Harry has TWO parents

Thu Jan 30 22:05:18 UTC 2003

No: HPFGUIDX 51167

Pip!Squeak:
>Harry is not just his father's son. This is a misleading impression; 
>possibly deliberate. It's given by the concentration of the first 
>three books on Harry's dead *father*. <snip> I suspect, that while 
>Harry *looks* like James, and likes to think of himself as like 
>James, inside he is much more like his mother.

Me: 
Yes of course, Pip. Harry is Lily's son too. That doesn't
make him any less his *father's* son either! <g>. For Harry to
haveLily's qualities and for us to appreciate that doesn't
imply
that Jameshas to have the *wrong* qualities. See, while I agree that 
James may not be the totally golden boy Harry fantasizes him as 
being, I see no call to paint his faults in the extreme.

Pip:
>Did James save Snape by his own choice? Lupin describes him as 
>having 'heard what Sirius had done' [PoA Ch. 18 p.261] which implies 
>he didn't hear it directly from Sirius. Was Lily so shocked at what 
>Sirius had done that James suddenly found himself seeing their games 
>with Lupin in a completely different light? Realising for the first 
>time that somebody could get *killed*?
>Are we going to find out that in the Lily/James partnership, it was 
>*Lily* who was the pure moral core?

Oh Pip! In your eagerness to show positive attributes in Lily, you 
needlessly slander James. J There is no cannon backing whatsoever to 
imply that James was lacking in judgment. Why should it be Lily who 
is first horrified upon hearing about the prank? James was a 
respected student, if mischievous. He was to be Headboy, in a school 
that awards points for, and values, character. Surely he had the 
sense to react to putting a person's life in direct danger? Why
does Lily have to be "the pure moral core"? Couldn't
James and Lily have shared moral values? Why couldn't Lily have
been 
mischievous too? Please, don't let her be a purer-than-thou
angel!!

Pip:
>Harry's disregard of rules can be for trivial reasons (Hogsmead, 
>PoA) as well as more serious reasons (saving the Stone, PS/SS). 
<snip>
>James's rule breaking wasn't minor, or justifiable. James and the 
>MWPP encouraged Lupin to escape from the secure isolation that was 
>needed to protect others. They not only got Lupin out of the Shack, 
>in a state where he had no control over himself, but they took him 
>INTO HOGSMEAD AND THE SCHOOL GROUNDS. [PoA Ch. p.260 Ch.18]. They 
>took him into places where there were other human beings, human 
>beings that he would (in werewolf state) have wanted to kill.

Me: 
Yes, that's horrifying isn't it? But I don't think they
stopped to consider the consequences. People could have died, yes. 
But so could Ron and Hermione when Harry went into Hogsmeade without 
thinking of the consequences. Only now would it dawn on him (after 
Cedric and "Kill the spare") that those with him are even more
vulnerable to danger than he is. If Black had really been a dark 
wizard intent on killing Harry, he would have gone *through* Ron and 
Hermoine. Was putting them in that danger justified? Was that minor? 
People could have *died*!! 

Pip again:
>And James's arrogance? Again, JKR chooses to have the *big* result 
>of James's arrogance presented by Snape at his most 
>unsympathetic. "You'd have died like your father, too arrogant to 
>believe you might be mistaken..." [PoA Ch.19 p.265]. James, being 
>told that Dumbledore suspected a traitor, insisted that Sirius Black 
>would never betray him. James, having been told that Dumbledore was 
>so worried he himself was willing to act as Secret Keeper, agreed to 
>let the Secret Keeper be Peter Pettigrew.
>James trusted his own judgement so highly that he chose to trust his 
>friend Peter Pettigrew over Albus Dumbledore.
>And so James and Lily are dead. Harry is an orphan. Because James 
>Potter was to arrogant to believe he might possibly make a mistake. 
>To arrogant to believe, in an age where no one knew who to trust 
(See Sirius's description of the times in Ch. 27 GoF, p. 457) that 
>*his* friends could possibly betray *him*.

Me:
Was that arrogance? In an age where on one knew who to trust, he had 
to make certain choices. Did James doubt Dumbledore? Did he doubt his 
friends? Who knows?
What would Harry do in such circumstances? Doubt Hermione and Ron 
when things got really bad? Wouldn't he intentionally give the
role to one of his closest friends as a gesture of good faith? That 
this faith was betrayed was Peter's fault – not James. 

I can so picture this, from your own words..
Harry, being told that DD suspected a traitor, insisted that Hermione 
would never betray him. Harry, having been told that Dumbledore was 
so worried he himself was willing to act as Secret Keeper, agreed to 
let the Secret Keeper be Ronald Weasley/ Rubeus Hagrid.
Harry trusted his own judgement so highly that he chose to trust his 
friend over Albus Dumbledore.

That's why you have close friends. If you can't have faith in
them, or you keep doubting them, the friendship is doomed. James was 
willing to trust his friends with his life..that should be a good 
thing.

Pip:
>And which part of his parents will be dominant in Harry? His 
>father's 'I know best' style of rulebreaking, as Snape fears? His 
>mother's willingness to die for someone else?

Me:
I think "Harry" will be the most dominant in Harry. After
all, its our choices and not our abilities that count. Besides, James 
did give his life for his family.

Nothing personal, Pip...just felt very sorry for James after reading 
your post! ;-)

Errol