Harry has TWO parents

[bluesqueak <pipdowns@etchells0.demon.co.uk>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51187

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "errolowl 
<nithya_rachel at h...>" <nithya_rachel at h...> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> have Lily's qualities and for us to appreciate that doesn't
> imply
> that James has 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.

Oh, dear! 
You might find Elkins' post 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/50445
interesting. She describes the type of polemic I was and am using. 

> 
> 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?
> 
Errol Owl:
> 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. 

Sorry, but you did read my post, didn't you? ;-) Or are you 
using 'judgement' in a different sense, or did you mean to 
say 'moral judgement'?

James was lacking in 'judgement'. That's canon. Picking Peter 
Pettigrew as the one to trust over Albus Dumbledore (canon) is bad 
judgement. Ok, that one could be argued as being IMO, but allowing a 
human-mind-gone-walkies werewolf to play around in a village street 
at night (canon) is *seriously* bad judgement by any standards. 

>Why should it be Lily who 
> is first horrified upon hearing about the prank? 

Why shouldn't it be? James didn't hear about the prank from Sirius. 
That's implied by canon. The next question is: why is canon implying 
this? Surely the *easiest* route for James to find out about the 
prank is from his best friend Sirius?

> 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"? 

I don't know whether or not James had the sense to react to putting 
a person's life in direct danger. I do know that James's best friend 
didn't have the sense to *not* put a person's life in direct danger. 
Further, nearly twenty years later he's still insisting that Snape 
deserved to become a moonlight snack.

And before the Prank, James and Sirius were bouncing about on 
moonlit nights with their friend Lupin. Having what Lupin 
calls 'near misses' where he nearly bit people. Which, apparently, 
they laughed about afterwards. [It's in PoA, Ch. 18, p. 260]. Which 
doesn't show either good sense OR evidence of good moral judgement.

If Snape had found himself having a 'near miss' would James, Sirius, 
Lupin and Peter have laughed? The evidence canon presents is that 
they would have done so. Is it an unreasonable question to ask 
precisely *why* this incident is so different? 

The only different things appears to be that a)there are no other 
marauders around to stop Lupin and b) James has learnt about this 
from someone other than Sirius. 

I'm presenting you with a theory that it is b), not a) that was 
important, and the 'someone' was Lily.

> James was a 
> respected student, if mischievous. He was to be Headboy, in a 
> school that awards points for, and values, character. <Snip> 

Yes, you're right. James was Head Boy. As, fifty years earlier, was 
Tom Riddle. As, two books ago, was Percy Weasley. Admittedly, James 
may belong to the 'Cedric Diggory' school of things [brave, but 
dead], but being Head Boy doesn't necessarily point to a shining 
moral character.

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!!

Alas, you are fighting against a world where names have meaning. 
Where a werewolf is called 'Remus Lupin'. Where an idolised fake is 
called 'Gilderoy Lockhart'. And where a resentful sister is called 
Petunia. 'Lily', in the language of flowers, means 'pure'.

> 
> Pip:
<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: (ErrolOwl)
> 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*!! 

Harry put himself in danger when going into Hogsmeade. He also 
accidentally put other people in danger. He wasn't thinking of the 
consequences, and didn't realise he could have died. It is canon 
that when he realised what he'd done, he felt bad about it.

Werewolves are only dangerous to humans [canon, again]. The MWPP in 
animagi form were in no danger whatsoever from Lupin [that's why 
they became animagi]. *They* put insomniac villagers, straying 
schoolkids, and patrolling gamekeepers in danger.

Whilst remaining perfectly safe themselves.

Didn't stop to consider the consequences? It took them the best part 
of - what, a couple of days? A sudden impulse [like Harry's original 
Hogsmeade trip]? 

Nope, it took [more canon] the best part of *three years* to become 
animagi [p.259]. To make themselves safe from Lupin. 

Three years in which you might think it would occur to them that 
whilst keeping company with Lupin was a nice thought, staying in the 
Shack might have been an even nicer thought. Especially for the 
majority of the population, who *can't* manage the animagi 
transformation.

> 
> 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: (ErrolOwl)
> Was that arrogance? In an age where noone knew who to trust, he 
> had to make certain choices. Did James doubt Dumbledore? Did he 
> doubt his friends? Who knows?

Nobody. But what we do know is that James was *told* there were 
suspicions of a traitor in his close circle. And that Sirius Black 
suddenly decided to switch the Secret Keeper, which still makes me 
wonder about him, and should certainly have given James pause for 
thought.

The other thing we know is that James was risking the lives of his 
wife and baby on the faithfulness of *his* friends. Did he have the 
right to do that? When he'd been *told* that there were suspicions 
of a traitor?
 
> 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? 

I bloomin' well hope not! He really will take after his father if he 
does that!

> That this faith was betrayed was Peter's fault – not James. 

Peter is responsible for his own treachery, yes.
> 
> 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.

And Harry would be an idiot who has learnt nothing from the past 
four years.

What Harry *should* have learnt is that people are not what they 
seem, that close families don't necessarily trust their own brother 
not to betray them (Ron and Percy, anyone?), that his father was 
betrayed by a friend, that adults he trusts can prove to be deadly 
enemies. 

(And that adults he hates will risk their lives to save him. But he 
doesn't seem to have registered that one yet.)

Oh, and that his judgement is actually pretty crappy; so far Harry 
has yet to pick the right villain.


> ErrolOwl
> 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.

Let me see. James, dead. Lily, dead.
House, in rubble.
Black, framed and banged up in Azkaban.
Lupin, thinking his closest friend was a traitor.
Harry, having to live with the Dursley's.

No, I don't think James's willingness to trust his friends with his 
life *was* a good thing. [grin] A little healthy suspicion would 
have worked wonders.

> 
<Snip>
ErrolOwl:
>  Besides, 
> James did give his life for his family.

And so he should, after personally hand picking Voldemort's agent as 
Secret Keeper. In those circumstances volunteering to be the rear 
guard is the *least* you can do [grin].

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


;-) I'll let you into a secret. ;-)

James isn't real. He's a character in a book. You don't *need* to 
feel sorry for him.

But shhhh! Don't tell the rest of the list. My reputation for 
treating-characters-as-if-they-were-real and only-considering-things-
from-an-internal-viewpoint will be *ruined*.

Pip!Squeak