Tu m’as donné le plus doux rêve

Psychology Bitch strikes

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 04:59:00 GMT

As most people reading this most likely know, I am a clinical psychology student and my area of interest is in personality pathology. Personality disorders are widely, widely misunderstood and for this reason I have to put up with a lot of stupidity, especially on the internet.

Usually I just ignore it, but every so often someone comes along whose insistence that they are a genius on the subject while displaying utter ignorance motivates me to actually dispell what they are saying.

The following is a collection of comments from an LJ discussion on Harry Potter. The bolded comments are my responses.

Actually, it makes perfect sense for someone with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) to be a succesful manipulator. From wikipedia:

Narcissism according to the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, which includes the following traits:

Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Conning/manipulative
Lack of remorse or guilt
Shallow affect
Callous/lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions."

As good of a diagnostic tool as Wiki is, the PCL-R is a measure of psychopathy. Not narcissism. The narcissism it measures is aggressive, which would not describe every narcissist on the planet. Also, you can't diagnose someone based on a single assessment tool.

This is Albus is a nutshell. The superficial charm has been there from day one, everybody thought he was just really a nice, doddering old geezer with a twinkle in his eye and loads of wisdom. He just wasn't really nice, and he wasn't wise in any stretch of the word. He was a narcissist, and they wear masks. The grandiose sense of selfworth. Oh, yes! The whole 'only guy Voldemort ever feared' thing. And everybody fell for it. Why should Voldemort fear Dumbledore? Voldemort DID fear Dumbledore. It's been established. Dumbledore never did anything to threaten him. The constant lying. Really, go back and check everything Dumbledore has ever said, and none of it turned out to be true, but everybody *thought* he was good and wise and thus spoke the truth. The total lack of remorse or guilt. I mean, he got the Potters killed (I mean, really, he got warned months ahead that they are specifically targetted. How big a goof up whas *that*?) Not like he suggested the Fidelius Charm or anything and what does he do? He dumps their kid on the doorstep of the Dursley *all twinkly and happy* because he's got a new chesspiece to play yet another intricate game with. Swythyv's essay on Dumbledore was spot on when she analysed his behaviour. We are groomed to think Dumbledore as this great strategist, but in fact, *all his 'wonderful plans' FAILED*! People *die* on Albus' watch, but does this matter? No, of course not. Albus only gets upset when his wonderful plans fall through, which is never *his* fault, of course, but alway *other people's*.

This part hurts my brain because it lacks a complete understanding of NPD. First off, personality pathology is a spectrum. Maybe Dumbledore does have Narcissistic traits, but that doesn't mean he meets DSM criteria.

Dumbledore denies Voldemort fearing him, actually, but okay.

"To the extent that people are pathologically narcissistic, they can be controlling, blaming, self-absorbed, intolerant of others’ views, unaware of others' needs and of the effects of their behavior on others, and insistent that others see them as they wish to be seen."
"These traits will lead overly narcissistic parents to be very intrusive in some ways, and entirely neglectful in others. The children are punished if they do not respond adequately to the parents’ needs. This punishment may take a variety of forms, including physical abuse, angry outbursts, blame, attempts to instill guilt, emotional withdrawal, and criticism. Whatever form it takes, the purpose of the punishment is to enforce compliance with the parents' narcissistic needs."

Albus is intelligent, but not as brilliant as he thinks he is. That is just his narcissistic need to be special, and the persona he projects. It is important to realise that he is, in fact, not all that and a cherry on top:

Here's the thing about personality disorders: they are inflexible and maladaptive. If we took Dumbledore outside of an environment that adored him, would he still act the same way? Say these behaviors they accuse him of are true. What is motivating him? He still may not be Narcissistic. Personality disorders are not just, check, check, check, check, okay, you have this disorder. They are incredibly complicated and (as this demonstrates) misunderstood.

Btw, I find it hilarious that one of the DSM criteria for NPD is a sense of entitlement, which a LOT of this fandom seems to have.

"Though individuals with NPD are often ambitious and capable, the inability to tolerate setbacks, disagreements or criticism, along with lack of empathy, make it difficult for such individuals to work cooperatively with others or to maintain long-term professional achievements. With narcissistic personality disorder, the person's perceived fantastic grandiosity, often coupled with a hypomanic mood, is typically not commensurate with his or her real accomplishments."

The problems with the claims marionros is making is that Narcissists tend to be lazy. Working for accomplishments is beneath them. Exerting effort is belittling. If you want to make the argument that Dumbledore is a mix of Narcissistic and Compulsive, okay, but then I would just write another essay because I don't think that, either (though he must have some compulsive traits--most academics do!)

Mind you, Dumbledore isn't the only one with a NPD. All things above accurately describes Harry as well, with the lack of empathy, the self-centredness, the way he cares for people only when they are dead because he can use them as an excuse for his failing and his miserable life, the grandioseness, the way he constantly misinterprets other people's motives, the rage when Other People just won't do what he tells them to and question him. Harry is a kid. You can't diagnose a kid with a PD. And there's another NPD in the Trio as well. Hermione looks pretty narcissistic to me, with her obsessive need to be seen as the smartest, bestest witch Hogwarts has ever seen (but she doesn't really sound truly intelligent to me - she just wants to be), her emotional shallowness, the way she misunderstand people and tries to find out by reading a pop science self help book, the way she violently retalliates. And we fall for it. We really think she really is the smartest witch of her age. Bull, I say! Why not go further? I think Ron has NPD! And Hagrid! AND EVERY OTHER CHARACTER I HATE BECAUSE ME NOT LIKING SOMEONE MEANS THEY MUST HAVE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THEM.

I'm going to pull an Albert Ellis and say that this is so dumb I cannot even begin to respond to it. Aside from, yeah, Harry's never felt empathy before. It's not like he identified with Snape in SWM. It's not like he felt sorry for Neville over his parents being insane. Also, Harry hates attention. He shows discomfort in these situations, such as his interviews with Rita Skeeter or when Lockhart posed with him in those pictures. That is pretty much antithetical to Narcissism.

