Babbling newbie (death of L&J, Rule-breaking, Ron, Peeves...)

[Kimberly]

No: HPFGUIDX 5573

Hi all~
I'm new to the group, and only ever intended to lurk and enjoy all 
your great observations and analysis.

I have enjoyed all of that immensely, except when you were all making 
me cry discussing who was going to die, but I find that all of this HP 
stimulation has made my fingers itchy to respond.

There were a few things that I wanted to touch on, so let me see if I 
can stay coherent:

-Did someone find a reason to think that Voldemort didn't kill James, 
that someone else did?  Because I just reread SS/PS and am pretty sure 
that He tells Harry during their confrontation that he did kill James 
himself (and that he said he killed him before Lily).  Was wondering 
about that.
  -Also along those same lines I wanted to toss out my theory for the 
person who wondered why James' death didn't protect Lily the way 
Lily's death protected Harry.  I think maybe it's because James didn't 
die solely to protect them.  I don't know why V wanted to kill James, 
exactly, but I had inferred that it was because James had set himself 
against V and his cause in some substantial way.  In this light, James 
was dying as much for a cause (the 'resistance' for lack of a better 
term) as to protect his family.  He may, in fact, have believed that 
Voldemort would not hurt his family, unless he knew what we don't, 
which is why originally V wanted Harry dead.  This would be supported 
also by V's words to Harry in their first confrontation, when he tells 
him that his mother need not have died.
Just a thought.

-I also had a thought about the glorification of rulebreaking thread.  
I don't think she's encouraging kids/people to break the rules.  I 
think it's an indictment of unreasonable/unnecessary reliance on 
rules.  Society uses rules to keep order.  Unfortunately, it often 
degenerates to the point that rules are relied upon for the 
functioning of society (ie beaurocracy).  In this vein, rules that 
were designed to go along with the development of moral/ethical 
decision-making often become the replacements for these things, and 
(again like with beaurocratic rules designed to make things better 
that inevitably make things worse) do more harm than good.
The supreme example of what I think she intended would be in the 
Bible.  Jesus was constantly getting into trouble with the Pharisees 
for 'breaking rules' by healing people on the sabbath, interacting 
with 'unclean' people, and 'forgiving' sins, which was considered 
blasphemy.  The writers of the Bible were not glorifying 
rule-breaking, they were pointing out the inherent problems with 
applying rules without using compassion and discernment as guidelines.
(note - not intended to make HP/Bible paralells, just a useful 
example)

-On a lighter note, let me just say Yay Gwen! to the other newbie who  
had such an eloquent defense of Ron.  My inner child is in love with 
Ron (I had to wrestle her to the ground to keep her from picking a 
fight with the anti-Ron posters earlier on), and while I wouldn't be 
surprised if Ron were tempted by the 'dark side', I know in my heart 
that when push comes to shove Ron will, as he has done in the past, 
risk his life for his friends, and for the greater good. 
This said, I do have a question - one person mentioned that Ron was 
susceptible to the Imperius Curse.  I also recall that he was more 
influenced by the veela than Harry.  But at the same time he was not 
as susceptible to the mirror of Erised as Harry.   What do you think 
about that?  Seems interesting, but I don't know what it implies.

-One last question - this is in regards to the possibility that 
someone mentioned that Peeves is somehow a part of Dumbledore's 
personality.  I find that thought intriguing.  How would you (or would 
you at all) explain the connection between Peeves and the Bloody 
Baron?

Sorry for my long ramblings.  I promise to try to be less verbose from 
now on.
Thanks for your time,
kimberly (newbie)