potential power. Pettigrew's primary concern is for himself and his own welfare. Helping Voldemort earns him points with the boss--look at how Voldemort speaks of him in the graveyard: although he denigrates Pettigrew at every turn, he makes it clear that at least Peter aided him.Yes, I think that is it. Peter is very opportunistic I believe. He was frightened of being trageted by other DEs when Voldemort fell before, but was apparently quite happy to live as a pet rat for 12 years. When this is no longer an option, he does the one thing that will prevent the DEs from 'getting' him - he returns to Voldemort first. It reminds me of what Arthur Weasley says about Sirius in PoA (though I have a nagging suspicion it might only be the film) about how Sirius hopes to regain favour by delivering the last of the Potters to Voldemort - something like the other DEs wouldn't dare say he betrayed Voldemort then.
Originally posted by Silver Ink Pot
He is afraid to go back to Dumbledore and face the music for all he has done. :tu: For me, this goes right to the heart of Peter's character - he is a moral coward. He is brave in some ways, in that he is able bear physical pain, but in other ways he is very cowardly. Spying on and betraying your friends indicates a lack of moral fibre - it is nasty, low-down behaviour. That is why I find Peter interesting; he is strong in some ways because he is able to withstand physical pain and is more magically powerful than people realise, but his character is weak and spineless because he has no strength of conviction and lacks moral strength.
Originally posted by Chievrefueil
I'm not convinced that Peter lacks self-confidence. I see his self-deprecating behavior as an act.I'm not either. Peter is very deceitful, so I think much of his behaviour is an act. I expect he deliberately downplayed his own abilities to his friends to make them feel pity for him, and so he wouldn't be seen as any sort of a threat. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't like himself much though, which might also explain why he is prepared to allow Voldemort to physically mutilate him. (Though I realise this could simply be the price he has to pay for his silver hand and/or whatever other rewards Voldemort has offered him as well.)

Grrliz - good luck with your interview. We'll miss you while you are away!

The other interpretation of what she says - the one I prefer - is that she is actually using magic. When asks Voldemort to kill her instead of Harry she is making him a sort of magical bargain which, in killing her, he unwittingly accepts.I actually really like that interpretation. It would add an extra irony to Voldemort's comment about Lily "unwittingly" providing Harry with the protection of her sacrifice. I love irony! :p

Quote from silver ink pot:
Ironically, he is carrying around a bottle of rat tonic for Scabbers while the twins stand there s******ing about it all - maybe foreshadowing Percy's move to the dark side, and maybe, just maybe, drawing another parallel between the twins and James and Sirius.
Would you really consider Percy on the Dark side?

Quote from Chievrefueil:
Neither one of these reasons really makes sense to me because why couldn't Peter just kill Voldemort in his weakened state? But, perhaps Peter knows it's not possible? After all, being a Death Eater, he must know something more than we do about Voldemort's powers.
How could he kill Voldemort though? Voldemort's already proven AK doesn't work on him.

Quote from Chievrefueil:
Peter's situation is complicated because he betrayed the other powerful people who could help him and faked his own death. I think that's really the catch-22. If not for that, he would have more options in terms of gravitating toward power (Dumbledore; Harry; Fudge ), unless he really believed Voldemort would win in the end.
Here's the thing...I don't think that Peter really has any options at the end of PoA. Dumbledore may give second chances but has he every given a second chance to someone that has betrayed him already? Even Dumbledore has a limit.

Quote from shaggydogstail:
To be honest, I don't see many similarities between Snape and McGonagall other than that they are both strict teachers. JKR describes Snape as a very sadistic teacher who was based on a horrible teacher she once had, whereas she says McGonagall is a 'great teacher' who is 'a bit of a softie' underneath her 'gruff exterior' and that she was influenced by one of her favourite teachers. I think they are very different characters and this certainly appears to be JKR's intention.
This about sums it up for me too. McGonagall may by strict but she lets her soft side come though once in a while. That's why Harry considers being punished by her different then he does Snape. Snape doesn't have a soft side...at least not one he shows to the students so Harry can't really relate to him. The reader only gets to see a dark, bitter bullying Snape from Harry's point of view.

As to why Snape picks on Neville...I don't think it has to do with Neville's history so much as Neville. Neville is obviously a talented wizard, I personally rank him above Ron (not above Harry or Hermione), and his lack of effort in most of his classes is taken personally by Snape. He seems to be trying to frighten Neville into working harder which obviously isn't going to work but being Snape he doesn't know another way.

Regarding dear old Peter Pettigrew I think that maybe at the heart of his betrayal Peter is basically a shallow person. Sirius or Snape while doing things of questionable morals can never be described as shallow (at least not on a whole…on certain responses yes). Peter on the other hand probably could be described at being shallow. Did he enjoy the friendship of the Marauders….undoubtedly. Did he value it? Yes. But whereas to James, Lupin, and Sirius this friendship reached into the very core of their being Peter never felt that way. I don’t think that Peter necessarily understood the true depth of this friendship nor did he understand how much it meant to others especially Sirius. So when Voldemort comes along and makes his offer Peter doesn’t just think “I can’t fight against my friends” he carefully weighs out his options. And makes his choice.

The other interpretation of what she says - the one I prefer - is that she is actually using magic. When asks Voldemort to kill her instead of Harry she is making him a sort of magical bargain which, in killing her, he unwittingly accepts. I quite like this interpretation too, because it definitely gives more meaning to the idea the Voldemort “unwittingly” sealed the magic that allowed Harry to survive the AK curse. And it certainly is ironic, like Chiev pointed out.

The responsiblilty for his betrayal of Lupin, on the other hand, lies entirely at Sirius' feet. This is also the part I find hardest to understand, as it seems out of character for Sirius, as well as being an awful thing to do.I think this speaks to the fact that Sirius just wasn’t thinking about all of the consequences that could result from his actions. It seems like this was a point where he got so fed up with Snape that he was concentrating more on revenge than consequences.

Peter is very opportunistic I believe.:tu: That just about sums up Peter’s personality. He hangs around the most powerful friends so that he can feel protected and part of a powerful group, he takes advantage of many situations and his talent of being an animagus, and he joined Voldemort because, as he says, “He—he was taking over everywhere!” gasped Pettigrew. “Wh—what was there to be gained by refusing him?” (PoA). Peter is a rat in so many ways besides the fact that it’s his animagus form. For one thing, Peter “rats” the Potters out to Voldemort. In connection with his opportunistic nature, Peter is a rat in the sense of being a parasite- taking advantage of others in the interest of looking out for himself. Finally, Peter is a rat in the sense of being a louse- he's a real lousy person, and I agree with shaggy that Peter is a moral coward.

As to why Snape picks on Neville...I don't think it has to do with Neville's history so much as Neville. Neville is obviously a talented wizard, I personally rank him above Ron (not above Harry or Hermione), and his lack of effort in most of his classes is taken personally by Snape. He seems to be trying to frighten Neville into working harder which obviously isn't going to work but being Snape he doesn't know another way.I agree with you, except to say that Neville doesn’t demonstrate any lack of effort. Rather, Neville has a lack of confidence that causes him to mess up, especially under pressure.

Would you really consider Percy on the Dark side?I know this wasn't directed at me, but it's not an accident that Ron says twice in CoS that Tom Riddle sounds just like Percy to him. Then there's the time they catch Percy reading some book about Head Boys who went on to have powerful careers (or something like that). I think it foreshadows Percy's sojourn into the wrong side in OotP--the question is whether it foreshadows anything further or will Percy be back in HBP?How could he kill Voldemort though? Voldemort's already proven AK doesn't work on him.Voldemort's pretty helpless. He could just refuse to milk Nagini. :pHere's the thing...I don't think that Peter really has any options at the end of PoA. Dumbledore may give second chances but has he every given a second chance to someone that has betrayed him already? Even Dumbledore has a limit.Like I said in my post, Peter made it very complicated for himself by betraying who he betrayed. He would go to Azkaban, if he went to Dumbledore--the question is whether or not that's worse than serving Voldemort. Apparently, Peter thought so, but I'm not sure after reading the recap of Peter's "sacrifice" for Voldemort at the end of GoF.Neville is obviously a talented wizard, I personally rank him above Ron (not above Harry or Hermione), and his lack of effort in most of his classes is taken personally by Snape.I'd put Neville above Ron, too, in terms of talent--maybe even in terms of academic ability. Ron seems pretty clueless most of the time. . .

This has to be the weakest reasoning ever though. Can you imagine not having any of your friends around and surrounded in this world that Voldemort wants? It just doesn't makes sense to me why he chose this way. He must have been incredibly weak which makes me wonder what exactly Sirius, James and Lupin saw in him as a friend to begin with.

Excellent point, and it doesn't make much sense to me, either.


Neville is obviously a talented wizard, I personally rank him above Ron (not above Harry or Hermione), and his lack of effort in most of his classes is taken personally by Snape.

I'd put Neville above Ron, too, in terms of talent--maybe even in terms of academic ability. Ron seems pretty clueless most of the time. . .

I think Neville is braver than Ron. There is a scene in CoS, when Hermione is describing the Polyjuice Potion and what they will have to do to enter Slytherin to talk to Malfoy, and she has to tell Ron to "Stop Whimpering." There aren't many characters who actually "Whimper" in these books. Neville and Hermione do make frightened sounds sometimes, but Whimpering is one step above.

Would you really consider Percy on the Dark side?

Well, if he is against Dumbledore and Harry, then he isn't on their side, is he? JKR has said he isn't under the Imperious Curse, and he is acting on his own, so you could say he is wayward, but I think he is dangerous to his own family, and thus, to Harry. He knows too much. He is alot like Peter, in that respect, and that is perhaps why JKR mentions the Rat Tonic while the Twins are teasing Percy.

But there may be another reason, and we have touched on it a bit with Peter. Percy wants to be respected, but he gets little respect from his closest brothers. That reminds me of the Marauders. They were all in Gryffindor, just like the Weasleys. Sirius and James were always as close as twins - Hagrid compares them to the twins in PoA, and never mentions Lupin. Peter seems to get little or no respect from James and Sirius, perhaps with good reason considering his personality traits. Percy gets no respect from his brothers for anything he does, from his boring cauldron reports, to his Prefect's Badge, to being Head Boy.

I can see Percy as Snape or Peter in that respect, or even Lupin. Percy can't make his brothers behave, no matter what he says or does. That is alot like Lupin, if you ask me. So perhaps Percy is supposed to be a composite character, as humorless and "rule-following" as Snape, a good student/Prefect like Lupin, but disrespected like Peter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shaggydogstail
The other interpretation of what she says - the one I prefer - is that she is actually using magic. When asks Voldemort to kill her instead of Harry she is making him a sort of magical bargain which, in killing her, he unwittingly accepts.

I actually really like that interpretation. It would add an extra irony to Voldemort's comment about Lily "unwittingly" providing Harry with the protection of her sacrifice. I love irony!

That is really interesting! :huh: So Lily knew exactly what she was doing, but she knew she was sacrificing herself, and Voldemort was clueless. I like the irony too!

Would you really consider Percy on the Dark side?
He is walking a very fine line, and I'm not sure which side he'll end up on.



That is really interesting! :huh: So Lily knew exactly what she was doing, but she knew she was sacrificing herself, and Voldemort was clueless. I like the irony too!
This idea was discussed in the thread Why was Lily Killed?... (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=1361) and it does make sense. I really hope that the opening chapter of HBP will be The night Voldy attacked the Potters so we can get some answers!

Well, if he is against Dumbledore and Harry, then he isn't on their side, is he?
I'm not Percy's biggest fan, but I don't think he is on the dark side. I'm not sure that I am seeing "dark side" the same way as you guys though. When I hear the question is Percy on the dark side I immediately think is Percy on Voldemort's side. Now, I think it is horrible that Percy is not working with his parents and the order. But does that automatically put him on the dark side?
I just want to clear up what you guys mean by dark, didn't mean to get so far off topic!! :)

That is really interesting! So Lily knew exactly what she was doing, but she knew she was sacrificing herself, and Voldemort was clueless. I like the irony too!
That is a very interesting look on the situation. I do like it, however, it still makes me very sad. :upset: And she did take a chance on Voldemort killing her before he actually killed Harry.

Quote from RemusLupinFan:
I agree with you, except to say that Neville doesn’t demonstrate any lack of effort. Rather, Neville has a lack of confidence that causes him to mess up, especially under pressure.
However to Snape they probably seem the same. In my mind it just farther show's that McGonagall is more empathic then Snape.

