How poor is poor Remus Lupin?

[menolike]

Title: How poor is poor Remus Lupin and how innocent was Sirius Black?
Spoilers: Prisoner of Azkaban
Summary: This is a multi part (2-3) piece. The first one is an introduction to how Remus Lupin was portrayed in “Prisoner of Azkaban”. And how the reader was emotionally tricked into sympathizing with him.
A/N: No beta, No editor, No friend, No co-

Comments

[menolike]

Lupin is sympathetic because he's been discriminated against his whole life

But that is not entirely true is it? during Lupin's Hogwarts years his condition was kept a secret; so were was the discrimination then? his 'condition' was known for only a few. It is very unlikely that ALL his teachers knew about him and kept quiet especially when considering the view the wizarding world holds towards werewolves. this also indicates that the board of governors didn't know either.
SO WHERE WAS THE DISCRIMINATION THEN?
1. NOTHING excuses his actions during his school years.
2. Just because some one is ill (MY cousin is DYING from leukemia, don't you dare compare it to being a werewolf). NOT mortally so, but exhaustingly and painfully on certain days of the month (and some women would strongly relate to that) doesn't mean that we should let them get away with their offenses too often.
3. After Hogwarts: HOW was he discriminated against? DID people know he was a werewolf? Wasit public knowledge? if they did don't you think that word would have reached 'the prophet' that there is a werewolf at Hogwarts? So this "Can't get a job" is questionable (see #5)
4. If you say what about him being poor and such?
I say go back to #3.
5. Don't forget HP character information has too many holes (eg. why not work in Muggle world? why not freelance? why not leave England?). If you try to rationalize it...well...

**Does Lupin deserve the romantic image shown in the books?
Does his actions deserve your complete justification?
His treatment towards Snape past and present. Can it truly be justified/forgiven/accepted?

THAT is what I want to know!
And please don't say 'yes. the poor man is a werewolf who all hate'

[straussmonster]

Did you miss the part in OotP where Lupin talks about Umbridge and the anti-werewolf legislation, so that it's gotten *even worse* than it was before? He was able to do what he was (whatever that may have been, but probably not much, going by the shabby robes) because his condition was kept secret. When Snape outed him, it had a distinctly negative effect, as JKR noted on her website when asked if Lupin could come back as DADA:

Alas, no. Lupin's exposure as a werewolf did irreparable damage to his prospects for a career in teaching...

[menolike]

No I didn't miss it but
a. That came ater PoA and the whole scandle of a werewolf in Hogwarts so logically more and harder rules were made. But what of before?
b. please go back to # 3,4,5. especially #5.
c. Was his being a werewolf public knowledge before PoA? people don't forget that someone is a werewolf in the wizarding world.
d. Alas, no. Lupin's exposure as a werewolf did irreparable damage to his prospects for a career in teaching...
How could exposure THEN hurt him in his teaching career? wasn't being a werewolf what prevented him from having a career? *contradicting information...please go to #3 and 5.

[straussmonster]

Being a werewolf in and of itself restricted Lupin's teaching career because of the monthly absences; it requires a very tolerant and open-minded employer (e.g., Dumbledore) to take someone despite those necessary absences. I wish I could skiv off classes every month. :)

So it's already hard to keep a job as a werewolf, and then when it's exposed to everyone? Pariah status does not sound like fun to me.

[gwenc02]

If you re-read PoA (unfortunately I don't have my book to give you a specific page number), in the last conversation Harry and Lupin have, Lupin tells Harry very specifically that he would not have been allowed to enter school if Dumbledore hadn't become headmaster. I think that would qualify as discrimination. He also said that he had been shunned and unable to find work as an adult because of his condition, until Dumbledore offered him a chance to teach. I think that's discriminatory as well. It doesn't matter if his potential employer knew he was a werewolf specifically, but if there are two-three days every month that he's not able to work, no one is going to keep him around for very long whether or not they're aware of the reason WHY he's not around two or three days every month.

I thought I was much clearer in my position than I seemed to be upon re-reading. Yes, I do think Remus deserves some sympathy. His life has not been easy. But no, I don't think that excuses his treatment of Snape. That's inexcusable. But being deserving of sympathy and not being perfect aren't mutually exclusive. In other words, he's allowed to make mistakes - that doesn't make him any less worthy of sympathy.