This actually brings me to a point. Every personality disorder has a good side to it. Antisocial personalities make good lawyers and business people. Compulsives are highly productive in society. Dependents have good interpersonal skills. Etc etc. Marionros doesn't seem to get that having a personality disorder is not all bad.

You can't cherry pick DSM criteria and then go "Oh, that person is Narcissistic." Everyone has the traits seen in personality disorders. It's just people with diagnosable personality disorders have extreme levels of these traits, and is failing to adapt in everyday life because of them. I also think marionros is forgetting distress and impairment. Even if these people were Narcissistic personalities, you can't diagnose them without either of those.

Quite frankly, I've often wondered if there wasn't a touch of NPD in Rowling herself. Do you not realize that there are other personality disorders you can ignorantly slap on people? I mean, she just doesn't *get* people. It was one of the things that put me off the books right from the start; her insistence that Harry, who on the first page of the first book was described as 'happy that his babysitter had broken an arm because now he could go to the Zoo too', was a nice boy. I think we were supposed to find it really sad that Harry could only go to the zoo if his babysitter got injured. The disparity between the way she showed characters and their actions and the way she told us that we must interpret them.

Not *getting* people is not a criteria for NPD. That fits pretty much any psychological disorder. And, please, let me see the MMPI or MCMI-III data as well as the clinical interview you have given JKR that allows you make these assertions.

Take Snape. I've been exaxperated with that whole 'oh, Snape is such a nasty teacher'. Well, he isn't a luvvy duvvy kind of New Age hippy teacher with goathair socks and sandals, for sure, but nasty? I've had loads of teachers like him, and they were all universally respected, if not outright loved (normal children like to be challenged, and can appreciate dry wit in a teacher, as long as he is an able teacher). But then, the kid with NPD *would* object to a teacher like Snape. Why?

I'd object to Snape being my teacher, so I guess I have NPD. Of course, according to this person's logic everyone has it unless you're Snape or someone who likes him. I can see the DSM criteria now!

Well, a person with NPD doesn't really have a well developed personality. They instinctively feel the lack, so they compensate for it by building a Persona, who is very Special and who Nobody Gets. What? You can't make that assumption. Some people with NPD genuinely beleive that they are awesome and have absolutely no insecurity.Lacking empathy, they train themselves from an early age to deduce what 'makes a person tick' from their actions, but they usually don't quite 'get it'.I don't think a Narcissist would really care to even interpret this based on actions. This sounds FAR more anti-social to me. This means that when they are confronted with a snarky, dry-witted teacher who isn't impressed with the Persona, this spells disaster for the NPD. When Snape punctures Harry's 'Special Person Persona' (as in 'The Celebrity Boy Who Lived') What. This is totally his persona because he invented it and it's not like he hadn't even known people called him that until a few days ago... wait... and insists that he is judged on what he knows instead of the image he projects, Harry sees this as an all out attack. Of course Harry sees this as an attack; his whole life he has been told he is a nobody, but he has always believed to be special, different from the dreaded Dursleys, Harry dealt with years of emotional abuse and it's amazing he came out with as little pathology as he did. He never felt he was more special than the Dursleys, he just didn't think he deserved the abuse that he suffered. Which he didn't. and then he finds out that he really *is* special and then this, this teacher has the affront to rip off his new and wonderful Persona to show the world that there is an ignorant little boy beneath it. He was asking him sixth year questions on his first day of his first year. And the Slytherins snicker and laugh at him! Oh, Harry will never forgive *that*. And neither will Rowling, his creator.

I have to disagree on your assesment of Rolwings ability to weave a plot, though. The only books that had a nice plot were no's 1 and 3, and the whole series were all 'loose weave'. There was no arc, no backstory interwoven from the start. Lots of retconning, yes.
I do agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of her characterbuilding abilities. She just doesn't seem to know what makes people tick. And you do, of course.

Y'know, my eldest sister is a narcissist. Of course she is. She's never seen the inside of a psychologist or psychiatrist's office, Lay person diagnosis FTW! but when I came across the term, fifteen years ago, the description was so eerily spot-on, I decided to read everything about narcissism that I could lay my hand on. Apparently you've missed Millon, who cautions HEAVILY against throwing personality disorders around.
I used to call my sister a 'walking black hole'; whatever love you threw at her, it was never enough. I'm not getting into detail, but surviving the clutches of a narcissist is difficult and it always leaves scars.

There is such a creature as a 'classic narcissist's victim', and Severus Snape just ticks all the boxes for me. So I've rootled around on internet, and this is what I came up with.

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-13-2006-96057.asp Again, another scientific research source.

Several types of narcissists' victims are described. Two of which, imo, can be found in the Potter books as Dumbledore's victims, and especially poor Snape fits right in.

"Victims of the narcissist's misleading signals

These are the victims of the narcissist's deceiving emotional messages. The narcissist mimics real emotions artfully. He exudes the air of someone really capable of loving or of being hurt, of one passionate and soft, empathic and caring. Most people are misled into believing that he is even more humane than average.

I'm not really a fan of their using the word "he," which perpetuates the gender disparity between personality disorders.

They fall in love with the mirage, the fleeting image, with the fata morgana of a lush emotional oasis in the midst of their emotional desert. They succumb to the luring proposition that he is. They give in, give up, and give everything only to be discarded ruthlessly when judged by the narcissist to be no longer useful.

OH! I knew it just from the grandiose, dramatic text--this is by Sam Vaknin. No one in the field that I know of considers him a credible source on this subject. His PhD is not in psychology and he has actually been diagnosed with Narcissism himself.

Riding high on the crest of the narcissist's over-valuation only to crash into the abysmal depths of his devaluation, they lose control over their emotional life. The narcissist drains them, exhausts their resources, sucks the blood-life of Narcissistic Supply from their dwindling, depleted selves.