Quote from Chievrefueil:
I know this wasn't directed at me, but it's not an accident that Ron says twice in CoS that Tom Riddle sounds just like Percy to him. Then there's the time they catch Percy reading some book about Head Boys who went on to have powerful careers (or something like that). I think it foreshadows Percy's sojourn into the wrong side in OotP--the question is whether it foreshadows anything further or will Percy be back in HBP?

Quote from silver ink pot:
Well, if he is against Dumbledore and Harry, then he isn't on their side, is he? JKR has said he isn't under the Imperious Curse, and he is acting on his own, so you could say he is wayward, but I think he is dangerous to his own family, and thus, to Harry. He knows too much. He is alot like Peter, in that respect, and that is perhaps why JKR mentions the Rat Tonic while the Twins are teasing Percy.

But there may be another reason, and we have touched on it a bit with Peter. Percy wants to be respected, but he gets little respect from his closest brothers. That reminds me of the Marauders. They were all in Gryffindor, just like the Weasleys. Sirius and James were always as close as twins - Hagrid compares them to the twins in PoA, and never mentions Lupin. Peter seems to get little or no respect from James and Sirius, perhaps with good reason considering his personality traits. Percy gets no respect from his brothers for anything he does, from his boring cauldron reports, to his Prefect's Badge, to being Head Boy.

I can see Percy as Snape or Peter in that respect, or even Lupin. Percy can't make his brothers behave, no matter what he says or does. That is alot like Lupin, if you ask me. So perhaps Percy is supposed to be a composite character, as humorless and "rule-following" as Snape, a good student/Prefect like Lupin, but disrespected like Peter.

Quote from yrome:
He is walking a very fine line, and I'm not sure which side he'll end up on.

I'm with LexiBlack on this one. Percy, to me, seems to be a lot like Snape...the world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters as Sirius said. To me if Harry can accept that Percy, who he knows, can become lost then he can accept that so could Snape. Also as long as the new minister is a Dumbledore supporter Percy should be fine (I’m hoping that his loyalty is to the Ministry and not Fudge). Well he should have learned a lesson in humility and ethics.

Quote from silver ink pot:
I think Neville is braver than Ron. There is a scene in CoS, when Hermione is describing the Polyjuice Potion and what they will have to do to enter Slytherin to talk to Malfoy, and she has to tell Ron to "Stop Whimpering." There aren't many characters who actually "Whimper" in these books. Neville and Hermione do make frightened sounds sometimes, but Whimpering is one step above.
I wouldn't go that far...in the same book Ron walks into a forest surrounded by the thing he fears the most, spiders. That takes courage. Not that I don't like Neville....just sometimes, especially in OotP, I think that he needs to be watched. I'm not saying he's going to pull a Peter but his advice where the DE's and especially Bellatrix is suspect in my mind. "Vengeance is the path to the dark side." :p

Quote from Chievrefueil:
Like I said in my post, Peter made it very complicated for himself by betraying who he betrayed. He would go to Azkaban, if he went to Dumbledore--the question is whether or not that's worse than serving Voldemort. Apparently, Peter thought so, but I'm not sure after reading the recap of Peter's "sacrifice" for Voldemort at the end of GoF.
The way I see it Peter has three choices. Live the rest of his life on the run hoping that Sirius or Dumbledore don’t get wind of him. Surrender and go to Azkaban where his mind will almost certainly crumble and his faulty of reason will desert him with no chance of escape or release. Or go and try to restore Voldemort. I’d say he choose correctly. Yes he had to endure mental anguish caused by Voldemort and physically pain but he has his freedom, his life, his mind, most of his body and a chance of some sort of life under Voldemort. Seems better then the first two choices.

The way I see it Peter has three choices. Live the rest of his life on the run hoping that Sirius or Dumbledore don’t get wind of him. Surrender and go to Azkaban where his mind will almost certainly crumble and his faulty of reason will desert him with no chance of escape or release. Or go and try to restore Voldemort. I’d say he choose correctly. Yes he had to endure mental anguish caused by Voldemort and physically pain but he has his freedom, his life, his mind, most of his body and a chance of some sort of life under Voldemort. Seems better then the first two choices.
I wouldn't say that he really has his freedom serving Voldemort, he does what Voldemort tells him, and he most likely won't stand up against his "master" because if he does I doubt that things would end well for him.

I personally think that the first option is better than the other two, he could run away, he could change his appearance and go to another country and live in the Muggle world. Frankly I wish he had chosen the second option because then he'd be paying for what he has done, but I know if I were in his situation, which I would never be, but I'd say the first option.

I wouldn't say that he really has his freedom serving Voldemort, he does what Voldemort tells him, and he most likely won't stand up against his "master" because if he does I doubt that things would end well for him.
I was thinking this as well. I hardly think that serving Voldemort would be freedom. Everyday he has to worry about messing something up and having Voldemort torture/kill him. Voldemort has been patient with Peter up till now because Peter can go places that others can not. Having a rat animagi could probably be very valuable to a person who doesn't wish to be noticed by others yet. But what happens when Voldemort has ran out of uses for Peter or when Peter finally does something so incredibly stupid that Voldemort will finally just get rid of him. Peter has to be wondering this everyday that he spends with Voldemort.

I think Peter's best choice would have been to run for it. There are many places that he could go and he could just become a rat and hide out again. He still would have to worry about being found, but atleast he would have some mileage between him and those who want him.
I really wish he would have turned himself in. But Peter, being the rat that he is, is too cowardly to stand up and be punished for what he did.

With Voldemort, Pettigrew doesn't have freedom--but he does have his life, even if it is in service. In an odd way, he does have 'protection'--in that he is on the side of the attackers, not the attacked. He can expect to be punished by Voldemort for any and all perceived wrongdoings, but, as long as he does nothing severely wrong, he will keep his life. He will not be targeted as a victim by Voldemort and the rest of the DEs; instead, he will be part of the team he perceives as having the most power..and, again, he has an outlet for his enjoyment of watching pain inflicted on others--part of that enjoyment, I think, is knowing that it is not he who is being tortured...

As for his option of going to Dumbledore...I think he could have, and I think he could have been forgiven by Dumbledore. The catch is that Pettigrew would have had to be truly repentant--and he's not. Pettigrew only regrets being caught, not what he did. He just doesn't want to suffer consequences--from either side. The impression of Dumbledore that I get is that he will give anybody a second chance--if there is sincere regret and a true reversal of the behavior. Case in point: Snape.

Does anyone really think that Snape's redemption involves something minor? I'd say it's pretty clear that Snape did something horrific--and it's not just being a DE (we know that, from the end of GoF): it has to be what did as a DE, which Dumbledore resolutely keeps private between himself and Snape--something neither Harry nor the reader is permitted to know, as if Dumbledore is invoking the sanctity of the confessional. Snape may have a vile personality, but all he's done in the books is work for the good; his actions do speak louder than his words. Peter is the reverse: he makes a lot of noise in PoA in his excuses to Lupin and Sirius, but he doesn't mean any genuine repentance, and his actions say it all--he goes back to Voldemort and elects to help him regain power.

As for why the Maruaders would want someone like Pettigrew as a friend...I think of James as being the center of the group--he appears to be the 'normal' kid; there's no indication in what we know of him that there were any unusual circumstances in his life. His friends, however, do have the circumstances--each one needs him. Sirius, for all intents and purposes, is the product of a broken home; the Potters give him a substitute family. Lupin has a deep, dark secret; even before James knows what it is, he knows Lupin has no other friends. And then there's Pettigrew...talk about snivelling...A bit inept, a bit thick. It's rather like The Island of Misfit Toys; finally, they all find their place together as the Marauders.

The major negative is the ego that James apparently develops, and Pettigrew panders to it, fawning over James in SWM--Sirius perceives it, but James appears to enjoy it.

So, I think the reason Pettigrew is part of the group is twofold--one positive (the Misfit Toys) and one negative (ego booster).

[silver ink pot--I forgot to say that I love the Holmes quote! One of my favorites is, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer." I'm overly fond of quoting this to my students, who then hurl their grammar texts at me.]

With Voldemort, Pettigrew doesn't have freedom--but he does have his life, even if it is in service. In an odd way, he does have 'protection'--in that he is on the side of the attackers, not the attacked. He can expect to be punished by Voldemort for any and all perceived wrongdoings, but, as long as he does nothing severely wrong, he will keep his life. He will not be targeted as a victim by Voldemort and the rest of the DEs; instead, he will be part of the team he perceives as having the most power..and, again, he has an outlet for his enjoyment of watching pain inflicted on others--part of that enjoyment, I think, is knowing that it is not he who is being tortured...

Great points, especially the last one. :tu:

As for his option of going to Dumbledore...I think he could have, and I think he could have been forgiven by Dumbledore. The catch is that Pettigrew would have had to be truly repentant--and he's not. Pettigrew only regrets being caught, not what he did. He just doesn't want to suffer consequences--from either side. The impression of Dumbledore that I get is that he will give anybody a second chance--if there is sincere regret and a true reversal of the behavior. Case in point: Snape.

Yes! :tu:

Does anyone really think that Snape's redemption involves something minor? I'd say it's pretty clear that Snape did something horrific--and it's not just being a DE (we know that, from the end of GoF): it has to be what did as a DE, which Dumbledore resolutely keeps private between himself and Snape--something neither Harry nor the reader is permitted to know, as if Dumbledore is invoking the sanctity of the confessional. Snape may have a vile personality, but all he's done in the books is work for the good; his actions do speak louder than his words. Peter is the reverse: he makes a lot of noise in PoA in his excuses to Lupin and Sirius, but he doesn't mean any genuine repentance, and his actions say it all--he goes back to Voldemort and elects to help him regain power.

I see this a bit differently. I don't know that Snape did things as horrible as the other DEs. JKR says that he "saw things" as a DE, and that is a little different. I see the "major" things between he and Dumbledore as the effort he made to save lives, the life he's led since then, and whatever other secrets are between them - the reports for the Order and the spying.

So that perhaps Snape didn't have to do something truly horrific before he turned from the other side. Perhaps he saw what the others were doing, and realized he would have to prove himself eventually and knew he couldn't kill? People don't like his personality, but I think if Dumbledore believed Snape was capable of torturing children, like some of the other DEs, he wouldn't let him teach at Hogwarts.


As for why the Maruaders would want someone like Pettigrew as a friend...I think of James as being the center of the group--he appears to be the 'normal' kid; there's no indication in what we know of him that there were any unusual circumstances in his life. His friends, however, do have the circumstances--each one needs him. Sirius, for all intents and purposes, is the product of a broken home; the Potters give him a substitute family. Lupin has a deep, dark secret; even before James knows what it is, he knows Lupin has no other friends. And then there's Pettigrew...talk about snivelling...A bit inept, a bit thick. It's rather like The Island of Misfit Toys; finally, they all find their place together as the Marauders.

That is a really interesting analogy to the Island of Misfit toys, lol. So who is "King Moonracer," or should we say, "Half-Blood Prince Moonracer?" :p It's particularly funny to me, because my first signature here was a picture of Rudolph because Neville's voice at the DOM reminds me of Rudolph when he has the fake nose - "Dod gib it to hib, Harry." Edited to add: Get it? He has a "red nose" at the DOM.

Who is the Abominable? :scared:

Weird that you mentioned an Island. I just started reading "Lord of the Flies" last night, and all the group dynamics are so horrible and so similar to what we talk about here. Frustration causing the boys to turn on eachother or bully people they perceive as weak. It's disturbing. I hadn't read it in years.

The major negative is the ego that James apparently develops, and Pettigrew panders to it, fawning over James in SWM--Sirius perceives it, but James appears to enjoy it.

I find the character of "Piggy" in Lord of the Flies especially like Peter in that he tends to "fawn" over the leaders of the pack, but that makes them not respect him. So when he does have a good idea, they ignore him or punch him out or something: basic humiliation like we see in SWM. When Piggy finally becomes hostile, they don't take him seriously at all. :scared:

So, I think the reason Pettigrew is part of the group is twofold--one positive (the Misfit Toys) and one negative (ego booster).

[silver ink pot--I forgot to say that I love the Holmes quote! One of my favorites is, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer." I'm overly fond of quoting this to my students, who then hurl their grammar texts at me.]

I almost used that quote, but the other one just fit me too well! ;) It is from a story called "The Copper Beeches."

Over on Dev of Sev, there was a discussion of whether or not Snape could/would have killed anybody as a DE and/or used Cruciatus...I believe the general consensus was that he did not. I myself am not entirely decided about whether he killed or not; I lean toward the not, as I think there's more indication for the negative. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out he had. Cruciatus: absolutely not; nothing in his character fits that (and if he were going to resort to it, his golden opportunity was in the Shrieking Shack).

