Who told James about the Prank? WAS: Re: Harry HAS Two Parents

[ssk7882 <skelkins@attbi.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51311

Who tipped James off about the Prank?

Pip suggests that it might have been Lily.

Derannmier agrees:

> Well, really, when you think about it, who *else* could it have 
> been?
> 
> Sirius? Obviously not, since James heard from someone else.
>
> Lupin? He wasn't even *in* on it. 
>
> Peter? 
> 
> *Long pause.* 
> 
>Hmmm. 

Yes.  Peter.

I'm with Eileen here.  My money's on Peter.

> No, I really don't think so. I'm trying to imagine Sirius 
> telling him, and I'm not sure that I see why he would.  If 
> Prank (Derannimer keeps a watchful eye on the gamboling 
> creature down at the other end of the beach) was an act of 
> impulse, and *not* a plan, then I don't really think he'd 
> tell anyone. Why bother? 

Because he was a thoughtless teenager who hadn't really considered
the ramifications?  And because he thought it was funny.

Same reason that when I was in high school, I ended up having to
break into the school gymnasium in the middle of the night to 
retrieve the *bomb* that a friend of mine had planted to go off
in the middle of a student election debate -- somehow not realizing 
when he'd done this that somebody could really get *hurt.*  
("But it's not going to really EXPLODE explode.  It's just going
to...")

Because sometimes even ordinarily intelligent people can do 
things so *unbelievably* stupid and thoughtless and dangerous 
and deranged and criminally negligent that it can make your brain 
spin right around in your skull-pan.

> And if it *was* a plan, then why would he tell *Peter?*

Because part of the social function of the guy in the group of 
friends who isn't *quite* in the same league as everyone else 
is to serve as admiring audience to tales of the others' exploits.

Sirius, James and Lily *trusted* Peter, remember.  They suspected 
Lupin, but they trusted Peter with their lives.  Even though they 
(or at least Sirius) thought that he was weak.  Why?  

I imagine that it was in part because they considered loyalty to
be one of his most striking characteristics.  The person who serves
as Admiring Audience to tales of others' amazing exploits is often
viewed that way.  It's a tragically easy mistake to make, which is 
part of why sycophants are traditionally cast as traitors and 
backstabbers.  They're well-positioned to play that role.

I don't find it at all inconceivable that Sirius would have
told Peter that he'd just sent Snape down the tunnel.  I don't
find it at all inconceivable that Peter, who does seem to be 
prone to seeing the more pessimistic possibilities inherent 
in any given situation ("He was taking over everywhere!" 
"You're going to kill me too?"), might have twigged to the 
godawful potential ramifications of this action long before 
Sirius would have.  And I don't find it at all inconceivable 
that he would have then gone and told James all about it.  
Isn't that what Peter does?  He's a *rat,* isn't he?  A 
tale-teller?  A betrayer of secrets?  And someone who looks to 
those he perceives as more powerful than he is to resolve 
problems for him.

> Anyway, I really don't see why he would have told Peter. 
> And also, who *cares* if it was Peter that tipped James 
> off? Where's the Bang in that? 

The main reason that I am convinced that it must have been Peter 
isn't one of Bang, per se, but of thematic consistency.

This relies on the supposition that part of the whole *point* of the 
Prank in the story is to serve as a kind of showcase for the self-
sabotaging behavior patterns of the characters of Harry's parents' 
generation, those roles which it is Harry's job to help them to 
surmount, just as on the broader scale it is Harry's job to help the 
entire wizarding world to correct the errors and heal the wounds of 
the past.

When I look at Shrieking Shack, I see a group of characters engaging 
in precisely the same behavior patterns that they did thirteen years 
before -- behavior patterns that indeed seem to be their own personal 
Nemeses, behavior patterns that throughout the book, they seem to 
keep imposing on *themselves,* almost as if they are unwilling to 
make the leap of maturity necessary to overcome them.

Remus Lupin -- Dangerous Monster
Sirius Black -- Vengeful Killer
Severus Snape -- Thwarted Villain

Sirius, thanks in part to Harry's intercession, breaks free of his 
script at the end of PoA.  Remus (with his forgetfulness about his 
Wolfsbane Potion) and Severus (with his...er...entire *thing,* 
really) are still sabotaging themselves and so remain trapped.

So.  One down.  ;->

Here, I refer back to a very ancient post of Pip's.

Pip:

> I have a little theory . . . . that all the Marauders had some 
> basic character flaw, and that one of the effects Harry is having 
> is to make them face that and overcome it.

If we accept this as a supposition and then look to the Prank as its
dramatic illustration, then it seems to me that Peter *must* be
revealed to have had some role to play in the Prank.

As it does seem to me that Peter's primary failing is his lack
of loyalty, a scenario in which Peter was loyal to *no one* in 
regard to the Prank makes a good deal of structural sense. 

Personally, I don't think that Sirius told Peter about sending
Snape down to meet Lupin after the fact.  I suspect that Peter 
aided Sirius in the Prank in the first place.

And *then* went running to James.  


Elkins