The narcissist's false emanations are not restricted to messages with emotional content. They may contain wrong or false or partial information. The narcissist does not hesitate to lie, deceive, or "reveal" (misleading) half-truths. He appears to be intelligent, charming and, therefore, reliable. He is a convincing conjurer of words, signs, behaviours, and body language.

The above two classes of victims are casually exploited and then discarded by the narcissist. No more malice is involved in this than in any other interaction with an instrument. No more premeditation and contemplation than in breathing. These are victims of narcissistic reflexes. Perhaps this is what makes it all so repulsively horrific: the offhanded nature of the damage inflicted.

Not so the third category of victims.

These are the victims upon which the narcissist designs, maliciously and intentionally, to inflict his wrath and bad intentions. The narcissist is both sadistic and masochistic. In hurting others he always seeks to hurt himself. In punishing them he wishes to be penalised. Their pains are his.

This fits Sadistic Personality Disorder more.

Thus, he attacks figures of authority and social institutions with vicious, uncontrolled, almost insane rage – only to accept his due punishment (their reaction to his venomous diatribes or antisocial actions) with incredible complacency, or even relief. He engages in vitriolic humiliation of his kin and folk, of regime and government, of his firm or of the law – only to suffer pleasurably in the role of the outcast, the ex-communicated, the exiled, and the imprisoned.

Sounds more Antisocial to me.

The punishment of the narcissist does little to compensate his randomly (rather incomprehensibly) selected victims. The narcissist forces individuals and groups of people around him to pay a heavy toll, materially, in reputation, and emotionally. He is ruinous, and disruptive.

In behaving so, the narcissist seeks not only to be punished, but also to maintain emotional detachment. Threatened by intimacy and by the predatory cosiness of routine and mediocrity – the narcissist lashes back at what he perceives to be the sources of this dual threat. He attacks those he thinks take him for granted, those who fail to recognise his superiority, those who render him "average" and "normal".

And they, alas, include just about everyone he knows."

Well, there we have it. All the signs are there. Albus' manipulation, the way all his 'games' are centered around *his* glory, No, I really think it's more about getting rid of Voldemort. Speaking of Narcissism, btw. the way he *uses* people and doesn't give a damn if they break, He cares, it's just the whole greater good thing, his hatred of authority and subsequent 'wanting to rule the world' fantasies in his youth and anti-government (Ministry) Kids' personalities aren't crystallized yet so that doesn't really work, even the childhood criteria for Antisocial has been criticized Order-of-the-Phoenix semi-terrorist games. (really, was the Ministry really that incompetent, or have we just been listening to Albus too long?) ... Semi-terrorist? but most especially, the way he continuously, for years and years, punishing Snape (and Slytherin in general) to punish himself.

This was the first impression I had of Snape in the early Potterbooks: 'competent teacher, but constantly undermined by the Headmaster and the rest of staff.'
We constantly saw little shreds of evidence that Snape was the teacher even the staff (or Headmaster) dispised. The little lies Dumbledore tells Harry about Snape. The half-truths, which are worse than his lies. Taking on Lupin the werewolf (and coercing Snape into interaction with him - he had to make that potion after all) when Lupin was the werewolf Oh, how horrible of Dumbledore, taking a social outcast as a staff member at great risk to his own reputation that nearly killed Snape as a boy, must be like rubbing salt into a still festering wound. That Lupin got away with making a fellow teacher ridiculous in class (with that Boggart stunt) is also telling. Maybe Snape shouldn't have been so mean to Neville as to make him fear him more than anything in the world, then No teacher in Real Life could get away with that. It's highly unproffessional. You're just mad because it was Snape. If he'd pictured James in a dress it'd be your favorite scene. Dumbledore's 'joke' with the Christmas cracker is telling; with this joke he loudly proclaims that Snape has less clout and importance than the lowest worm. Maybe I could write an essay on what your inability to take a joke says about your personality He's fair game for all students to make fun of and all teachers to undermine his authority. Snape takes points? Another teacher will reinstall them. Probably because Snape is horribly unfair Harry constantly refuses to even refer to Snape with his honorific 'professor' and Dumbledore gently reproofs him, but never effectively so and thus the message is "as the Headmaster it's my duty to point out that you should say 'professor Snape', but my heart isn't really in and no consequenses will follow if you do slip up', I can see it now, let's expell Harry for not saying "Professor Snape" and so Harry continues (and worsens) each year to be a total snot to Snape. It's not like Snape deserves it or anything He cheeks, he is lazy, he doesn't listen in class, he actively contredicts Snape in class, he is a teacher's nightmare, and all with the blessing of Albus Dumbledore. Snape brought it on himself. You're the one saying people have to earn respect. Snape didn't with Harry.
And then we see in 'Deathly Hallows' how Albus treats Snape when they are in private, and the 'nice guy persona' falls off Albus completely. Acting differently to different people in different situations! Oh, the humanity!
Dumbledore is a typical 'black hole'. He detects or creates a need in his victims and demands that they pay and pay and pay, and it is never enough. Seriously, you are mixing Narcissistic in with a ton of other personality disorders, like Antisocial and Sadistic. Snape exhausts himself trying to appease Dumbledore, but it is never enough. You have to admire him for living so long without losing his mind with that constant mental torture.

Snape is a typical Narcissist's Victim, pushed in a loop of constant pleasing the narcissist and, of course, failing to do so. Narcissists are dreary people, really. Even the most intelligent aren't really interesting people. They lack the 'wiring' to be interesting. They know this, deep down, and so invent a new persona for themselves and reinvent their lives into a Grand Drama. They need to *believe* that their persona is the real person, they need to *believe* that their lives is a Grand Drama, and they need players as extras in that Grand Drama which is their lives. Woe to them who the narcissist focusses on as a pawn in that Grand Drama.

And that just sounds Histrionic to me. Differential diagnosis please, guys!