But what does seem entirely probable to me (okay--just dawned on me that I am currently living up to my previously noted favorite Holmes quote!!) is that Snape provided the information about the potion(s) that enabled Voldemort to revive. I can't believe that someone with his apparent talent in that area was not so utilized by Voldemort. And there's a lovely guilt trip to have to endure: knowing you are the one largely responsible for a homicidal sociopath's continuing existence.............

:tu: Over on Dev of Sev, there was a discussion of whether or not Snape could/would have killed anybody as a DE and/or used Cruciatus...I believe the general consensus was that he did not. I myself am not entirely decided about whether he killed or not; I lean toward the not, as I think there's more indication for the negative. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out he had. Cruciatus: absolutely not; nothing in his character fits that (and if he were going to resort to it, his golden opportunity was in the Shrieking Shack).

But what does seem entirely probable to me (okay--just dawned on me that I am currently living up to my previously noted favorite Holmes quote!!) is that Snape provided the information about the potion(s) that enabled Voldemort to revive. I can't believe that someone with his apparent talent in that area was not so utilized by Voldemort. And there's a lovely guilt trip to have to endure: knowing you are the one largely responsible for a homicidal sociopath's continuing existence.............

:tu: Oh, yeah, absolutely about the potions. It makes perfect sense!

As for his option of going to Dumbledore...I think he could have, and I think he could have been forgiven by Dumbledore. The catch is that Pettigrew would have had to be truly repentant--and he's not. Pettigrew only regrets being caught, not what he did. He just doesn't want to suffer consequences--from either side. I agree. I think this relates to what I was saying yesterday about Peter's moral cowardice; it is the reason why Peter fails to repent. He can't/doesn't want to face up to what he has done. In order to repent, he must first take responsibility for what he has done. Sometimes the scariest part of repentence isn't facing the people you have let down, it is facing the fact that you have let them down, admitting your own defects to yourself.

In the Shrieking Shack Peter never says sorry. He's practically begging for his life, yet he doesn't apologise. Why? Because he can't admit to what he has done wrong, the sheer, overwhelming, horrific extent of his treachery. He can't admit what he is, or take responsibility for his own actions.

To go to Dumbledore, Peter would have to face the music and admit that he isn't just weak, he wasn't just scared, but that he made a choice to do something truly evil - conspire in the murders Lily and James and the attempted murder of their baby, and frame Sirius for the crime.

He doesn't have the backbone to do this, so he pretends, probably to himself as much as anyone else, that it wasn't his fault. He wasn't as brave as James, Sirius and Remus, or as clever or as strong, he was weak and frightened, there was no point...his excuses are endless, anything to absolve himself of responsibility for his own actions. It is easier for Peter to play the victim than acknowledge his own choices.

Voldemort doesn't require honest repentence, or force Peter to face up to his own real failings. Peter knows that Voldemort despises him, as he probably despises many of the Death Eaters but all Peter has to do for Voldemort is be useful, which he is. Peter can stand Voldemort humiliating him better than the humiliation of confessing to his own crimes.

He would rather bare the physical pain of having his own arm cut off than admit the truth about his behaviour to himself or anyone else. If he went to Dumbledore, he wouldn't be able to make excuses for himself, he would have to take resposbility for his own actions (as Snape must have done) and Peter is too much of a coward to do that.

Quote from subtle science:
But what does seem entirely probable to me (okay--just dawned on me that I am currently living up to my previously noted favorite Holmes quote!!) is that Snape provided the information about the potion(s) that enabled Voldemort to revive. I can't believe that someone with his apparent talent in that area was not so utilized by Voldemort. And there's a lovely guilt trip to have to endure: knowing you are the one largely responsible for a homicidal sociopath's continuing existence.............
But Voldemort had been researching immortality for longer then Snape has been alive. At best Snape had maybe 4 years with the DE's (assuming he joined right out of school....I think 4 is about right). You're assuming that Snape, without any real experience in the real wizarding world, researched a potion (he didn't invent it...Voldemort said it was old Dark magic) to restore a body. But Voldemort, who's knowledge of magic is more extensive then any wizards, could've have done that himself. In fact it took all of Voldemort’s creativity to get to the point where he could use the potion (isn’t he the only wizard we see inventing new spells?).

I agree. I think this relates to what I was saying yesterday about Peter's moral cowardice; it is the reason why Peter fails to repent. He can't/doesn't want to face up to what he has done. In order to repent, he must first take responsibility for what he has done. Sometimes the scariest part of repentence isn't facing the people you have let down, it is facing the fact that you have let them down, admitting your own defects to yourself.

In the Shrieking Shack Peter never says sorry. He's practically begging for his life, yet he doesn't apologise. Why? Because he can't admit to what he has done wrong, the sheer, overwhelming, horrific extent of his treachery. He can't admit what he is, or take responsibility for his own actions.

To go to Dumbledore, Peter would have to face the music and admit that he isn't just weak, he wasn't just scared, but that he made a choice to do something truly evil - conspire in the murders Lily and James and the attempted murder of their baby, and frame Sirius for the crime.

He doesn't have the backbone to do this, so he pretends, probably to himself as much as anyone else, that it wasn't his fault. He wasn't as brave as James, Sirius and Remus, or as clever or as strong, he was weak and frightened, there was no point...his excuses are endless, anything to absolve himself of responsibility for his own actions. It is easier for Peter to play the victim than acknowledge his own choices.

Voldemort doesn't require honest repentence, or force Peter to face up to his own real failings. Peter knows that Voldemort despises him, as he probably despises many of the Death Eaters but all Peter has to do for Voldemort is be useful, which he is. Peter can stand Voldemort humiliating him better than the humiliation of confessing to his own crimes.

He would rather bare the physical pain of having his own arm cut off than admit the truth about his behaviour to himself or anyone else. If he went to Dumbledore, he wouldn't be able to make excuses for himself, he would have to take resposbility for his own actions (as Snape must have done) and Peter is too much of a coward to do that.I wanted to cut down your post, so I wouldn't be quoting so much, but I couldn't figure out what to cut.

I don't quite see it in the way you describe. I think he doesn't apologize because he honestly doesn't see that he did anything wrong. He basically admits his guilt in his line "What was there to be gained by refusing [Voldemort]?" I think that line shows Peter for what he really is. He wasn't afraid. He just felt he would get more out of allegiance with Voldemort than with his friends, Dumbledore, or the Order. His question to Sirius & Lupin about gain shows a monumental misunderstanding of them, but also that he believes everyone would feel the same way--he can't see that anyone would do anything for altruistic purposes. I think that is Peter's truth and he's honest about it. I don't see it as having to do with not being able to take responsibility for his actions or admit his flaw to himself. I'm sure Peter doesn't see his view as a flaw. If he did, he would have tried to apologize, even if he didn't mean it. As it is, he tries to convince Sirius and Lupin that he's right to have done what he did.

This would also put an interesting spin on Peter's friendship with James, Sirius, and Lupin. Believing that no one does anything out of altruism, I'm sure that Peter approached his friendship that way, too. What did he get out of friendship with them? Protection from the biggest and best; possibly the opportunity to engage in the bullying of others. What does he think they got out of it? Someone to stroke their egos. That's why I don't see Peter's behavior as showing low self-esteem. It was just the price he had to pay for what he wanted. It makes complete sense that Peter would betray his friends when they no longer provided him with what he wanted most.

I think he doesn't apologize because he honestly doesn't see that he did anything wrong. He basically admits his guilt in his line "What was there to be gained by refusing [Voldemort]?" I think that line shows Peter for what he really is. He wasn't afraid. He just felt he would get more out of allegiance with Voldemort than with his friends, Dumbledore, or the Order. His question to Sirius & Lupin about gain shows a monumental misunderstanding of them, but also that he believes everyone would feel the same way--he can't see that anyone would do anything for altruistic purposes.I agree with a lot of this. I was actually thinking about it after I made my last post, and realised there was a big chunk I'd missed out.

Peter isn't only a moral coward, he also lacks a moral compass. He doesn't really, truly believe in anything and that is why he is such an opportunist. I agree that he fundamentally misunderstands his friends and this is part of the reason he found it so easy to betray them.

People who don't have ideals, who don't really believe in things are unable to understand people who do. For all his theatricality, Sirius is sincere in his convictions - when he says he would rather die than betray his friends, he really means it. James and Lupin meant it too. Peter doesn't get it, because he doesn't have that strength of conviction - as people have mentioned earlier, he is very shallow. So although his friends probably swore undying loyalty to him, he didn't really believe it; Peter didn't mean it himself, so why should they?

Peter takes what might be called a pragmatic, amoral world view (in line with Voldemort's statement that there is no right and wrong, only power and those too weak to seek it). He views his choice to join Voldemort as pragmatic, rather than moral. He doesn't seem to understand that his friends choose differently for moral reasons, not just self interest. I agree that Peter doesn't realise that people do things for altrusistic reasons, because he lacks the concept of moral choice.

My point about Peter's moral cowardice and its role in his failure to repent relates fairly specifically to Peter's choice to turn to Voldemort, rather than Dumbledore. Even if Peter were convinced that he would be objectively 'better off' going to Dumbledore - safer, in particular, he would still have chosen Voldemort. Dumbledore would be willing/able to help him only if he could show genuine repentence. He can't do that because it would mean accepting that he made a bad moral choice, rather than simply pretending he did what anyone would do in those circumstances.

On the subject of Peter, I'd have to point out one thing: his behaviour at the time when Sirius and Lupin unmasked him in front of the Trio. It was less of a confession and more the plea of a kid cought with its hand in the cookie jar, begging its mum not to spank it. And that was Peter's essential flaw: the fact that he, very simply put, didn't grow up. Sirius had it right: he was still more or less the same when he faced them that night as he was when he first came to Hogwarts, seeking the protection of someone who could help him. The Sorting Hat put him in Gryffindor because (I think) it saw that he valued courage for what it could do for him- whether it was his or someone else's- and it saw that he could, possibly, be brave when he grew up. Trouble was, he never did.

Quote from shaggydogstail:
My point about Peter's moral cowardice and its role in his failure to repent relates fairly specifically to Peter's choice to turn to Voldemort, rather than Dumbledore. Even if Peter were convinced that he would be objectively 'better off' going to Dumbledore - safer, in particular, he would still have chosen Voldemort. Dumbledore would be willing/able to help him only if he could show genuine repentence. He can't do that because it would mean accepting that he made a bad moral choice, rather than simply pretending he did what anyone would do in those circumstances.
But would the thought of having a made a bad moral choice even enter Peter's mind? I mean if he's "amoral" to begin with then would he truly understand a bad moral choice. Peter's discomfort in Voldemort's circle seems to stem from the fact that he has to do unpleasant thing not genuine moral doubt of his choices. Peter doesn't seem to grasp the concept of morals on a fundamental level so can he truly doubt his choices on a moral scale? I don't think it a matter of Peter not wanting to admit he made a bad moral decision so much as Peter has no understanding of morals in general or in detail.

My point about Peter's moral cowardice and its role in his failure to repent relates fairly specifically to Peter's choice to turn to Voldemort, rather than Dumbledore. Even if Peter were convinced that he would be objectively 'better off' going to Dumbledore - safer, in particular, he would still have chosen Voldemort. Dumbledore would be willing/able to help him only if he could show genuine repentence. He can't do that because it would mean accepting that he made a bad moral choice, rather than simply pretending he did what anyone would do in those circumstances. Actually, the more I think about this, I don’t believe Peter would ever have seen going to Dumbledore as a viable choice—he would have nothing to offer Dumbledore, so why would Dumbledore accept him? He did and does have something to offer Voldemort. I think Peter’s moral compass is so off that he has no concept of a moral choice. I really don’t think he was only pretending that he did what anyone would do in those circumstances—I think he was sincere in that statement. Perhaps dealing with Voldemort makes sense to him, since Voldemort thinks in the same terms of “pragmatism” when it comes to using people. On the subject of Peter, I'd have to point out one thing: his behaviour at the time when Sirius and Lupin unmasked him in front of the Trio. It was less of a confession and more the plea of a kid cought with its hand in the cookie jar, begging its mum not to spank it.Peter was definitely trying to get out of “punishment,” but I don’t think he’s really chagrined. If he was, he’d try to apologize and he doesn’t do this. First, he tries to ingratiate himself to Sirius & Lupin. He’s playing the same game he did in school—stroking their egos. Of course, Sirius and Lupin weren’t as into that as James anyway, but there’s no surprise it wouldn’t work, even if they had been into it. Then, he tries reasoning with them by arguing that he was right to do what he did because there was no point in trying to defy Voldemort. That is tantamount to a confession—he confirms his role in the Potters’ betrayal. His mistake is in thinking that his friends could and would understand his reasoning.

