Sirius Black Sheep
Happy birthday millefioriI was reading a thread on HP4GU today--naturally a long-running thread that I think started with the question of Dumbledore's placing Harry with the Dursleys and it echoed Sirius' life in a weird way for me, in a Meta-way. It started as a conversation about just what business it was of Dumbledore's to decide who Harry lived with.
( Read more... )
Some people are victimized by their times much worse than others, particularly when their families leave them without any meaningful guidance. It leaves them more vulnerable to the trends of the times, charlatans, cult leaders, etc. I think Sirius came out better than his brother because he didn't end up a deatheater or some other type of cult. Sirius tried to do the right thing, whether he succeeded or not, and I define trying to do the right thing as coming out well. Regulus DID get one of the horcruxes. He might not have gotten them all, but neither did the greatest wizard of his age. The only one who got off scott-free destroying a horcrux was Harry Potter. As for Sirius's death, he distracted Bellatrix from Harry to save his life, and he accomplished that at the cost of his own. Prior to that, he did a lot to make Harry's life better, even on the run just by listening and understanding even as a big brother type. GoF showed Sirius at his best. A lot of his life is futile through circumstances beyond his control, but I think he did the best he could by Harry, and it helped a great deal. It's not as grand as he could have done if he'd gotten a fair trial, and been free, but he did more than any of the rest of them would have done.
Well, you didn't mean "he never grew up" as an insult, but a lot of people do mean it that way, so I did react to that as well. We misunderstood each other there.
Dumbledore says that it's our own choices that define us, and I believe it's true to a certain extent, especially for those in the US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, etc; but we're all kidding ourselves if we don't think that our society has more to do with defining us than we do.
My philosophy is that what you do with the hand you're dealt by your family, society, friends, government, religion, etc. shows who and what you're striving to be and are, but the dealers of your cards shaped you as much as the cards you were dealt and your choices of how to play them.
For example: It's an accident of birth that I'm a college-educated, middleclass American woman with her own comfortable home instead of a dirt poor, illiterate, superstitious, starving woman living in a third world country in a cardboard and tinroofed shack with effluvia running all around it, and in my drinking water. That would certainly have made me an entirely different person, and I certainly wouldn't have chosen that life.
Certainly, JKR's books don't prove that our choices make us what we are. If anything, she seems to say it's our mothers. Lily's sacrifice made Harry what he is. (He's kinder than what would be expected from being raised by the Dursley) So did the Dursley's shabby treatment of him (he doesn't trust adults easily, is more anxious and less self-confident thanks to them.) Petunia's (and Vernon's) spoiling Dudley made him what he is. Molly's treatment of each of her children seems to shape them a great deal more than anything they chose themselves, except for perhaps, Percy. Her books give mixed messages.
Reply
That's interesting--just because I took that comment in a positive way, myself. I think of Sirius as "crashing stupid" in ways that describe his circumstances--like things crash around him in ways that make things seem so futile. Like he goes after Peter and winds up in jail himself--not because he himself was so stupid but just that he winds up taking the fall. But the flying high part was important too--the guy actually did some amazing things, grown-up or no. He survived in Azkaban, broke out, hunted Peter down, remained true to his friend James, lived on the run on rats to be near Harry.
I guess the interesting thing about both Sirius and Regulus is they both should ultimately be defined by the things they put their mind to and did, even if they both wound up dying in ways that seemed non-dramatic.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Crashing is a verb, so that's why I thought that it was referring to something he did. Stupid is a loaded modifier(which to me signified the manner in which he did that something), and always has signified an insult where I come from, and I'm especially sensitive to that due to having done work with people who have mental retardation and similar issues.
PLEASE, PLEASE NOTE: I now accept that you weren't using the expression "crashing stupid" as an insult, and that it's simply an idiosyncratic phrasing or an idiomatic expression with which I'm not familiar, and that confused the issue for me. It's no one's fault we misunderstood each other, especially considering we don't know each other. Okay? Now that I DO understand what you were trying to say with the "crashing stupid" phrase, I agree with you totally, so please don't feel you have to keep convincing me of it! LOLOLOL!