PS, rereading my posts, the bit about "He engages in vitriolic humiliation of his kin and folk, of regime and government, of his firm or of the law – only to suffer pleasurably in the role of the outcast, the ex-communicated, the exiled, and the imprisoned" struck me. About how it's completely wrong because that describes Sadistic Personality and not Narcissistic? Remember how Dumbledore 'martyred' himself when he claimed that *he* had formed 'Dumbledore's Army'? People thought it noble, that he 'protected Harry' (but from what? Harry was just a student forming a duelling club, but the Headmaster forming a 'secret army' was borderline seditious. They would not have expelled Harry, but they had to remove Dumbledore as Headmaster) Other people thought it very stupid of Dumbledore: things are heating up, Harry needs guidance and what does he do? He effectively removes himself from the scene, discrediting himself in the public eye, without a very good reason. That's not how a good general acts! But of course, this is not why Dumbledore claims leadership of the DA. He just loves to be a martyr for the cause. It fits in his Grand Drama of Albus Dumbledore's Life. Okay, let's go over the model for Narcissistic. It is Passive Self-Oriented. PASSIVE. Narcissists tend to not put this much effort into stuff. Again, this sounds more Histrionic to me.

Same thing with his death. Take away the suicide plot which he wrangles Snape into. What is left? A stupid old man putting on a cursed ring and dying an ignoble death. That is not to be tolerated! And so he connives and coerces and bullies Snape into compliance. Snape needs to do the deed, in such a way that it makes the most dramatic impact. Not because Snape had to kill Dumbledore or else he'd die from breaking the Unbrekable Bond he made. Oh, all for the 'greater good' of course.. But not really. Because that whole 'Snape needed to go even deeper undercover' is bullsh*t. Snape was the only member of the Order of the Phoenix that had an active role and could achieve something, and with his suicide pact Dumbledore effectively removed Snape from the Order and viola! The Order is revealed to be a useless sham! There is no Grand Plan Against Voldemort. The Order is just a bunch of Lost Boys listening to Albus Peter Pan Dumbledore's grandstanding and self aggrandisements. Do you read the same books that I do? The suicide pact was stupid, but it gave Dumbledore a glorious exit and ensured him a grand burial (did you puke at the description of that funeral as well?) No, not really.
Maybe the plan was first for Draco to kill him, but being bested by a seventeen year old boy wouldn't have made Dumbledore a Hero. No, it was the friggin' Elder Wand.. aghh, forget it. Being Killed by a Trusted Employee Death Eater Because You Were So Good To Give Him A Second Chance makes good headlines.

And that was all that mattered to Albus Dumbledore, the most accurately described narcissist in childrens literature. You have to give Rowling that. Even though she doesn't realise it. Which says something about her. No, I think the best Narcissist in the books is Gilderoy Lockhart.

Rebuttal to Snapefen essay, reposted by popular request (and by that, I mean one request!)

Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:04:53 GMT

We are privileged actually to view James in action three times. Chronologically in James’s life, they are Severus’s meeting him on the Hogwarts Express, SWM, and his death at Riddle’s wand.

Yes, three times is definitely enough to completely judge a person by.

Every action we actually witness James Potter take has a parallel elsewhere in canon.

A parallel when you use Snapfen logic, that is.

James says, “Who’d want to be in Slytherin?” Like Draco Malfoy says about Hufflepuff.

Okay, I am so sick of this one. Do any of you guys live in a sports-obsessed area like I do? Here is how I view this scene. A Red Sox fan is sitting on the train and hearing someone talk about how great the Yankees are. Of COURSE that Sox fan is going to speak up. It's not actual hatred, it's competition between two rivals. Draco's comment about Hufflepuff isn't that bad in itself; even Harry and Neville don't want to be in Hufflepuff. Harry only gets mad when Draco insults Hagrid.

James is obsessed by Lily Evans, who rejects him. Like Severus, acto Jo a bully.

James is never shown as being so obessed with Lily that he wants her current boyfriend to die so he can catch her on the rebound. And aren't these the same people who always insist Lily and James were flirting in SWM? Which one is it, then? I guess I always viewed James/Lily at that point to be like your typical Doris Day and Rock Hudson/Pride and Prejudice/every romantic comedy in existence "Oh, you are the worst person ever and I would never marry you! Except for I actually will at the end because that's how these things work.".

James attacks an individual while backed by a gang of three, the most sycophantic of whom is a rat-faced boy named Peter (Piers…) P. One of his cohorts holds the victim immobile while James presses the attack. Like Dudley Dursley.

Dudley is later redeemed, just like James was. Also, we see James do that once, and it's to his most hated enemy. We can't say that's always his "battle plan." Plus, is he really backed by Remus? Remus is just ignoring it all. It's really just James and Sirius.

James uses Levicorpus to hurt and humiliate someone. Like the Death Eaters do at the Quidditch World cup.

Said person invented the spell, and I wouldn't say it really "hurt" Snape physically. Humiliated, yes, but when Harry did it to Ron by accident Ron found the whole thing quite funny; it couldn't have been that painful.

And James as a father, presented at his most sympathetic (from the unsympathizing perspective of Tom Riddle) … is shown indulging his son, and trying, unarmed and unsuccessfully, to protect his wife and son from someone armed with magic he can’t possibly combat. Like Vernon Dursley confronting Hagrid.

Only a Snapefen would compare this beautiful act from James to a comedic moment. Vernon confronted Hagrid because he didn't want to hear what Hagrid had to say. James confronted Voldemort because he didn't want his family to die. SAME THING TOTALLY.

Everyone, EVERYONE, whose actions parallel James, is presented canonically as a bully.

Again, that is assuming you accept these parallels. I do not. Also, Harry's actions often parallel Snape's and even Voldemort's--does that mean he's the same? Does context and different motivation mean nothing to these people? If I steal a loaf of bread to feed my starving family, and someone else steals a loaf of bread just because he feels like it, can you really say those actions are parallel?

One can even find parallels between James and Umbridge: using innocuous-seeming spells to torture (assigning lines / using Scourgify to waterboard).

First off, waterboarding? Seriously?

Second off, I can also find parallels between Snape and Umbridge: both intimidate their students, both go on power trips, both favor certain people to the point where it's dangerous, etc.