Shaggydogstail, chievrefueil: I agree! Peter is wholly self absorbed: he is not only number one in his world--he's the only one. He can serve Voldemort because he understands Voldemort's point of view, which is essentially the same. He's used by Voldemort, but that's okay, because Pettigrew would use others, too--as, for instance, he does with Bertha Jorkins. So, no--he wouldn't go to Dumbledore; we can see that he could, but that simply isn't in his mind set. I can't see Pettigrew realizing, suddenly, that it's more important to be moral than to be alive; everything Pettigrew does is aimed at keeping himself alive, and that's all that really matters. His mirror opposite is Snape, who does go to Dumbledore and who, by his decision to serve as spy, clearly is risking his life for what is right.

My point was, the kid with a hand in the cookie jar will do one or all of three things when caught:

a) say he/she didn't really mean to take the cookie
b) Apologise
c) through measures (a) and/or (b), try to evade punishment, if possible.

Ah, well. It's late and I'm tired, so here goes: Peter's admission of guilt wasn't just a confession (I'm not saying that it wasn't a confession), it also provided the key to the flaw in his character that led him to betray them in the first place: his immaturity. And when I say immaturity, I don't mean outright childishness, but his basically amoral stand on life (not "good vs bad" but "what do I get out of it?"- something most kids have, until they're taught otherwise by their parents and society) and his need for someone or something to take responsibility for him. Because, if I remember correctly, he doesn't say, even once, that he chose to support Voldemort, or that he believed Dumbledore was wrong. It was just a matter of- "What was to be gained by refusing him?".

His mirror opposite is Snape, who does go to Dumbledore and who, by his decision to serve as spy, clearly is risking his life for what is right.Nice comparison - and it goes farther too. Snape is the lurking, sinister type who is automatically suspect when evil is going on. He also has very little personal appeal - Pettigrew is innocence itself (until the mask slips) and at least before the Scabbers days was able to inspire the friendship of the other marauders.

Why did Peter bite Goyle's finger? Was it a show of loyalty to Ron and Harry? Was it an act of heroism (an extremely mild one) or was it self-serving? Peter didn't have to do it, so why did he?

Edit: Was it to prove he was useful to Ron, who was complaining about his inactivity?

Peter's admission of guilt wasn't just a confession (I'm not saying that it wasn't a confession), it also provided the key to the flaw in his character that led him to betray them in the first place: his immaturity. And when I say immaturity, I don't mean outright childishness, but his basically amoral stand on life (not "good vs bad" but "what do I get out of it?"- something most kids have, until they're taught otherwise by their parents and society) and his need for someone or something to take responsibility for him. Because, if I remember correctly, he doesn't say, even once, that he chose to support Voldemort, or that he believed Dumbledore was wrong. It was just a matter of- "What was to be gained by refusing him?".It's sounds like you're getting at Kohlberg's stages of moral development, in which case I agree. We discussed this a long time ago in this thread--I don't think we were talking about Peter, then, though. I think Peter would fit in Stage 2.http://www.aggelia.com/htdocs/kohlberg.shtml

A. PREMORAL OR PRECONVENTIONAL STAGES: Behavior motivated by anticipation of pleasure or pain.
STAGE 1: PUNISHMENT AND OBEDIENCE:
Avoidance of physical punishment and deference to power. Punishment is an automatic response of physical retaliation. The immediate physical consequences of an action determine its goodness or badness. The atrocities carried out by soldiers during the holocaust who were simply "carrying out orders" under threat of punishment, illustrate that adults as well as children may function at stage one level.

STAGE 2: INSTRUMENTAL EXCHANGE:
Marketplace exchange of favors or blows. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Justice is: "Do unto others as they do unto you." Individual does what is necessary, makes concessions only as necessary to satisfy his own needs. Right action consists of what instrumentally satisfies one's own needs. Vengeance is considered a moral duty. People are valued in terms of their utility.

B. CONVENTIONAL MORALITY: Acceptance of the rules and standards of one's group.
STAGE 3: INTERPERSONAL CONFORMITY:
Right is conformity to the behavioral expectations of one's society or peers. Individual acts to gain approval of others. Good behavior is that which pleases or helps others within the group. "Everybody is doing it." One earns approval by being conventionally "respectable" and "nice." Sin is a breach of the expectations of the social order. Retribution, however, at this stage is collective. Individual vengeance is not allowed. Forgiveness is preferable to revenge. Punishment is mainly for deterrence. Failure to punish is "unfair." "If he can get away with it, why can't I?"

STAGE 4: LAW AND ORDER:
Respect for rules, laws and properly constituted authority. Defense of the given social and institutional order for it's own sake. Responsibility toward the welfare of others in the society. "Justice" normally refers to criminal or forensic justice. Justice demands that the wrongdoer be punished, that he "pay his debt to society," and that law abiders be rewarded. "A good day's pay for a good day's work." Injustice is failing to reward work or punish demerit. Right behavior consists of maintaining the social order for its own sake. Authority figures are seldom questioned. "He must be right. He's the Pope (or the President, or the Judge, or God)." Consistency and precedent must be maintained.

STAGE 4 ½:
Between the conventional stages and the post-conventional Levels 5 and 6, there is a transitional stage. College-age students that have come to see conventional morality as relative and arbitrary, but have not yet discovered universal ethical principles, may drop into a hedonistic ethic of "do your own thing." This was well noted in the hippie culture of the l960's. Disrespect for conventional morality was especially infuriating to the Stage 4 mentality, and indeed was calculated to be so.

C. POSTCONVENTIONAL OR PRINCIPLED MORALITY: Ethical principles
STAGE 5: PRIOR RIGHTS AND SOCIAL CONTRACT:
Moral action in a specific situation is not defined by reference to a checklist of rules, but from logical application of universal, abstract, moral principles. Individuals have natural or inalienable rights and liberties that are prior to society and must be protected by society. Retributive justice repudiated. Justice distributed proportionate to circumstances and need. "Situation ethics." The statement, "Justice demands punishment," which is a self-evident truism to the Stage 4 mind, is just as self-evidently nonsense at Stage 5. Retributive punishment is neither rational nor just, because it does not promote the rights and welfare of the individual. Only legal sanctions that fulfill that purpose are imposed-- protection of future victims, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Individual acts out of mutual obligation and a sense of public good. Right action tends to be defined in terms of general individual rights, and in terms of standards that have been critically examined and agreed upon by the whole society--e.g. the Constitution. The freedom of the individual should be limited by society only when it infringes upon someone else's freedom.

STAGE 6: UNIVERSAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES:
An individual who reaches this stage acts out of universal principles based upon the equality and worth of all human beings. Persons are never means to an end, but are ends in themselves. Having rights means more than individual liberties. It means that every individual is due consideration of his interests in every situation, those interests being of equal importance with ones own. This is the "Golden Rule" model. A list of rules inscribed in stone is no longer necessary.

At this level, God is understood to say what is right because it is right; His sayings are not right, just because it is God who said them. Persons at this level have accepted God's invitation to "come and let us reason together". The website this came from has much more explanation, some of which is geared toward religion.

Apparently, this is what Kohlberg said of Level 2:

If Johnny is oriented to see good almost exclusively as that which brings him satisfaction, how will he understand a concept of good in which the "good" may bring him no tangible pleasure at all. The moral maxim "It is better to give than to receive" reflects a high level of development. The child who honestly asks you why it is better to give than to receive, does so because he does not and cannot understand such thinking. To him, "better" means better for him. And how can it be better for him to give, than to get.

This is exactly how I see Peter's thought processes, combined with a lack of understanding that others think in a different way.Why did Peter bite Goyle's finger? Was it a show of loyalty to Ron and Harry? Was it an act of heroism (an extremely mild one) or was it self-serving? Peter didn't have to do it, so why did he?That's a very interesting question for this discussion. I vaguely remember that happening, but not the details. Could you provide the quote or the details of what happened? (I don't have my book.)

It was the first time Harry rode the Hogwarts express- he'd just bought sweets off the trolley, and he'd been sharing them with Ron when Malfoy & Co came along, and that's when they decided to take some of the sweets and Goyle (who must've brushed Scabbers when he reached for the sweets) got bitten.

Personally, I think it was just an animal instinct, the same way a dog would bite if it thought you were about to harm it- he'd been a rat for almost ten straight years, after all. No conscious motive behind it, IMO.

Chievrefueil--Interesting stuff--I haven't studied that in years....

Pettigrew definitely weighs in at a 2: he's practically a textbook case! He certainly cannot conceive of the idea that one would simply do 'good' because it is good, and not because there was any reward to it. In contrast, anybody working for the Order at the time Pettigrew turned had quite the opposite attitude. Since Voldemort was only gaining power, there could be little reward for working against him, except knowing it was the moral choice...which would probably get you killed.

I think, as several people have already referred to it, the key line for Pettigrew's character is when he asks what there was to gain by refusing Voldemort--that says it all about him and thoroughly establishes the abyss that separates his thinking from that of the Order members.

Philosopher's Stone p82

Goyle reached towards the chocolate frogs next to Ron - Ron leapt forward, but before he'd so much as touched Goyle, Goyle let out a horrible yell.

Scabbers the rat was hanging of his finger, sharp little teeth sunk deep into Goyle's knuckle - Crabbe and Malfoy backed away as Goyle swung Scabbers round and round, howling, and when Scabbers finally flew off and hit the window, all three of them disappeared at once. Perhaps they thought there were more rats lurking in the sweets, or perhaps they'd heard footsteps, because a second later, Hermione Granger had come in.

'What has been going on?' she said, looking at the sweets all over the floor and Ron picking up Scabbers by his tail.

'I think he's been knocked out,' Ron said to Harry. He looked closer at Scabbers. 'No - I don't believe it - he's gone back to sleep.'

Before this incident, Ron doesn't seem too pleased with Scabbers,

'His name's Scabbers and he's useless, he hardly ever wakes up.

'He might have died and you wouldn't know the difference,' said Ron in disgust.

This makes me think that Peter bit Goyle just to persuade Ron that he wasn't useless. However, it does seem quite daring for Peter, who usually just takes the easy choice.

I think that Wormtail just bit Goyle to prove that he wasn't worthless. If he didn't he might have been sent off and Ron would have had a new pet (if money wasn't an issue), but Wormtail was just securing his place with Ron, hoping not to be found by either LV or Sirius (later on).

This makes me think that Peter bit Goyle just to persuade Ron that he wasn't useless. However, it does seem quite daring for Peter, who usually just takes the easy choice.Thanks for the quote and the context. I would think that he was trying to ingratiate himself to Ron, especially since he would have been a new pet for Ron. He probably would want to make sure that Ron took good care of him. It wouldn't be a hard choice for Peter, if he thought he would get Ron's gratitude in return. If he'd done nothing, he would have gotten nothing.

I can't see Pettigrew realizing, suddenly, that it's more important to be moral than to be alive; everything Pettigrew does is aimed at keeping himself alive, and that's all that really matters. His mirror opposite is Snape, who does go to Dumbledore and who, by his decision to serve as spy, clearly is risking his life for what is right.

This is interesting, but then why was Snape placed in Slytherin (will always choose to save his or her own neck) and Peter presumably placed in Gryffindor?

chiev: I can't figure out which book it is in, but Goyle is trying to steal Ron's Chocolate Frogs and Scabbers bites him on the finger.

:tu: Really fascinating about the levels of moral development. I think Shaggy's word: "Opportunist" - is a good choice to describe Peter, but you are correct that it is at a childish, self-centered level.

Kohlbergs Rules are really interesting to think about, but it seems to me that Peter and Sirius are both examples of arrested development of a certain kind. Peter is in Level 2, I agree - what is in it for him, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."

Sirius also seems to be somewhere between stage 2, in which "Vengeance is a moral duty," and stage 3, "having approval of one's peers." I'm sure many here would disagree with that. :evil: But when you get to stage 4, "respect for authority," I think we've lost Sirius at that point.

This is interesting, but then why was Snape placed in Slytherin (will always choose to save his or her own neck) and Peter presumably placed in Gryffindor?Actually, that's what someone else said of Slytherin, but not the Sorting Hat. The Sorting Hat says:SS/PS
. . .Or perhaps in Slytherin
You'll make your real friends,
Those cunning folk use any means
to achieve their ends. . ."

*snip*

"Plenty of courage, I see. Not a bad mind either. There's talent, oh my goodness, yes--and a nice thirst to prove yourself, now that's interesting. . . So where shall I put you?. . .Not Slytherin, eh?" said the small voice. "Are you sure? You could be great, you know, it's all here in your head, and Slytherin will help you on the way to greatness, no doubt about that. . ."

