*hugs Remus*
So, I'm totally not understanding all the moral outrage directed at characters in this book.
I never really understand moral outrage directed at fictional characters. For me, if a character doesn't have bad points, isn't utterly deficient in some deeply important way, then they're not a particularly well-realised character. Because if they're overwhelmingly and objectively good (or bad) it usually means that the author hasn't done a particularly good job of making them human and giving them enough credit to be a complex and realistic creation.
Srsly. Lupin, in particular, has apparently Violated A Particularly Important Rule Of Good Characters by daring to be weak enough and avoidant enough to want to run off from his wife and kid (which, face it, were thrust upon him - yes, by his own fault, admittedly - but at a traumatic moment and in a very short space of time) and be reckless and stupid when he probably shouldn't be.
Yes, he was being an arse. Of course he was.
But seriously, I'm not seeing how anyone could be at all surprised about it.
I mean, this is what I adore about Lupin. He's always been weak, unbelievably avoidant, passive aggressive, unable to admit his true motivations even to himself, and self-pitying, with a martyr complex thrown in just for fun. So much so that his best friends in the world thought he had sold them all out to Voldemort.
I mean, in PoA, he turned a blind eye to the fact that he knew that Sirius (who he thought to be a murderer after Harry) had any number of ways into the castle and a foolproof method of disguise, just because he didn't want Dumbledore to be disappointed in him. To me, this comes a lot closer to making him irredeemable than giving in to his self-pitying impulses about being an outcast and making his wife and kid an outcast (which, given the political climate, could have been a justified fear... just sayin').
But I suppose I don't have those particular daddy issues, so maybe it's not as much of a sore spot for me as it is for some people.
But all that aside, these sorts of things are what make him human. He's flawed, and stupid and self-absorbed in so many ways, and he wallows (especially in the last two books, he spends a lot of time wallowing in his own self-pity). He's a fucking emo at times. But that's part of what makes him him. He's so obsessed with repressing that werewolf part of himself, keeping it hidden and locked away with this deliberate, controlled civility that he tries to pass off as humanity. He knows what it is to be hated, and frankly it's no wonder he's so willing to lie at the drop of a hat and avoid unpleasant truths in the name of being liked. He's bitter about his lot in life, and in book 6 he's wallowing in misery about having to go off with the werewolves that represent everything he hates about himself.
Yes, he can be an arse.
But you know what? He also has good points. Lots of them. He tries, he really tries to be as good as he can (he's just... not that good at it, is all). But he wants to be good, wants to fight Voldemort - he's lost everyone to this fight, so he understands just how important it is, and in the end he does do the right thing (and dies off-screen because of it, which I still think is unfair). And he does care, underneath it all. He really does.
Maybe it's just that I adore flawed characters because they're flawed, but I'm just not seeing why this makes him an irredeemable bastard.
It just seems that large parts of fandom have a few hot button issues that make a character Suddenly Irredeemable, and if they dare to violate one of these Golden Rules, then they don't deserve to be seen as anything more than two dimensional pricks who were never any better than their worst moment, despite what we thought at the time.
It's funny, though, because these sorts of judgements rarely seem to extend to things that are generally considered objectively wrong, like murder, for example, or (in a HP context) joining the Death Eaters. Characters that do these things get to wear the Bad Guy hat, and get their own club of people who Sympathise with their misunderstood ways. Which is fine. Instead, these sorts of absolute moral judgements tend to focus on the more prosaic, more day-to-day topics like bullying (Snape's treatment of Neville comes to mind), gender politics (for example female characters who 'let down' their gender in some way) and family responsibility (or rather the lack thereof). I get that these are sensitive issues to people, and might even be deal breakers for their ability to empathise with a particular character, but sometimes it just reeks of over-projecting your own issues onto a convenient character.
I don't know. I just don't relish the idea of having to defend Lupin for the next however many years I want to stay in this fandom, because I'm not sure he needs defending. I like that he's weak and avoidant and passive aggressive, and I can't defend that in any absolute moral sense. It doesn't need defending. He's a fictional character. His flaws work for him, they make him interesting, and that's what I adore more than anything else about him.