Then there’s one more parallel. James is described to us as a dark-haired, charming boy, “exceptionally bright”, attractive to both his contemporaries and his teachers, regarded with distrust by his Transfiguration teacher but generally receiving such acclaim he makes Head Boy. After years of his gang’s terrorizing other students, and after successfully covering up at least one overt crime he’s involved in—releasing a Dark creature on unsuspecting potential victims. And the headmaster never suspects him.

Like Tom Riddle.

Wait, when is it ever said that any teacher distrusted James?

Oh, this is my favorite! James being friends with a werewolf is totally the same as setting a killer giant snake on people. Even though Sirius, Peter, and James did it to help their friend, and Sirius and James were careful to keep Remus in line. I'm not saying it wasn't stupid or dangerous, but it wasn't a psychopathic action like Tom Riddle's was.

Maybe I’m misremembering. Maybe there’s some scene, somewhere, in JKR’s fiction that doesn’t compare James Potter to the worst of the worst. (Come to think of it, now we have the prequel: anyone come up with any parallels to that?)

I would argue all of them, but okay.

One more piece of evidence about James: the dog that spends seven years adamantly refusing to bark in the night. I grew up in a small town of about 10,000 people (about the size of Britain’s Wizarding community per the fabulous Jodel). My father committed suicide when I was 11. For about a year after, no one mentioned him to me. But after that—my father had previously been well-respected and loved, and people told me so. My 7th grade civics teacher tried to talk me into becoming a lawyer, like my dad. The librarian talked about his involvement on the library board. A police officer told me how my dad spent his limited free time researching forthcoming legislation and letting the department know how it would affect their duties. And so forth.

I can't believe ANYONE can read the books and not think James was talked about by a lot of people. That's the reason Harry had him on a pedestal by the time he saw SWM. Hagrid, McGonagall, Dumbledore seems to speak positively of him in the first book, etc.

Who ever talked to Harry about his parents? Even Remus wouldn’t, before Sirius. We know for sure that Minerva, Filius, Horace, Hagrid, and Pomona were on staff while Harry’s parents were at Hogwarts; it’s probable that Hooch and Pince were. And none of them but Hagrid, not a one of them, ever found a good word to say to a hungry orphan boy about his parents? That beggars the imagination, unless it’s a case of “nil nisi”. (Note that Horace, in contrast, won’t shut up about Lily. Which makes one wonder a little why Minerva and Filius did.)

Is it not possible that people thought constantly bringing up Harry's parents would bring back painful memories? Or maybe they didn't want to talk about it? Remus not talking about it makes perfect sense to me: he didn't want to remember his association with Sirius.

You mention being a mathematician. Then you should realize how small your sample size is. n = 1. Can you show me all of the orphaned kids in the world and give undeniable proof that EVERYONE of them heard his/her parents talked about to no end, unless said parents were horrible people and therefore no one had anything good to say? Especially teachers who really had no business talking personally to students like that.

Hagrid managed to snag photos for Harry’s album, presumably from his parents’ old friends, but none of those friends ever once tried to contact the boy. It was the Weasleys who took him in and acted as surrogate parents. When Harry received attention, it was for being the ‘Boy-Who-Lived’—not for being James’s son (except for Sirius), not for being Lily’s son (except for Slughorn). Just how “popular” were Harry’s parents, anyway? Was it the same popularity as Dudley and his gang enjoyed, per Harry—that nobody cared to disagree with them openly, for fear of being hurt?

That's why they received a statue in their honor, I guess. As for why they never tried to contact Harry, maybe they lost contact when Lily/James went Voldemort-hunting? Or maybe they had been killed by Voldemort or his Death Eaters. Or maybe they thought it'd be weird to write out of the blue and go "Hey, sorry about your parents dying, I knew them and it really sucks."

Minerva, not knowing Harry was listening, did talk about James to Filius, Hagrid, and Fudge. She did NOT confirm Lupin’s sycophantic statement that James and Sirius were “the best in the school in whatever they did” (OOTP) or “the cleverest students in the school” (PoA): she says that they were “exceptionally bright” (note: “bright,” not “the best,” even in her own field, Transfigurations, which was presumably the Animagis’ best subject and James’s wand’s strength, per Ollivander).

Soo... they're only really smart, as opposed to undeniably the best in their class. I love Snapefen's fixation on intellect and grades, and this is coming from someone who cried over getting Bs in college. Grades are NOT everything, especially not in the wizarding world when something evil is on the rise. Hell, even Hermione realizes this eventually (she chooses to ditch school in favor of, you know, defeating Voldemort.

What James and Sirius WERE the best at, per Minerva McGonnagall, was at making trouble.

And Minerva was probably at school with Tom Riddle, which is quite a standard of comparison.

Tom Riddle DIDN'T make trouble. That's the whole damned point. He was a goody two-shoes who obeyed the rules because it was convenient that he keep a low profile. Yes, he let out teh Monster of Doom, but I wouldn't call that "troublemaking."

Also, we have no evidence she was at school with Tom. It was 50 years ago, that would mean she'd have to be at least 70 in the books.
</b>

We know who did talk of James to Harry: Quirrelmort, Dumbledore, Hagrid, Sirius, Remus under Sirius’ influence, and Severus. As for Severus—for two years Snape DIDN’T throw the despised James in Harry’s face, whatever he might have felt. The first time Snape mentioned James to Harry was when Severus caught Harry returning from a forbidden, hazardous excursion (which the boy had indulged in only for his own entertainment), lying about it, and reveling in having frightened and assaulted a fellow student. Sound like the behavior of anyone Severus had known as a child?

No, not really, actually.

Wait, what student had Harry frightened and assaulted? MALFOY and company? He threw mud at them! We should outlaw snowball fights, I guess.

Regarding the assessments of James: the only one who doesn’t have an obvious axe to grind is Hagrid, and we know that Hagrid’s greatest flaw is his absolutely uncritical admiration of “interesting creatures”. With which we can, apparently, class James Potter.