GoF
". . .Shrewd Slytherin, from fen.
. . .And power-hungry Slytherin
Loved those of great ambition.

OotP
". . .For were there such friends anywhere
As Slytherin and Gryffindor?
. . .Said Slytherin, 'We'll teach just those
Whose ancestry is purest.'
. . .For instance, Slytherin
Took only pure-blood wizards
Of great cunning, just like him" Presumably, what Slytherin students* value above all else is cunning and ambition. Not coming from the Hat, I would say that the quote about Slytherins always saving their own necks is a Slytherin stereotype. Snape is both cunning and ambitious, so Slytherin fits him, even though he is also courageous in spying for the Order. Peter is cunning, but not ambitious. He is brave in his dealings with Voldemort; although, we don't know for certain that Peter was in Gryffindor. I think it's also possible that the importance someone places on particular traits could change over time so that one might not be placed in the same house at a different time in one's life.

Still, I've always been a bit perplexed as to why Peter would have been in Gryffindor, if in fact he was. Why would someone of his character value bravery most?

*I always distinguish between the students and Slytherin himself. The Hat says that Slytherin only wanted pure-blooded students in his house, but the Hat doesn't choose based on that (JKR's website says there are non-pureblood Slytherins) and presumably most non-pureblood students wouldn't be pureblood fanatics.Sirius also seems to be somewhere between stage 2, in which "Vengeance is a moral duty," and stage 3, "having approval of one's peers." I'd probably put Sirius at Stage 4-1/2, the transitional stage:

Between the conventional stages and the post-conventional Levels 5 and 6, there is a transitional stage. College-age students that have come to see conventional morality as relative and arbitrary, but have not yet discovered universal ethical principles, may drop into a hedonistic ethic of "do your own thing." This was well noted in the hippie culture of the l960's. Disrespect for conventional morality was especially infuriating to the Stage 4 mentality, and indeed was calculated to be so.

I think Sirius's disrespect for authority really fits here. Lower levels are generally associated with more respect for authority. Higher levels are associated with renouncing retributive punishment, which Sirius clearly doesn't do.

Actually, it is Phineas Nigellus, the portrait of the "ultimate Slytherin," who says the Slytherins save their own necks (and he was the most hated Headmaster of Hogwarts, lol).

“We Slytherins are brave, yes, but not stupid. For instance, given the choice, we will always choose to save our own necks.”

Ironically, Phineas says this while he is working for Dumbledore and keeping Harry from running away. :evil:

Chiev: I can see Sirius being at level 4 (and three quarters, lol). Here is another explanation of that stage, which many websites seem to ignore :huh:

Stage 4.5 - Level B/C. Transitional Level

Choice is personal and subjective, based on emotions. Conscience is seen as arbitrary and relative, as are ideas such as duty and morally right. The perspective is that of an individual standing outside of his own society and considering himself as an individual making decisions without a generalized commitment or contract with society. One can pick and choose obligations, which are defined by particular societies, but one has no principles for such choice.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:U-x5fjf4gMAJ:www.angelfire.com/ct2/heyheyhey/ps241/theory.html+hippies+kohlberg&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

More Observations of Kohlberg

1. Stage development does not vary.
One must progress through the stages in order, and one cannot get to a higher stage without passing through the stage immediately preceding it.

2. One cannot comprehend a stage in development more than one beyond the one he is currently at.

3. Cognitively, one is attracted to the stage just beyond her current stage.

4. Movement through the stages is effected when a cogniive disequilibrium arises.
When one's current outlook is not able to deal with a moral dilemma that has occured, the individual will grow because he is now looking for a new and better approach for solving a dilemma.

5. One can easily be physically mature without being morally mature.

6. Kohlberg believed that only 25% of all people would mature to the sixth and final stage of moral development.

As I'm reading through this material, I kept thinking of Harry looking for answers about SWM. What we have in the Pensieve is a true Kohlsberg-style moral dilemma, and we see Harry questioning his own beliefs and questioning those of other people he respects. Kohlsberg believed that process had to happen in order for someone to progress to the next stage of moral development.

...he would have nothing to offer Dumbledore, so why would Dumbledore accept him?

Are you referring to Peter's mindset or Dumbledore's? I just want to be sure before I respond to it.

Actually, it is Phineas Nigellus, the portrait of the "ultimate Slytherin," who says the Slytherins save their own necks (and he was the most hated Headmaster of Hogwarts, lol). I would think, then, that he is speaking for himself, even though he generalizes to all Slytherins.Chiev: I can see Sirius being at level 4 (and three quarters, lol). Here is another explanation of that stage, which many websites seem to ignore :huh: Stage 4.5 - Level B/C. Transitional Level

Choice is personal and subjective, based on emotions. Conscience is seen as arbitrary and relative, as are ideas such as duty and morally right. The perspective is that of an individual standing outside of his own society and considering himself as an individual making decisions without a generalized commitment or contract with society. One can pick and choose obligations, which are defined by particular societies, but one has no principles for such choice. Yeah, I think this fits Sirius very well. It makes sense because Sirius was of the age of most people at this stage when he was sent to Azkaban. I think, at this stage, people feel there are no absolute rights or wrongs--that right and wrong are defined by society, but society itself should not have the final decision on right and wrong, thus the rebellion against authority in the society. As I'm reading through this material, I kept thinking of Harry looking for answers about SWM. What we have in the Pensieve is a true Kohlsberg-style moral dilemma, and we see Harry questioning his own beliefs and questioning those of other people he respects. Kohlsberg believed that process had to happen in order for someone to progress to the next stage of moral development.I have a hard time placing Harry--I'll have to think about it more. What is the moral dilemma that you see for Harry in the Pensieve episode and how do you see resolution of that dilemma propelling Harry to the next level?Are you referring to Peter's mindset or Dumbledore's? I just want to be sure before I respond to it.Peter's.

Pettigrew's courage is dubious at best, so I don't know why he'd be placed in Gryffindor. The closest I see him coming to courage is that he preferred, in school, to be around those who had it...!

The whole Sorting Hat issue bothers me. It's divisive. And Harry manipulates it into putting him into the House he prefers. And, as has been noted already, Snape doesn't lack for courage to balance his cunning (two traits vital to a spy)--and he's also intelligent...so why limit him to Slytherin? Frankly, the whole system doesn't make sense to me. If Pettigrew was in Gryffindor, does that mean we are going to see that sudden, complete reversal of character at the end? That'll be a bit of a shocker. He'd be on the express elevator from 2 to 6!

Pettigrew's courage is dubious at best, so I don't know why he'd be placed in Gryffindor. The closest I see him coming to courage is that he preferred, in school, to be around those who had it...!
I know this has been said many times but I'll say it again. Betraying your best friends takes a lot of courage. Especially when they are much more powerful than you. And when Dumbledore is watching your every move. Courage does not have to always be good at all. We just assume since Gryffindor is portrayed as the "good house," their displays of courage must be noble. Not the case at all.

The whole Sorting Hat issue bothers me. It's divisive. And Harry manipulates it into putting him into the House he prefers. And, as has been noted already, Snape doesn't lack for courage to balance his cunning (two traits vital to a spy)--and he's also intelligent...so why limit him to Slytherin? Frankly, the whole system doesn't make sense to me. If Pettigrew was in Gryffindor, does that mean we are going to see that sudden, complete reversal of character at the end? That'll be a bit of a shocker. He'd be on the express elevator from 2 to 6!

:lol: I've sort of imagined that his act of courage at the and would be to die to save Harry - and thereby repay his life debt to him. (However, does this count as true Gryffindor courage given that he's bound by a magical contract of sorts?)

Wizkid6: Good point! But didn't Peter betray his friends out of cowardice too - he wanted to be on Voldemort's winning team, "the biggest bully in the playground" etc? Can one be brave and cowardly at the same time? Just thinking out loud. :)

Chiev: Thanks for quoting those stages! Interesting! :tu:

I wouldn't call what Pettigrew does courage--courage involves mental or moral strength, neither of which Pettigrew has. Nerve, he may have--but electing to join the 'biggest bully' because he figures the bully will win...that doesn't seem to fulfill the requirements of courage. Again--self preservation and self centeredness. He's not defying Dumbeldore so much as he is running away because he figures Dumbledore is going to lose.

I wouldn't call what Pettigrew does courage--courage involves mental or moral strength, neither of which Pettigrew has. Nerve, he may have--but electing to join the 'biggest bully' because he figures the bully will win...that doesn't seem to fulfill the requirements of courage. Again--self preservation and self centeredness. He's not defying Dumbeldore so much as he is running away because he figures Dumbledore is going to lose.
Despite the positive connotations that courage may have, all it means is doing something dangerous without wimping out. If Pettigrew was caught in his betrayal, that would have been the end of him. That was the risk Peter took by going over to the side of Voldemort, who wouldn't really care about really protecting Peter even if he served him well. Had the plan to kill the Potters failed, Voldemort would not care one bit about protecting Peter. He had the courage to do something dangerous. "Joining the biggest bully" in this situation was not as safe as you might think.

Despite the positive connotations that courage may have, all it means is doing something dangerous without wimping out. If Pettigrew was caught in his betrayal, that would have been the end of him. That was the risk Peter took by going over to the side of Voldemort, who wouldn't really care about really protecting Peter even if he served him well. Had the plan to kill the Potters failed, Voldemort would not care one bit about protecting Peter. He had the courage to do something dangerous. "Joining the biggest bully" in this situation was not as safe as you might think.

I'm afraid it was an act of cowardice. Peter betrayed his friends because they were not as powerful as Voldemort. They couldn't protect him. How is abandoning the losing side brave? There was far less risk going to Voldemort than staying with the order and getting killed.

I'd probably put Sirius at Stage 4-1/2, the transitional stage [...] I think Sirius's disrespect for authority really fits here. Lower levels are generally associated with more respect for authority. Higher levels are associated with renouncing retributive punishment, which Sirius clearly doesn't do.I found the information about Kohlberg stages very interesting, as it isn't something I'm familiar. Do people have to move through the stages sequentially? Looking at the different stages I'd describe myself as a 5 or 6 (you may remember my rather tedious banging on about universal moral principles a couple of versions ago :p ) but I'm pretty sure I was never a 3 and definitely never a 4. Mind you, I'm a little sceptical about it if it is a stage-by-stage theory - why would you have to go through the stages in that order? :huh:

I'm finding it hard to place Sirius, to be honest. He clearly believes in redistrubitive justice, but what you said about people not believing in absolute moral rights or wrongs doesn't fit Sirius at all because he is a moral absolutist; with Sirius, the only shades of grey are his eyes! :eyebrows: I just can't fully place him on any of the levels.
Originally posted by wizkid6
I know this has been said many times but I'll say it again. Betraying your best friends takes a lot of courage. Especially when they are much more powerful than you. And when Dumbledore is watching your every move. Courage does not have to always be good at all. We just assume since Gryffindor is portrayed as the "good house," their displays of courage must be noble. Not the case at all.I think this is an interesting point. Courage is such a positive sounding trait, it is hard to apply it to Peter. In many ways, Peter is a coward, but there is something quite brave about what he did. If his friends had been Death Eaters instead of Order members, betraying them and spying on them might seem like courage. But because his defection was the wrong way round, describing it as courageous sounds horrible.

I think Peter is both cowardly and brave, on different levels. Surely spying on the Order must have frightened him, but he did it anyway. Some of the things he has done could be described as quite brave, yet he so often behaves like a cowering, crawling worm(tail) that he doesn't seem like a brave person at all. It is rather contradictory. Maybe nerve is a better word for it than courage, as subtle says.

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=courage) defines courage as;

The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution; bravery.

Peter is certainly able to face danger, fear and vicissitudes, but I don't know whether or not he does it with self-possession or resolution. Hmm, I'm undecided on this one.
Originally posted by subtle science
The whole Sorting Hat issue bothers me. It's divisive. And Harry manipulates it into putting him into the House he prefersYou all know how much I hate the sorting right? :evil: I'll try not to labour the point.

The sorting is horribly divisive, the whole house system is. Students are divided along house lines far too much - for eating, sleeping, studying, socialising and sport. There are whole sets of personality traits and values ascribed to each house. The way the students are split up by the Sorting is the worst of it - the notion that you can look into an 11 year old head and decide that they *are* clever, or courageous or whatever. It totally reinforces the House stereotypes, in a way that wouldn't happen if the houses were allocated at random - so and so must be like this, because that Hat put them in that house.