As far as saying idiotic instead of tragic, I've always heard that humor is tragedy with its pants pulled off, and hung upside down, much like Severus Snape. I've got a healthy dose of dark humor myself. I suppose whether you view someone as tragic or ridiculous is down to if you want to distance yourself or get closer to the person. Both approaches can be valid.
Okay, you love Sirius. It would've been okay if you didn't. I'm also friendly with people who don't, & we keep each other honest. I defended Sirius; I didn't attack you. If I see something someone says I disagree with, I'll always explain my POV completely, and expect the same from someone who disagrees with me. That's the best way for me to learn, and to come to an agreement and/ or understanding with someone else. I always learn something, such as colorful new expressions. ;-D
As far as whether it's a choice to lose your mind or not: I understand what you're saying, and what Rowling's saying. I used to think that way. I've just seen so many horrible things happen over the last two years to people I love that I'm questioning everything.
Some mental illnesses are simply a matter of wonky brain chemistry. Wonky <===technical, scientific term. Bipolar disease and depression, for example. Hormones and nutrients play their role in depression. Brain structure abnormality is implicated in schizophrenia as well as brain chemical imbalance. I went mad for two days due to a food allergy!
Here are just two personal examples that demonstrate more strongly what I mean. I have a relative who was brilliant at just about anything she tried. (I love and admire her immensely.) During her late middle age, she got a horrible incurable disease that is slowly destroying her brain, and with it, her ability to reason, or distinguish the real world from fantasy. She simply does not have the capacity to choose to lose her mind. Her body made that choice, and nothing she has tried to the utmost of her ability has made a difference. There is no hope but death before something worse happens.
Just a few months ago this year, my brilliant and talented husband went insane due to a horrendous illness that ultimately killed him. Was insanity his choice of coping devices? Perhaps. Could have been shock of having all of the systems of his body under attack simultaneously, the wrong cocktail of narcotics, the process of dying, who knows? Everyone that knew him, knew that my husband was one of the most determined, optimistic, goal-oriented, self-disciplined people you could ever meet. It shocked us all how much he'd been doing with all the damage to all of his organs. Yet, misdiagnosis and a weak body destroyed his mind, despite all the efforts we made years before the fact to convince all of his many clueless doctors to just see something was seriously wrong, and begging for further examination and treatment.
It's scary how little control you have, really, and how much we all take for granted.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
If we'd been able to get past the initial misunderstanding, our discussion would have helped me filter other posts you made through my new understanding, and made my comments more relevant. We could have discussed future topics more meaningfully, instead of discussing whether I attacked you, or not. Even if we had understood each other totally, I would have been interested to know why you thought what you thought. That's just me.
I'm sorry that I foisted a type of discussion upon you that you found distasteful. That was not my intention. Sometimes I change my mind about things from what I learn, or I find out I misunderstood. I'd rather disagree, and find out from the source what's what than write someone off as someone not worth talking to because I disagree or don't realize I've misinterpreted them. Again, that's just me.
I don't think people are highly biased/or illogical because they interpret the facts of a character's life differently from someone else, or think that these facts shaped a character and made him less than he could have been, or more. I think people can and do rise above their circumstances with no noticeable problems from a bad situation, but those people are news stories because it's unusual. I think most people come out scarred, even if they overcome part of the problems living in bad circumstances caused, and flail around trying to find an internal compass that works for them. It's something that people who've been mentored positively in their lives by many people take for granted. I'm not saying that someone shouldn't be punished if they commit a crime if they came from bad circumstances. It ought to be taken in account when trying to rehabilitate them. I won't go on.
Yes, I know you said strength of mind. Here's what I meant. No one would think because some extraordinarily strong people can dead-lift 750 pounds that we could all do it. Why should mental strength be any different?