Uh-huh, James is totally up there with Blast-Ended Skrewts and dragons. Isn't it possible that James was NICE to Hagrid, just like Harry was? I don't think James would have flipped Hagrid upside down.

Hoo boy. Does JKR have ANY idea what she wrote? Talk about Bad Boy Syndrome!

I thought James was the captain of the football team, not the Rebel without a Cause who Plays by His Own Rules. Pick which teen movie stereotype you're going to focus on, darnit!

The Children of Privilege: Reconsidering James and Sirius as Tragic… Whatevers.

Um, sorry, the word I should be inserting here is ‘Heroes, ’ and I can’t. But it can be argued, as in the Greek tragedies, that James and Sirius brought about their own destruction because of a single tragic flaw. Hubris is the classic flaw of Greek tragedy: that form of arrogance which consists of believing one is smarter or stronger than one’s fate, that one can get away with overstepping the bounds of mortals.

Oh, don't start. Unless you accept the "Peter was treated badly and got his revenge" theory (which is possible but not proven canonically), James's flaw was his trust in his friends. Which is, you know, a good thing.

And overstepping is always what James and Sirius were ABOUT. But the thing is, they were the golden boys, the children of privilege: they were raised to think they could get away with overstepping. And for years they did. But eventually….

They didn't really get away with it, they got a lot of detentions and school punishments. Do you think they should be guillotined because they sometimes snuck off to the kitchens to "steal" (I use the term loosely because we later see that the elves really don't view it as theft) food?

Did you ever see the short (extremely so) animated film, “Bambi Meets Godzilla”? I’ve seen it several times; once was in a seminar as the example of what happens when one’s fantasies meet reality. As the opening credits roll, we watch Bambi gamboling on a spring meadow, while sweet music tinkles in the background. Then Godzilla’s foot comes down, splat, and the closing credits roll.

One could say that that’s what happened to James and Sirius.

Cool, let's see how you can apply HP character theory to another random video that has nothing to do with it. I just watched Bride and Prejudice, let's go with that one.

I had a very long exchange with a Sirius fangirl (Nyxfixx) last year which altered my understanding of Sirius. Not that she got me to like him, or to forgive his treatment of Severus. But she did get me to see that his mind worked fundamentally differently from mine in some ways, and that behavior I saw as inexcusable, in fact criminal, was not ill-meant from his point of view.

I read this discussion and basically Nyxfixx points out what I thought everyone realized: wizarding world at the time of MWPP != our world. Breaking the law there is sometimes necessary to do what is right, especially when their government is corrupt or being run by a genocidal maniac. Jean Valjean spends his years on the run from the law, is he a bad guy? Winston refuses to obey the law in 1984, is he a bad guy?

It was not meant at all.

I may need to extend that charity towards James.

It's a nice sentiment, but I'm not sure you ever could. I think you're too far-gone.

My grudge against Sirius was two-fold. I could wrap my mind, barely, around the thought that sending Severus to Remus in the Shrieking Shack was not attempted premeditated murder. It was hard for me to grasp that idea, because it seems intuitively obvious to me (as it did to Severus himself) that the expected, normal, predictable result of sending a sixteen-year-old into an enclosed space with an unconfined werewolf is a dead (or mutilated and infected) sixteen-year-old. So one would not do it unless one wanted that result. But Sirius was thoughtless and careless; maybe he really was stupid enough to imagine that Snivellus would just get a scare.

Yes, that was not good of Sirius (but I love the ignoring James's role in it, which involved going "WTF SIRIUS?" and saving Snape's life. Plus, Severus repays the favor to Sirius years later by getting his soul sucked out. There, they're even.

But afterwards he must have realized that he’d endangered Snape’s life, and he should have been sorry. And he clearly wasn’t: “He deserved it,” Sirius told Harry.

Sirius is pretty much mentally gone by that point. JKR admits it. You guys can't justify Snape's behaviors on his dysfunctional childhood and then pretend hat staying for 12 years or so in an environment that makes everyone pretty much suicidal is not going to affect Sirius at all.

Similarly, I could see a bunch of reckless teens thinking it was cool and exciting to roam the countryside with a werewolf. Unlike them, but like Hermione at fourteen, my first thought is ‘That’s incredibly dangerous! OMG, what if he got away and bit someone!’ But I could understand, and maybe forgive, a bunch of thoughtless boys NOT worrying about that.

You could if they were anyone but Hitler James and his SS buddies.

Until the first time it almost happened.

But that they continued to let the werewolf out to play after “many” near misses indicated, to me, that they were near-psychopathic criminals. They repeatedly, callously, endangered the lives of every student at Hogwarts and every villager in Hogsmeade, for no reason but their own idle amusement. They committed the same crime for which Hagrid was expelled and Tommy should have been: loosing a lethal monster in an inhabited area.

They're teenagers. Teenagers are impulsive and less prone to thinking things through. The basilisk was let loose with the intention of murdering people; if Remus had killed someone, it would have been a mistake. Difference of premeditated murder vs. manslaughter. And, um, Hagrid wasn't expelled for Aragog, he was expelled because it was thought Aragog had killed a student. If Remus had killed someone, yes, they would have been expelled. It's just that they didn't get caught.

Also, psychology bitch moment: I hate when people throw around the word psychopath. VOLDEMORT is a psychopath. Did James and co. kill small animals, wet the bed after age ten, and set fires? Do they lack empathy? Do they biologically not experience arousal at the normal levels that people do? THEN THEY ARE NOT PSYCHOPATHS. I'm going to look at this from a behavioral elvel. They were getting positively reinforced from the fun they were having. The "near misses" weren't punishment enough for them to stop. I'm sure if someone had actually gotten hurt, it would have been different. Maybe they felt guilty afterwards (Remus certainly did), but the reinforcement was too great for them to stop.

What Nyxfixx kept saying and saying until it finally sank in was, ‘But nothing really happened! Why should Sirius be sorry or worry about something that didn’t happen?”