As a slight aside, the whole Harry/Slytherin thing is another thing I've got a bee in my bonnet about (no pun intended!) The Hat never says it was considering him for Slytherin, merely responds to Harry's 'not Slytherin, not Slytherin' whispers. Harry thinks the Hat was considering him for Slytherin because it says he would be great there, but we don't know that if Harry had been thinking 'not Hufflepuff, not Hufflepuff' the Hat won't have told him how well he might do in that house too.

I'm with Wandering Bard on this...as is the dictionary:

courage: mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty; courage implies firmness of mind and will in the face of danger or extreme difficulty. The root word, of course, means heart.

Pettigrew went to Voldemort at the height of Voldemort's powers: it was an act of cowardice, because he feared dying with the rest of the Order. He fed Voldemort information, culminating in the Potters' location, to buy his place in the DEs. All of this was done to preserve his own life; Pettigrew seized the opportunity and ran with it. With the information he had to trade, there was no danger for him; he was useful to the 'biggest bully.' There was no mental or moral strength required of Pettigrew, and the only real danger he faced was being found out by the friends whom he betrayed.

The one who fulfills the definition of courage is Snape: he's the one who decides to leave Voldemort when Voldemort is at the height of his power. Then, instead of beating a hasty retreat once he's away (which would be the alleged Slytherin idea of saving one's own neck...), he returns to the DEs in order to gather information for the Order, despite what will happen to him if his role as spy is detected--Regulus Black, anyone?

What Pettigrew does doesn't measure up. As I said before--nerve, maybe (although I don't even really believe that myself); but it's not an act of courage.

ETA--
The stages are gone through sequentially: what they describe are stages of human development from infancy to adulthood, with the caveat that not all (actually, the majority of) adults are truly mature (ie, the highest level of development). The theory is that everyone passes through the lower-number stages as he/she passes from infancy to toddler to child to pre-adolescent to teenager...A change in stage and therefore development happens when the current 'attitude' (for lack of a better word for the stage) is challenged and proves insufficient to resolve/understand an issue.

Pettigrew's courage is dubious at best, so I don't know why he'd be placed in Gryffindor. The closest I see him coming to courage is that he preferred, in school, to be around those who had it...!

The whole Sorting Hat issue bothers me. It's divisive. And Harry manipulates it into putting him into the House he prefers. And, as has been noted already, Snape doesn't lack for courage to balance his cunning (two traits vital to a spy)--and he's also intelligent...so why limit him to Slytherin? Frankly, the whole system doesn't make sense to me. If Pettigrew was in Gryffindor, does that mean we are going to see that sudden, complete reversal of character at the end? That'll be a bit of a shocker. He'd be on the express elevator from 2 to 6!
Agreed, a very sudden reversal would be quite suprising. Although maybe his mum is still alive and she gives him a good talking to, throws his Order of Merlin, 1st class medal at him, and he finally sees the light! :p No, I can't see that either. But it did make me think that Pettigrew has a propensity for sacrificing body parts to help his cause.

As for the Sorting Hat, I think that it goes along on with the theme of choices in the series. Harry could have been placed in any House, really, but he choose Gryffindor essentially by thinking "Not Slytherin." Hermione also said the Sorting Hat had considered putting her in Ravenclaw. Why isn't she there then? Was it her decision or The Hat's? And the Hat took forever with Neville, maybe it was waiting for him to make a decision?
I think Snape was in Slytherin because Snape chose to be in Slytherin, considering how he felt (still feels?) about "Mud-bloods" (Lily and Hermione). It's not that he didn't have the characteristics for the other Houses, it most likely was a choice. If this is the case, then we may want to ask, why did Pettigrew choose to be in Gryffindor?

Agreed, a very sudden reversal would be quite suprising. Although maybe his mum is still alive and she gives him a good talking to, throws his Order of Merlin, 1st class medal at him, and he finally sees the light! No, I can't see that either. But it did make me think that Pettigrew has a propensity for sacrificing body parts to help his cause.
Haha, this gave me a nice little laugh!!

As for the Sorting Hat, I think that it goes along on with the theme of choices in the series.
I agree. This book is all about choices and the sorting hat is no exception. The hat searches through the persons thoughts (well, this is just my guess at how it works) so it can see what that person is like. It can see what that person would do in certain circumstances and such. So, in a way, the person is choosing the house they want to be in even if they don't ask the hat to put them in a certain house like Harry does. I think that if the person is on the borderline of different houses, then the one that the person most wants to be in is the one the hat will put that person in.

If this is the case, then we may want to ask, why did Pettigrew choose to be in Gryffindor?
I would assume that Peter had some type of Gryffindor characteristic that competed against the other houses characteristics. Or perhaps he just liked the thought of being in a house whose major quality was bravery. (Little boys always want to be brave!!)

I would assume that Peter had some type of Gryffindor characteristic that competed against the other houses characteristics. Or perhaps he just liked the thought of being in a house whose major quality was bravery. (Little boys always want to be brave!!)

Well, he couldn't go in Hufflepuff (that pesky treacherous streak he's got in him, you know);). He wasn't clever enough for Ravenclaw. He wasn't ambitious enough for Slytherin. Perhaps bravery is the only quality that he possessed even in trace amounts.

I found the information about Kohlberg stages very interesting, as it isn't something I'm familiar. Do people have to move through the stages sequentially? Looking at the different stages I'd describe myself as a 5 or 6 (you may remember my rather tedious banging on about universal moral principles a couple of versions ago :p ) but I'm pretty sure I was never a 3 and definitely never a 4. Mind you, I'm a little sceptical about it if it is a stage-by-stage theory - why would you have to go through the stages in that order? :huh:

I think you have to go through the stages in order based on the reasoning ability of children and the way they look at the world. From what I've read today, Kohlberg wanted to understand why people make the moral choices they make, and he based his "stages" theory on Piaget's theories:

Piaget studied many aspects of moral judgment, but most of his findings fit into a two-stage theory. Children younger than 10 or 11 years think about moral dilemmas one way; older children consider them differently. As we have seen, younger children regard rules as fixed and absolute. They believe that rules are handed down by adults or by God and that one cannot change them. The older child's view is more relativistic. He or she understands that it is permissible to change rules if everyone agrees. Rules are not sacred and absolute but are devices which humans use to get along cooperatively.

At approximately the same time--10 or 11 years--children's moral thinking undergoes other shifts. In particular, younger children base their moral judgments more on consequences, whereas older children base their judgments on intentions. When, for example, the young child hears about one boy who broke 15 cups trying to help his mother and another boy who broke only one cup trying to steal cookies, the young child thinks that the first boy did worse. The child primarily considers the amount of damage--the consequences--whereas the older child is more likely to judge wrongness in terms of the motives underlying the act (Piaget, 1932, p. 137).

There are many more details to Piaget's work on moral judgment, but he essentially found a series of changes that occur between the ages of 10 and 12, just when the child begins to enter the general stage of formal operations.

Intellectual development, however, does not stop at this point. This is just the beginning of formal operations, which continue to develop at least until age 16. Accordingly, one might expect thinking about moral issues to continue to develop throughout adolescence. Kohlberg therefore interviewed both children and adolescents about moral dilemmas, and he did find stages that go well beyond Piaget's. He uncovered six stages, only the first three of which share many features with Piaget's stages.

KOHLBERG'S METHOD

Kohlberg's (1958a) core sample was comprised of 72 boys, from both middle- and lower-class families in Chicago. They were ages 10, 13, and 16. He later added to his sample younger children, delinquents, and boys and girls from other American cities and from other countries (1963, 1970).

The study consisted of stories he would tell to the children, with different moral dilemmas about stealing, life and death, and moral choices in general. The page above gives a sample case study if you want to read it.

Kohlberg is not really interested in whether the subject says "yes" or "no" to this dilemma but in the reasoning behind the answer. . . . The interview then goes on to give more dilemmas in order to get a good sampling of a subject's moral thinking.

You mentioned how divisive the Sorting Hat is, and interestingly, Kohlberg also studied how groups could work more effectively together as a "Just Community." Maybe JKR is using something like this as a model for what Hogwarts could become eventually, if they heed the Sorting Hat's warning.


Although Kohlberg remains committed to the cognitive-conflict model of change, he has also become interested in other strategies. One is the "Just Community" approach. Here the focus is not the individuals but groups. For example, Kohlberg and some of his colleagues (Power and Reimer, 1979) set up a special democratic high school group and actively encouraged the students to think of themselves as a community.

Initially, little community feeling was present. The group's dominant orientation was stage 2; it treated problems such as stealing as purely individual matters. If a boy had something stolen, it was too bad for him. After a year, however, the group norms advanced to stage 3; the students now considered stealing to be a community issue that reflected on the degree of trust and care in the group.

Now that is interesting. I know Chiev said that Sirius couldn't be a stage two because of the respect for authority, yet this points out that even at a high school level people can view things from a stage two perspective. I think the theory is that anyone can fall back to an earlier stage in a given situation, but can't progress without really thinking it through.

The stealing dilemma reminds me of Luna Lovegood and her problems in Ravenclaw.

Peter was definitely trying to get out of “punishment,” but I don’t think he’s really chagrined. If he was, he’d try to apologize and he doesn’t do this. First, he tries to ingratiate himself to Sirius & Lupin. He’s playing the same game he did in school—stroking their egos. Of course, Sirius and Lupin weren’t as into that as James anyway, but there’s no surprise it wouldn’t work, even if they had been into it. Then, he tries reasoning with them by arguing that he was right to do what he did because there was no point in trying to defy Voldemort. That is tantamount to a confession—he confirms his role in the Potters’ betrayal. His mistake is in thinking that his friends could and would understand his reasoning.This seems like a very reasonable assessment to me. Here, Peter was trying to do whatever it took to save his own skin, just like he betrayed the Potters to save his skin. During this scene, we really can see the opportunist in Peter: his eyes constantly dart to the exits, so this shows he’s thinking of escape; he then tries to set Remus against Sirius by saying that Sirius tried to kill him (of course Lupin doesn’t believe him); when this doesn’t work, he makes excuses as shaggydogstail (I think, forgive me if I’m wrong) mentioned: he was never brave or powerful, etc. Then as you said Chiev, he tries to convince them that he had made the right choice in following Voldemort because he was “taking over everywhere”. Last, when it’s clear that Lupin and Sirius aren’t going to accept his excuses and his behavior, he tries to appeal to Ron, Hermione and Harry each in turn, trying in one last desperate attempt to get someone to believe him. Of course, the most significant thing he says is that James would have wanted Harry to show him mercy. So in the end, I quite agree that 1) Peter was trying to escape punishment/judgment, 2) he was not sorry at all for what he did, and 3) he was using every bit of this situation to his advantage to achieve his goal of escaping punishment.

I would think that he was trying to ingratiate himself to Ron, especially since he would have been a new pet for Ron. He probably would want to make sure that Ron took good care of him. It wouldn't be a hard choice for Peter, if he thought he would get Ron's gratitude in return. If he'd done nothing, he would have gotten nothing.I agree- once again, it’s his opportunistic nature showing through again. And I think it actually makes a lot of sense for him to look out for Ron in order to get Ron’s care. This seems to further illustrate the Kohlberg stage that Peter’s on, ie “you do something good for me and I’ll do something good for you”.

I found the information about Kohlberg stages very interesting, as it isn't something I'm familiar. Do people have to move through the stages sequentially? Looking at the different stages I'd describe myself as a 5 or 6 (you may remember my rather tedious banging on about universal moral principles a couple of versions ago :p ) but I'm pretty sure I was never a 3 and definitely never a 4. Mind you, I'm a little sceptical about it if it is a stage-by-stage theory - why would you have to go through the stages in that order? :huh: subtle already answered this, but, yes, the idea is that everyone moves through these stages in that order. I specifically remember our discussion of a couple of versions ago. . .I found it very interesting and not tedious at all. :) You perhaps don't remember being in the lower stages--people usually enter stage 4 at about 12 years of age. As subtle said, people move from one stage to another when their current view is challenged and they must reconcile their moral reasoning with the situation. This is an example from a website (http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm) with a good explanation of the development from one stage to another:We might imagine, for example, a young man and woman discussing a new law. The man says that everyone should obey it, like it or not, because laws are vital to social organization (stage 4). The woman notes, however, that some well-organized societies, such as Nazi Germany, were not particularly moral. The man therefore sees that some evidence contradicts his view. He experiences some cognitive conflict and is motivated to think about the matter more fully, perhaps moving a bit toward stage 5.I'm finding it hard to place Sirius, to be honest. He clearly believes in redistrubitive justice, but what you said about people not believing in absolute moral rights or wrongs doesn't fit Sirius at all because he is a moral absolutist; with Sirius, the only shades of grey are his eyes! :eyebrows: I just can't fully place him on any of the levels.First of all: :rotfl:

Okay, now that's out of my system: I don't think Sirius is a moral absolutist. Take his willingness to kill (Peter):
At stage 1, he would kill under orders for fear of punishment--Sirius wouldn't kill for this reason. At stage 2, he would kill because it served his purpose--Sirius wouldn't kill for his own advantage, as Peter would. At stage 3, he wouldn't kill because he would want to maintain societal approval--Sirius would kill and doesn't care about societal approval. At stage 4, he wouldn't kill because he would value social order above all else, even if the society was unfair--Sirius would kill and doesn't value social order above all else. At stage 4-1/2, he might kill because he doesn't believe it is absolutely wrong, but also doesn't believe that upholding the law and social order is of the utmost importance--Sirius would kill Peter because he doesn't believe it's absolutely wrong (he believes Peter deserves it) and he doesn't believe that upholding the law is important (he doesn't think it important that Peter go through the usual legal process). At stage 5, he would not kill himself because killing is wrong, but he would still value fair laws that contributed to social order--Sirius doesn't believe that killing is wrong. At stage 6, he would not kill because killing is wrong and would be willing to break the law in order to prevent killing--Sirius is willing to break the law, but not for absolute moral principle.