On to the leukemia analogy. I feel I owe you an apology. I know how hard it is to lose someone to that disease and the circumstances of that incident were why I used that as an example. Basically, my best friend died from that when we were 11. On the second anniversary of her death, I asked that we say a prayer for her in school (I went to Catholic school, obviously) and at lunch a girl came up to me and basically said that she wasn't sorry Chrissy died because Chrissy had never invited her to her birthday parties. At the time (and even now), I think that's one of the most appalling things anyone has ever said to me. Chrissy wasn't perfect, but that doesn't mean that a person should be happy she was dead. It's a more extreme example of what I interpret your argument to be - that Lupin is undeserving of sympathy because he was mean to another boy when he was in school. Obviously, they're two very different situations and I wasn't attempting to equate them. Lupin is a fictional character, and Chrissy and your cousin are real people with a real disease with serious consequences. If you would like someone to talk to, please feel free to go to my personal journal and leave me a message and I'll e-mail you. I wish you and your cousin all the best and I really hope everything works out.

[midnitemaraud_r]

SO WHERE WAS THE DISCRIMINATION THEN?

Obviously debating with you is a futile gesture because your bias leaves no room for objectivity.

However, since you ask...

When Ron discovered Remus was a werewolf, his first reaction was fear and revulsion. Is Ron alone in this 'prejudice'? Obviously not, since there was a reason Lupin's lycanthropy had to be kept secret, not to mention that if Dumbledore hadn't been sympathetic and open-minded, he wouldn't have been able to attend school in the first place. There is also the treatment of werewolves by the ministry - the shunting of the registry departments between Being and Beast status, and the fact that there is legislation limiting their freedoms as compared to "normal" witches and wizards.

Just because Lupin was lucky to have an ally in Dumbledore does not mean that no discrimination was present. Before the Civil Rights Movement, there were some African-American people who held good jobs, made decent money, and there were non-African-Americans who did not personally discriminate against them. So by your logic, that means African-Americans were not discriminated against. And that's rather ridiculous.

If Joe is homosexual but doesn't disclose this information to anyone and people voice opinions about hating (or fearing) homosexuals, a person says he won't hire someone who's homosexual, that homosexuals can't serve in the military, or will be shunned by their church... is that not discrimination even though Joe hasn't told anyone about his homosexuality?

So lying to get a job is preferable?

By your statements, Dumbledore is just as guilty/bad as Lupin because he knew Draco was up to something - and watched as several students were injured by him (Ron, Katie) and did nothing to stop him. Fred, George, and later Harry, Hermione and Ron also knew of the passage from the school to Honeydukes but didn't tell anyone about it either.

As an aside, I don't know where you're getting the idea that Hufflepuff has students of predominantly Muggle background. Susan Bones, Ernie McMillan, Cedric Diggory are all purebloods. The muggle-background student that we know of is Justin, who was Muggleborn. We don't know about Hannah. And in that same sense, in Gryffindor, Dean and Hermione and the Creevy brothers are Muggleborn, Seamus and Harry are half-bloods. Neville and the Weasleys are purebloods but we don't really know anything about the others.

Look, nobody is telling you to like Lupin, but your arguments are so beyond biased that your post is not an essay, it's a rant. If you're just ranting, fine. But if you want people to debate with you intelligently without it deteriorating into wank, you're going to have to lose the "poor Sevvie is so misunderstood" attitude and make your arguments more objective.

[julian_black]

SO WHERE WAS THE DISCRIMINATION THEN?

I recommend laying off on the capslock. It makes you look like you are shouting, and does nothing to strengthen your arguments.

That said, the discrimination Remus faced was obvious simply by the fact that he had to keep his lycanthropy a secret from the staff, students, and board of governors of Hogwarts while he was there. If there was no discrimination against werewolves, there would have been no need to keep it a secret, nor would he have been left with no choice but to leave when it was discovered.

1. NOTHING excuses his actions during his school years.

Are you this harshly judgmental against people you know? Human beings do make mistakes--often terrible ones. Sometimes they make those mistakes out of fear, not out of malice. Were Remus' actions as a teenager totally excusable? No. Are they understandable, given his circumstances? Yes.

**Does Lupin deserve the romantic image shown in the books?

We must not be reading the same books. Because nowhere in the Harry Potter series is Remus Lupin presented as a romanticized figure. Harry may be willing to overlook his flaws, but they are glaringly obvious nonetheless.

Does his actions deserve your complete justification?

No, but they don't require it any more than they deserve our complete condemnation.