Now see, that’s fundamentally—I do mean, FUNDAMENTALLY—foreign to my mind. I usually think—a lot—about things before I do them. I do sometimes do or say things on impulse or without adequate forethought; and I did that more when I was sixteen than now. But then I think about it afterwards; I have to. Especially if it seemed a mistake or a near-disaster.

Again, n = 1 here! Maybe you're a PERFECT PERSON who always thinks things through or feels it right away, but it doesn't mean that people who don't are bad. And, like I said, developmentally teenagers are more impulsive.

If I’d been stupid enough to let a werewolf out to romp in the streets of Hogsmeade or the grounds of Hogwarts, the first time it almost got away and killed a courting couple or old lady out gathering moonlit herbs, I’d have been sick with horror for days. As Lupin apparently was in retrospect. I would have felt, each time afterwards that I let out the wolf, that I was playing Russian roulette—at best, one round closer to an inevitable disaster. Keep playing long enough, and disaster WILL occur.

Here you go: you're comparing it to gambling. An addictive behavior. Why don't you get it? No, it wasn't good or smart, but it doesn't make them evil. I mean, okay, look at drag racing. Drag racing is dangerous and it could easily kill someone, but people still do it. Does it really make them evil psychopaths on the same level as Voldemort or a serial killer?

(Note: speaking as a math major, statistically, letting out the wolf is not strictly the same as Russian roulette, in that each near-miss does not make a fatality next time more likely. But I would have felt it did.
Which means that, for me, the only way I could have continued to let out the wolf is if I were a psychopath who put my entertainment above other people’s lives. You know, like Tommy.

Again, that's not what a psychopath is...a ghhhahdfhasdfhasduifpaseiruw3per

You understand, there are times when I’ve put my selfish interests or my feelings above other people’s feelings, if never their lives. So I can understand doing that, putting my interests first. I can’t understand simply not thinking about probable consequences to others, even after having my nose rubbed in those consequences, because I can’t imagine not thinking. Eventually, at least, even if I flew off the handle at first. Sooner or later my mind catches up and starts calculating probable consequences, including ones I seem to have escaped this time, whew! Not thinking of consequences at all? In anyone whose intelligence bests Gregory Goyle’s? Does not compute.)

I am so sick of hearing about you. First off, we have no proof that you actually do this stuff. Second, you don't understand behavior. They WERE thinking of consequences, I'm sure, but they weren't proximal enough. It's like a person who doesn't study for a test: yes, they know they're going to fail, but that's tomorrow and this is now. Or, yes, maybe if I speed on the highway I could kill someone, but I've done it before and it's been okay and it hasn't happened yet so who cares.

What Nyxfixx made me realize is that for Sirius, each near-miss had the OPPOSITE effect.

The fundamental thing that Nyxfixx made me realize about Sirius is that he was a child of privilege. He spent his childhood being sheltered from the consequences of mistakes he made. So he grew up believing that any mistake could be put right: he never really BELIEVED in consequences past mending.

Honestly, I disagree. Sirius learned of consequences when Lily and James died, or when his brother Regulus was killed. He learned the consequences of pureblood attitudes and of people like his family supporting Voldemort before they really knew what he was

And part of that is that Sirius grew up with magic—and intention does matter in magic, except when it doesn’t. What does Bella (possibly Sirius’s babysitter) tell us about the Unforgivable Curses? “You have to really mean them.” But Sirius thinks that applies to everything: if he doesn’t intend a consequence, he’s blind—almost literally—to the idea that it might happen anyhow. Even if it’s much more likely than what he did intend. Like sending another kid to meet a werewolf and sincerely expecting no worse to happen than that the other kid will be scared.

I don't think Sirius really thought nothing would happen to Snape. He didn't care. I said this before: I think Sirius was mentally unstable. His family had been inbred for years and, hell, his cousin Bellatrix was certainly emotionally disturbed. JKR even says that Sirius isn't exactly a good and admirable person. Yes, fangirls think he's cool, and I like him, but it's not like we view him as a role model or anything (I certainly hope not, anyway).

When Sirius said, “He deserved it,” in POA the eavesdropping Severus thought Sirius meant, “Snape deserved to be torn to pieces” for the high crime of trying to garner enough evidence of the Marauders’ crimes to turn them in to the headmaster and get them expelled—as Harry was trying with Draco in HBP. This interpretation is natural enough, I contend, since being torn to pieces is both the most probable result of going down a tunnel with a werewolf, and what would have happened in reality had James not intervened (per James, Severus, and Albus). So I don’t hold Severus wrong for thinking that way, and for being a tad annoyed that Sirius is reiterating his belief that Snape deserves to die horribly for interfering with Sirius’s criminal schemes.

It's funny that you even think we could ever interpret your attitudes as Severus being wrong.

But I think now that what Sirius really meant was, “Snape deserved a good scare”—and that Sirius STILL, years later, didn’t quite understand (or admit to himself) that he almost killed the other wizard.

Again, NOT MENTALLY STABLE. Does this excuse him? No. But you can't understand his mindset.

Further, Sirius (and James) HATE Dark Magic. And they really seem sincere in thinking that so as long as they’re not using Dark Magic, anything goes. As I pointed out in another post, it’s actually worse from the point of the view of the victim to be tortured by a common household spell than by the Dark Arts: if one is to suffer torture flashbacks, which is worse: having the trigger being someone yelling “Crucio” or someone saying “Scourgify”? Which trigger is one more likely to encounter frequently in the WW?

Umm, does this mean parents who washed their kids' mouth out with soap were engaging in torture? We shouldn't show A Christmas Story anymore, I guess. Give me a friggin' mouth full of water over BODY RENDING INSANITY-CAUSING TORTURE any day.

But Sirius (and James) really seem to think that THEY’RE not using Dark Magic, they’re not INTENDING evil, therefore it’s impossible that evil results will occur.

No, that's not it. Again, think of context Dark magic in the time of Voldemort's rise was not a good sign. Yes, they were jerks as teens, but they weren't mini-Death Eaters. They shunned Voldemort's methods.