I do believe that Sirius is a moral relativist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism). He believes that for his situation, killing Peter is a moral choice and not absolutely wrong. On the other hand, he is able to accept that Harry's request to spare Peter is also a moral choice and not absolutely wrong. If Harry's stated reason for sparing Peter was that killing was wrong under any circumstance, this might challenge Sirius's view and help move Sirius toward stage 5. As it is, Harry's stated reason is not that killing is wrong under any circumstance, but that he (or his father) doesn't want Sirius to become a murderer for his sake. I don't think that this reasoning would challenge Sirius's moral judgment.

ETA: Actually, I believe Harry's reasoning here falls into stage 3 or stage 5. He doesn't want Sirius and Lupin to be murderers. Is this because of how society would see them after killing Peter (stage 3) or is this because he believes that such killing is absolutely wrong (stage 5)?

I'm no expert in this, so if someone else has a different opinion, I'd be interested in hashing it out.I think this is an interesting point. Courage is such a positive sounding trait, it is hard to apply it to Peter. In many ways, Peter is a coward, but there is something quite brave about what he did. If his friends had been Death Eaters instead of Order members, betraying them and spying on them might seem like courage. But because his defection was the wrong way round, describing it as courageous sounds horrible.I don't think whether it's bravery or cowardice has to do with the direction Peter turned (versus Snape), but the reason he turned. If he turned for idealogical reasons (as we presume for Snape), it would have been a brave, if misguided, move; however, he turned because he felt he gained more from Voldemort, which is a cowardly, easy move.

Thanks for the interesting info on Piaget, SIP! :tu:

Chiev: And thank you for the great point about "moral relativism!" My husband and I were talking about that term tonight, too.

He got out his old Psychology 101 book from college and we were looking up Kohlberg. Neither of us remembered learning about him, but there were a good three pages in the book, with alot of the same examples we have seen on the Internet.

I was thinking about relativism and how you can really justify any belief if you can say things with conviction, the way Sirius does sometimes.

What's interesting is that I believe alot of people like the idea that "everything is relative," and that there is no "right" and "wrong" except what is happening in a certain situation. I know my kids think this way, and I probably did more often when I was younger, and there are still some issues that are gray areas for me.

In analyzing literature, it seems more "tolerant" to be understanding of a character's problems and look at their "motivation" as an excuse for violent or even homicidal behavior. We have read all the excuses in the world for Sirius to kill Peter or for James to attack Snape, for instance. There are even reasons why Lupin might want to kill Peter, or why Lupin and Sirius wouldn't tell Dumbledore all their secrets.

But the point I think is important is that JKR doesn't seem to be a moral relativist, even is some of the characters are. JKR seems to have a moral compass that is pointing more at level 6, the "Dumbledore/Wise Old Wizard" level.

Indeed, that may be the real reason why Sirius Black had to die, since I don't believe JKR wants Harry to be influenced by anymore relativism than he has already seen. I think she wants him to progress further than Sirius, and in the Shrieking Shack, he actually showed that he had!

Regarding Peter and his House: It's important to remember that the sorting hat divides literally hundreds of students a year into houses. Entire single one of those students has characteristics of all 4 houses. I could name off every major character and many minor characters and show that the show characteristics of a house other then their own. To say Peter or Snape doesn't fit in their house is difficult to argue IMO. Has Dean Thomas, Seasmus, Lavender, Katie Bell etc...done acts of amazing courage to land them in their house? Not that I've seen. I think our view of the house system is biased by Harry who is the almost perfect Gryffindor. Just my view on the matter.

Peter and Courage: Peter is brave, even courageous in my opinion. He spied on the Order for a year which takes courage in my mind. He went back to Voldemort when he could have lived a long life pretending to be a rat or a muggle. Peter values courage but in a different way then most Gryffindors. Peter's courage is the courage to take risks, risk anything to protect himself. To Peter...Peter is the most important person in the world. While this sounds like a stark type of courage, it is courage none the less, the courage of the self (or ego) above all others.

Quote from silver ink pot:
But the point I think is important is that JKR doesn't seem to be a moral relativist, even is some of the characters are. JKR seems to have a moral compass that is pointing more at level 6, the "Dumbledore/Wise Old Wizard" level.
I find this amusing for some reason because Dumbledore could be to be the biggest moral relativist of them all :p . Case in point: he orders Sirius to stay in his home for his "safety" but when the Ministry moves against him he tells McGonagall he has no plans of going into hiding :evil: .

I find this amusing for some reason because Dumbledore could be to be the biggest moral relativist of them all . Case in point: he orders Sirius to stay in his home for his "safety" but when the Ministry moves against him he tells McGonagall he has no plans of going into hiding . Is that because he's a moral relativist, or is it because he knows he's powerful enough to get away without going into hiding? Sometimes it seems like Dumbledore can move into a different dimention, where he can not be found, but he can still communicate and influence people! (I don't mean this literally, I'm just amazed at how calm he is in a situation where others would perhaps have panicked.)

*looks down at the "who is logged on"*:

My Blood Is Ink! I haven't seen you around since August! I thought you had gone for ever! :welcome: It would be great if you would join the discussion here!
You probably don't remember me, but I remember you very well from "The Young Severus Snape" thread, I really enjoyed and appreciated your posts there.

I am glad to be back to these forums... you people have really gone forward in four days! Keep it up!

He certainly cannot conceive of the idea that one would simply do 'good' because it is good, and not because there was any reward to it.
Well said :tu:. Back to my peter philosophy. He is an ideal example of a self-centered person. Though selfishness is a part of human nature, in pettigrew's case, it is the dominant character. He must be having some good somewhere, (let us not forget the fact that he was a marauder) but it is just that his weak character is always driven by a force. That is so in many cases, but he makes a wrong choice of that very force, just to satisfy himself. That is where his selfishness comes under light.

This raises one question, though, how would have other marauders treated him in school? Did they give him enough importance? James and Sirius are known to be arrogant, so, even if they did accept him as a friend, was he given an equivalent status? Did that weakness lead to hs betrayal in the end. Indeed his nature would havew had a role to play, but was this also a factor? Was there just a tinge of bitterness? As it has been mentioned, the need to prove himself may well be the case, but if peter had been a good status by his friends, would that need have ever occurred?

1) Peter was trying to escape punishment/judgment, 2) he was not sorry at all for what he did, and 3) he was using every bit of this situation to his advantage to achieve his goal of escaping punishment.
I agree with all the three. As SIP said "oppurtunist" is a word that suits him.

But many times a realisation comes later that what you have done was wrong, and then you feel sorry. Is peter such a character? Is this when he will repay what he owes to harry. Surely, that is of some importance. How can peter help harry if he does not feel sorry for what he did? But as I said, at the moment I agree that peter would not have felt so.

Regarding Peter and his House: It's important to remember that the sorting hat divides literally hundreds of students a year into houses. Entire single one of those students has characteristics of all 4 houses.
I repeat my previous statement, characeters are far too complex. There have been several discussions about the placement in different houses, especially in the case of percy, ron, hermione.... But I guess the desire to be in a particular house counts, and that could change a lot.

I think our view of the house system is biased by Harry who is the almost perfect Gryffindor.
That sums up what I meant. But harry does at times act like a hufflepuff... helping people and all by being kind... But anyway, he is an almost perfect griffindor.

Peter and Courage: Peter is brave, even courageous in my opinion. He spied on the Order for a year which takes courage in my mind. He went back to Voldemort when he could have lived a long life pretending to be a rat or a muggle. Peter values courage but in a different way then most Gryffindors. Peter's courage is the courage to take risks, risk anything to protect himself. To Peter...Peter is the most important person in the world. While this sounds like a stark type of courage, it is courage none the less, the courage of the self (or ego) above all others. Does Peter’s reasoning matter at all or do you see courage as completely independent? Courage is defined as having a spirit that allows one to face danger. In spying against the Order, if Peter believed that he was not in danger because Voldemort would protect him, he wouldn’t be courageous, would he? (I’m just asking for theoretical reasons—I agree that it’s impossible to know Peter’s state of mind at the time he betrayed the Order.) If someone faces a situation in which all options are dangerous (staying to face punishment, returning to Voldemort, or fleeing and living on the run forever), are they necessarily courageous because they made a decision and went with it? I find this amusing for some reason because Dumbledore could be to be the biggest moral relativist of them all :p . Case in point: he orders Sirius to stay in his home for his "safety" but when the Ministry moves against him he tells McGonagall he has no plans of going into hiding :evil:.I’m not sure how this shows moral relativism. Sirius has broken the law and is hunted by the MoM and possibly the Death Eaters. He must stay hidden to keep himself safe, to keep Harry safe (who would go after Sirius if he was in trouble), and to keep the Order safe. Dumbledore is not in the same position at all and, as Norbertha says, may be powerful enough to know he could get away, if the situation became dangerous for him (which he ends up doing). I suppose it would be moral relativism, if you were to argue that hiding from the MoM is always absolutely morally wrong or absolutely morally right; but, why would that be? If there is a flaw in my reasoning, please let me know. I’m tired, not having gotten enough sleep last night, and am interested in working out these ideas. This raises one question, though, how would have other marauders treated him in school? Did they give him enough importance? James and Sirius are known to be arrogant, so, even if they did accept him as a friend, was he given an equivalent status? Did that weakness lead to hs betrayal in the end. Indeed his nature would havew had a role to play, but was this also a factor? Was there just a tinge of bitterness? As it has been mentioned, the need to prove himself may well be the case, but if peter had been a good status by his friends, would that need have ever occurred?I said yesterday that Peter’s betrayal made sense in terms of the Kohlberg model because Peter was at stage 2 and would see moral situations as fair bargains. It was a fair trade for him to fangirl the rest of the Marauders to avoid being picked on, etc. As we know from SWM, James enjoyed Peter’s fangirling—he accepted Peter’s bargain, whether he realized it or not. Moral growth only occurs through being faced with a dilemma that the current moral reasoning can’t resolve. Since James accepted Peter’s “trade,” Peter was not challenged to think further and in that way, I believe, Peter was at a moral stage of development that would allow him to betray his friends for the reasons he did. If James had told Peter that he didn’t want his fangirling and that they were friends no matter how Peter acted, it probably would have challenged Peter’s moral reasoning. Why would James be friends with him and not want anything in particular in return? Peter might then reason that James was friends with him so that other people would see James as a good and friendly person (I’m not suggesting that this was James’s actual reason), which would move Peter toward stage 3 development—doing “the right thing” to gain others’ approval.

So by that reasoning, how Peter was treated by his friends would have impacted Peter’s betrayal.

I'd have to have explained to me how Dumbledore's decision not to go into hiding in OotP is moral relativism...I've been thinking about it and I don't get it....

His decision more is a reflection of true courage (I'm also struggling with the continuing coupling of the word courage with Peter--I'm still not seeing the moral/mental strength that enables him to overcome difficulties in his traitorous behavior--risk, yes; nerve, yes--but where's the morality that colors Snape's spying???). Dumbledore has judged the Ministery to be wrong: the MoM should be the rightful judge, but it has judged wrong (I'm borrowing Antigone there, by the way), and he makes the decision not to follow its edicts. He will continue to fight for what he knows is right, and what the audience knows is right, even if it means being out in the open and possibly apprehended by the MoM. He trusts in his own powers and takes the risks in order to fulfill what he knows is his real duty.