Thank you for your kind comments on my RL. And yes, I did and do understand what your point was. I understand it because my husband was Mr. Internal Control and the poster child for believing that positive thinking makes it possible to endure all things. He lived it. He advocated it. He tried to teach it whenever possible. The strain of keeping up the "I can conquer anything with my attitude" mentality with an excruciatingly painful cocktail of diseases (plural) that had a zero percent chance of recovery made him insane IMO. I often wondered if the positive attitude that made him so talented and accomplished was a double-edged sword that made him ignore and hide the true depths of his physical pain and suffering until they were horrific. The mind is such a strange thing. I don't have any answers, but dealing with all sorts of loved ones and friends with problems that have attacked their brains from injuries, diseases, stress, you name it, I'm trying to figure out what can you reasonably expect?
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
"I really do appreciate the concept of coming to an understanding... and you've made me seriously consider my stance with the '750lbs weight lifting' analogy. I think what one can 'reasonably expect' in general in life differs with the person doing the expecting, because expectations of emotional things are by nature not the most reasonable; I'm an idealist and a bit of a demanding one, so in some ways I have to face the fact that I always ask more of people in general than they can realistically give."
****************Oh, I'm glad to hear the 750 lb analogy made you reconsider your stance. Your dad sounds remarkably strong. Maybe he was in the mental 750 weightlifter category, and that was his talent. Sounds like you might have that enviable talent too.
Science knows very little about the human brain, but there's evidence that traits such as extroversion and introversion are innate, and I suspect a certain amount of emotional stability is too...not all, you note I said. It also depends on whether what you depend on to sustain you is 'portable'. I mean, if your life is built on doing one thing, and it's your solace, your support, your distraction, your mission, your source of self-esteem, etc, and you can't do it once you get sick...well, you can see how things could blow up. It was another factor in what happened to my husband, as well as his body chemistry being shot to hell.
By mentoring, I mean inspiration, guidance, and support given by concerned and competent adults; such as relatives, teachers, scout leaders, counselors, people in support groups, religion, etc., not just parents. I don't think mentors are easily found because people are busy with their own lives, or are doing well just to deal with their own problems without cracking.
" I just think it's -possible- to overcome."
***********Sounds like you need to write a book about all those ways, and share what worked for the strong people you knew/know.
"I think Sirius is an example of someone who overcame and didn't both at the same time-- which is pretty human, really. "
Yes, I think you're right about Sirius, and that's what makes him so interesting.
Reply
Molly Weasley taught Percy that doing what you're told is the way to earn praise and admiration, and ultimately, to succeed. She taught him to prize success in the most traditional venues -- climbing the ladders of authority positions in school and with a government job. We don't directly see it, but Molly seems to be very much a fan of traditional authority; I imagine that through GoF, she would definitely have taught him to respect and obey the Ministry. On the other side, and possibly more importantly, Molly Weasley taught Fred, George, Ron, and Ginny that Percy was better than they were. She taught them that what he was, they should be. She taught them that he was separate from them. And with each lesson, they liked their big brother less and less, and in turn, they taught Percy over and over that he was NOT part of their Happy Family.
I agree completely that Molly's treatment of her "remaining" kids has shaped each of them, but Percy is *exactly* what she wanted her kids to be, except for that little detail of being completely estranged from the rest of the family. While that can't be laid entirely at Molly's door, a big part of it is that Percy was estranged from part of his family long before he moved out, and that was deepened, if not actually caused, by Molly's treatment of all her kids.
Reply
I think Wallburga created a similar dynamic between Sirius (the never good enough son) and Regulus (the Perfect Slytherin), only far worse because Wallburga doesn't try to be a decent human being to most people from what we see of her from her portrait self, and Molly despite her human failings, most certainly does her level best. The difference: both sons ultimately felt estranged from their family's twisted values.
Wallburga Black reminds me strongly of Petunia, except Petunia seems nicer. (Harry doesn't feel as much venom toward Petunia as Sirius does toward his mother, so she must have been horrible, especially when his perception is combined with that Awful Portrait's bleatings.) Makes me wonder if Dudley will ultimately reject them and their values as much as Regulus did his mother's because he'll find out his mom was wrong about everything, and he's not prepared to survive in the real world. Of course, the Dursleys are meant to be satirical so perhaps we won't see that. Would be interesting.
Reply
Leave a comment