And every time they got away with something—whether letting out the werewolf or torturing other students—for them, it just reinforced that they are golden, that they can control the consequences.

In his heart of hearts, Sirius truly believed that consequences are controllable: that if he doesn’t MEAN harm he hasn’t committed it.

No, Sirius is incredibly impulsive and just doesn't give a damn about consequences because they just aren't proximal enough. I doubt he ever thought about it that much.

And James is mostly the same. True, James had sense enough to rescue Severus from being killed (and Remus from probable execution, and Sirius from a life sentence in Azkaban). But James, too, is golden; he grew up indulged. As a teen, he got away with criminal behavior (torturing other students, becoming an illegal Animagus, letting out a werewolf in an inhabited area) with no serious consequences. And he successfully fooled the Headmaster, weathering the investigation into Sirius’s attempted manslaughter with Dumbledore getting not the least idea that the Marauders are Animagi who’ve been letting Remus out to play among the unsuspecting villagers and students.

So now James tortures students? Interesting. And he had no consequences because he didn't get caught. Sometimes people don't get caught. That's real life.

So of course, three or four years later, James would be vulnerable to the suggestion (from Pettigrew?) that if he and Sirius could so easily fool Dumbledore, they could fool You-Know-Who, the wizard who dasn’t take Dumbledore on. Because that’s really what using Pettigrew as the Secret-Keeper relied on—rather than using Dumbledore, who couldn’t be taken or broken unless their whole side had irrevocably lost anyhow, they’d play a shell game with Voldemort. And they were so sure they could pull it off, they had no backup plans at all.

It wasn't really a shell game, it made sense to them. Hell, it made sense to me. It would have worked probably if Pettigrew hadn't turned traitor. If your argument is that they're selfish and self-centered, then why do you think they'd play around with their lives so readily?

You seem to be blaming James for trusting in his friends. Yes, it was his downfall, but was that really a bad thing in itself?

Which, from the point of view of someone who always broods over possible consequences and failures, is unthinkably remiss. From the viewpoint of a golden boy, who’s used to luck breaking for him, it’s natural.

You can't foresee everything. James had a wife and child. I AM SURE he thought this decision through carefully. I can't prove it, but neither can you prove that he didn't. Again, you yourself said that we see James three times.

*

Now, to backtrack to myself: I’m the child of an alcoholic and a suicide. Anyone who’s lived in the alcoholic brand of dysfunctional family learns that the drunk always claims the morning after that they didn’t mean anything bad they’d done the night before. And for years the child agrees, it doesn’t count (except it does) because they didn’t really mean any harm. It was the drink speaking and acting; it shouldn’t really count. What COUNTS is what they MEANT, their innocent intentions.

(Translation: being affected by their misbehavior, however egregious, is wrong of YOU. Get over it already; forget it! They have, after all. They didn’t mean to hurt you, so it’s wrong and perverse of you to insist that you were damaged by their words and actions.)

Aaand here goes the personal stuff again.

If one ever becomes healthy enough or hardened enough to resist that argument, “I meant no harm” becomes the ultimate red flag.

Extremes are bad. Sometimes "I meant no harm" is really a good reason. Sometimes it isn't. But, I forgot, everything is black and white with Snapefen.

Which leaves me peculiarly ill-suited to like the Marauders. In tormenting other students, the Marauders didn’t mean any harm; they were just relieving boredom. In loosing the werewolf, they didn’t mean to endanger innocent people; they just wanted to get some kicks. In relying on their own cleverness to fool Voldemort, James and Sirius didn’t mean to make Harry an orphan; they just thought they could pull it off. After all, they’d pulled the wool over Dumbledore’s eyes for years, and he’s smarter than Voldemort.

Stop throwing around the word torment, it's killing me! They hexed people. They pulled pranks. Snape invented a lot of the spells they used, does that mean he created torture devices?

You're inserting thoughts into their heads. We have no evidence that's what they thought. Lily seemed okay with the decision, so why not mention her? And, honestly, you're assuming the Potters could have survived even if Peter hadn't squealed. Something we learned in the HP series if that if Voldemort is after you, your days are probably numbered, no matter how complex of magic you use.

Even years later, in dragging his feet in taking the Wolfsbane that night, Lupin didn’t mean to almost kill three kids, to allow Pettigrew to go free, and to condemn Sirius to remaining a fugitive; he just wanted to wind Snape up a little.

Uhh, what? Lupin just forgot to take the potion. Kind of understandable, seeing as how a supposed convict was with three of his students and his former friend who had supposedly died years ago.

See, it’s a philosophical or personality difference. I, after watching (and enduring) the damage my alcoholic (but charming and attractive) mother inflicted, find it HARDER to forgive someone who “meant no harm”—but did it, repeatedly, anyhow, and used the pristine innocence of their intentions to insist they should be let off the hook to do harm AGAIN—than to forgive someone who DID mean harm, but who subsequently repented and tried their hardest to make amends.

Repeat after me: the Marauders aren't your mother. Go write a book about her and make millions, if you want, but leave JKR's characters out of it.

Sirius and James versus Severus, in effect.

Snape repented? Yeah friggin' right. He only cared about Lily. He didn't give a damn that James died and spent years bullying James's orphaned son. Remember his words to Dumbledore?

James, on the other hand, grew out of his teenaged, adrenaline junky self and became a responsible father who died trying to protect his wife and son. I disagree that there were "no consequences" for Sirius because he suffered for years and years as a result of his actions.

Okay then

Wed, 06 May 2009 01:44:43 GMT

Edit: This entry was once a rebuttal to a Harry Potter fan essay that I wrote just for the sake of venting and not really for the purpose of public reading beyond the community where I linked it. However, apparently due to a troll's drive-by-argument (see latest comment) it is getting linked a lot of places. So, I've decided to delete the content. Sorry! I mean, not that I feel you're really missing out, anyway :P

Double edit: The rebuttal has been reposted here for those who still want to see it.

Hello

Mon, 12 May 2008 03:28:03 GMT

I finally got a JF account! Hurray!