As for his orders to Sirius to stay in 12GP...I'm just going to speculate, as there's no specific canon to support these ideas....Sirius says in the beginning of OotP that he has to stay in 12GP because the MoM is still after him and because Voldemort will now know that he is an Animagus because "Wormtail" would've told him (by the way--random off topic in mid-paragraph: I find it interesting that, post-PoA, Sirius uses the dehumanizing nickname as Voldemort does; there's no trace of the Marauders friendship left in its use). That's an interesting pairing.

Dumbledore, of course, no longer has the influence he needs to straighten out the MoM, as, for instance, he must've been able to do long ago for Snape. So the MoM pursues its injustice.

Then there's the Voldemort remark. I've said many a time that I think there's something up: that Voldemort is targeting Sirius as a protection over Harry that must be removed. Why in the world, at the beginning of OotP, would it particularly matter that Voldemort knows Sirius is an Animagus? Why would he care? Why would Dumbledore care? Voldemort is after the whole pack of them--what makes Sirius any different from the rest of the Order??? To me, it only further explains Sirius' bitterness in OotP, if he must stay "hidden" (that's the word most frequently used to describe his situation), but not be able to explain exactly why he's (apparently) so willing to stand on the sidelines and clean house, like a coward who doesn't want to get involved. I think that the discrepancy between what Dumbledore chooses for himself and what he chooses for Sirius has a bit more behind it than an unfair touch of moral relativism.

So far as the moral relavitism of the books themselves...There's a fine line between understanding why the characters behave the way they do and approving of their behavior, in the cases of negative actions. I've heard potential and actual censors of the books say that the moral relavitism is exactly why the books are inappropriate, whereas I have always found the books to be incredibly moral--even moralisitic. JKR shows many characters wrestling with moral dilemmas; whether the character emerges as positive or negative, hero or villain, depends upon the decision made about that dilemma.

Fudge, for instance, falls into the villain category right now: he doesn't want to accept the fact that Voldemort has returned in GoF; he refuses all evidence that will upset his comfortable world, thereby putting others at risk. He values himself and his political career above what is right, because what is right is far too difficult and frightening to him. The Shrieking Shack scene is pure moral dilemma--again, not to repeat myself, but I've argued many times about how this ugly scene is a crucible for all involved. Sirius, Lupin, Harry, Snape, and Pettigrew must tackle moral dilemmas of enormous import; each one of them--except Pettigrew--makes the correct choice and the character advances positively on the track of hero.

The novels are not about breaking rules and doing whatever: they are emphatically about weighing choices and taking responsibility. The good characters don't necessarily do what they want: they have to consider situations, cost to themselves and others, personal good versus social good, etc. Harry goes through this process in every book! Every character in the novels who is "good," no matter if he/she occasionally goes astray, ultimately proves to be willing to re-evaluate moral standards and and choose what is right, even if it isn't easy. The 'bad' characters work for themselves; they don't re-evaluate, because they don't see a moral dilemma at all--Peter, Malfoy, Umbridge, Voldemort.

Whew. Sorry 'bout that...stepping down from soapbox and pledging to cut down on the caffeine early in the morning................. : )

Quote from Chievrefueil:
Does Peter’s reasoning matter at all or do you see courage as completely independent? Courage is defined as having a spirit that allows one to face danger. In spying against the Order, if Peter believed that he was not in danger because Voldemort would protect him, he wouldn’t be courageous, would he? (I’m just asking for theoretical reasons—I agree that it’s impossible to know Peter’s state of mind at the time he betrayed the Order.) If someone faces a situation in which all options are dangerous (staying to face punishment, returning to Voldemort, or fleeing and living on the run forever), are they necessarily courageous because they made a decision and went with it?
See Peter had to realize that he was in danger when he was spying on the Order even with Voldemort to "protect" him. You can't be right beside Voldemort for every minute so there were times, say at Order meeting, where he would have been surrounded by his "enemies". What if Dumbledore had walked in and declared that he knew who the spy was? Peter had to worry about stuff like that for an entire year.

Quote from Chievrefueil:
I’m not sure how this shows moral relativism. Sirius has broken the law and is hunted by the MoM and possibly the Death Eaters. He must stay hidden to keep himself safe, to keep Harry safe (who would go after Sirius if he was in trouble), and to keep the Order safe. Dumbledore is not in the same position at all and, as Norbertha says, may be powerful enough to know he could get away, if the situation became dangerous for him (which he ends up doing). I suppose it would be moral relativism, if you were to argue that hiding from the MoM is always absolutely morally wrong or absolutely morally right; but, why would that be? If there is a flaw in my reasoning, please let me know. I’m tired, not having gotten enough sleep last night, and am interested in working out these ideas.
The problem is that I can say the exact same thing about Dumbledore. He broke the law (resisting arrest, assaulting members of the ministry) so the Ministry is after him. He's Voldemort's chief foe so the Death Eaters's must keep an eye on him. So Dumbledore should have stayed hidden to keep himself safe (from the Ministry), to keep Harry safe (Dumbledore is Harry's single greatest defense), and for the Order (without him the Order is nothing...no leadership, no great power behind it). He's in a situation that's very similar to Sirius but because he has "power" and "courage" he doesn't have to go into hiding. Seems like he obviously viewed the situation slightly differently (and remember I said "could be" a moral relativist so I'm not completely sure of this).

Quote from Norbertha:
Is that because he's a moral relativist, or is it because he knows he's powerful enough to get away without going into hiding? Sometimes it seems like Dumbledore can move into a different dimention, where he can not be found, but he can still communicate and influence people! (I don't mean this literally, I'm just amazed at how calm he is in a situation where others would perhaps have panicked.)
While power obviously has something to do with it I think there may be something else as well. Dumbledore trust himself. Dumbledore comes across as a man who knows very well the burden of doing things himself. The saying "If you want something done do it yourself" seems to apply to him. It's not that Dumbledore doesn't trust Sirius he just himself more.

I think Peter is an example of someone whose Gryffindor qualities are skewed. It’s easy to see how Slytherin traits can get skewed- for example, too much ambition is a bad thing because then you start walking all over everybody else to get to the top. However, I think it’s harder to see how Gryffindor traits might become skewed. With Peter, his “courage” in betraying his friends is on a different end of the spectrum which makes it more nerve than heart, as was mentioned. You might also consider Peter’s joining of Voldemort as being a daring, which is a Gryffindor trait. I’m not sure of the exact circumstances under which he became a Death Eater, but I do think it was a daring move (albeit daring in the wrong way) because he likely did it to gain power in addition to doing it because he was upset with the way his friends treated him. So again, this Gryffindor quality has been skewed in an evil way.

In a twisted sort of way, Peter does show bravery in following Voldemort’s orders- even the more difficult ones, such as cutting off his hand. I know he also does it to keep himself alive (so he doesn’t end up like Regulus), but I think it takes guts (which is another synonym of courage) to cut off your hand. It also must have taken guts to go through with his plot to frame Sirius for Lily and James’ murder- an area where Peter also showed a form of bravery, since he not only had to face Sirius, but he had to cut off his finger and transform as well. Once again, it seems like Peter's bravery is skewed toward evil actions as was his courage (nerve) and daring.

But in the end, I agree that Peter definitely isn't completely, perfectly Gryffindor like Harry is. But I still believe he must have been more suited to Gryffindor than the other houses. In general, the traits prized by each of the Founders have many nuances and different shades that can often cause an interlapping of traits between all four houses. So it's a difficult thing sometimes to put your finger on exactly which shade of a trait a character is displaying through his/her actions.

James and Sirius are known to be arrogant, so, even if they did accept him as a friend, was he given an equivalent status?I don’t think they did- from what we can tell in SWM, Peter is treated as a tag-along, and he’s kind of put down by Sirius and James. Also, McGonagall says that he was always tagging after Sirius and James, so I think this indicates that his status within the Marauders’ friendship was below them.

So by that reasoning, how Peter was treated by his friends would have impacted Peter’s betrayal.:tu: I’ve always believed that the way Peter was treated by the Marauders was one of the reasons for Peter’s betrayal. Your reasoning supports this view nicely.

The problem is that I can say the exact same thing about Dumbledore. He broke the law (resisting arrest, assaulting members of the ministry) so the Ministry is after him. He's Voldemort's chief foe so the Death Eaters's must keep an eye on him. So Dumbledore should have stayed hidden to keep himself safe (from the Ministry), to keep Harry safe (Dumbledore is Harry's single greatest defense), and for the Order (without him the Order is nothing...no leadership, no great power behind it). He's in a situation that's very similar to Sirius but because he has "power" and "courage" he doesn't have to go into hiding. Seems like he obviously viewed the situation slightly differently (and remember I said "could be" a moral relativist so I'm not completely sure of this).I'm having trouble with this example because I can't really see what the ethical dilemma is. What does whether or not Dumbledore or Sirius stay in hiding have to do with moral behavior?

Just to throw this out on the discussion of houses: I think it is subjective to what the person sees as their strongest trait as well. If your intelligence is weighted equally with your courage, but you percieve yourself as more brave than smart, chances are, you'll end up in Gryffindor. Whereas Harry didn't percieve himself as a Gryffindor, neccessarily, he had the qualities that were valued by both Slythering and Gryffindor, so if he didn't want to go to Slythering, it made sense that he went to Gryffindor. Which might explain Percy's house as well. Pettigrew and Snape are interesting, and I think that they may fall into this idea, too. If Snape viewed himself as more ambitious than brave, if Pettigrew viewed himself as more brave than ambitious...and people change, too, as has been discussed here with the morality conversation. Also, I think the house system tends to emphasize certain traits. While you might not have been exceedingly brave when you were sorted into Gryffindor, the peer pressure and expectations could make you act braver, or become braver.

Anyway, just my two knuts.

ETA: I was going to fix that Slytherin vs. Slythering, but then I thought it was cute. So I'll leave it. :blush:

Quote from Chievrefueil:
I'm having trouble with this example because I can't really see what the ethical dilemma is. What does whether or not Dumbledore or Sirius stay in hiding have to do with moral behavior?
For me it seems sort of hypocritical of Dumbledore to tell Sirius to say in while he himself is not bound by the same rule even when they are in almost the same situation. I think that by the end of OotP Dumbledore has realized the flaw in his behavior. That is why he doesn't say it was Sirius's fault for going to the Ministry of Magic (if I remember correctly). Dumbledore himself basically did the same thing as Sirius so he can't pass judgment on Sirius's actions without damning himself.

I'm heading off on an etymology tangent: it's interesting that "guts" is a synonym for bravery or courage--although, again, emphasizing the idea of nerve--but it also emphasizes a different body part than courage: intestinal fortitude rather than heart.

Pettigrew just doesn't deserve to be called courageous. Even when he cuts off his own hand, it's because he's preserving his own life--disobeying Voldemort will mean death; doing so means he gets to live and he may get a bonus. He spied on the Order to preserve his own life. He turned in the Potters to preserve his own life. He lived as a rat to preserve his own life. That's all he does. It may be dangerous for him to spy on the Order, but he's not doing it for any other reason than himself. There's no heart involved. All Pettigrew needs is the nerve--the gall--to spy on his former friends, to arrange their deaths, and amputate his own hand. Far from moral strength, the best he has is amorality.

Dumbledore really can't go into hiding--for the very reason that he is so important to the Order; he's the leader. Throughout OotP, references are made to how busy Dumbledore is; we don't get specifics, but it is made clear that he is performing tasks for the Order. Giving up his role is not on the same level as Sirius' situation.

For me it seems sort of hypocritical of Dumbledore to tell Sirius to say in while he himself is not bound by the same rule even when they are in almost the same situation. I think that by the end of OotP Dumbledore has realized the flaw in his behavior. That is why he doesn't say it was Sirius's fault for going to the Ministry of Magic (if I remember correctly). Dumbledore himself basically did the same thing as Sirius so he can't pass judgment on Sirius's actions without damning himself.To be fair, as soon as the MoM was after Dumbledore, he did go into hiding. The Order members were able to communicate with him, but so were they able to communicate with Sirius. Where is the hypocrisy?

For this to be an issue of moral relativism, there would have to be a moral issue involved in which Dumbledore does not see absolute right or wrong. For example, a moral relativist might say that murder is wrong in our society, but murder may not be wrong for all societies. Crouch Sr was probably a moral relativist at the time of VWI. He (presumably) believed that using the Unforgivable Curses was wrong and upheld their illegality; however, when society changed such that Voldemort was gaining too much power, he allowed use of the Unforgivable Curses--not finding them absolutely wrong for the society in which Voldemort was gaining power. Most likley, Dumbledore would never allow use of the Unforgivable Curses, if he were minister--I don't believe he is a moral relativist.