Case for Marauders (was Re: Marauders, Voldemort and the Map)

[romulusmmcdougal]

No: HPFGUIDX 109681

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" <nrenka at y...> 
wrote:

Nora:
> <quote>
> 
> "No good sittin' worryin' abou' it," Hagrid said. "What's comin' 
> will come, an we'll meet it when it does. Dumbledore told me wha' 
> you did, Harry."
> 
> Hagrid's chest swelled as he looked at Harry.
> 
> "Yeh did as much as yer father would've done, an' I can' give yeh
no 
> higher praise than that."
> 
> </quote>
> 
> Hagrid is testifying to the general quality of James' character, 
> which I cannot quite see him doing even if James were the kind of 
> convert you would like to have him as.

RMM:
"kind of convert"?  Apparently you're not reading what I am typing.

Nora:
> Ummm, I don't follow this logic.  James Potter wants to learn the 
> Dark Arts so he can one-up Snape?  Maybe I'm over-reading, but I 
> always read that nasty line "Because he exists" as, IN 
> PART, "Because he's into these things which I detest and that makes 
> him a bad person and worthy of torment".  I can't see James Potter 
> doing anything that makes him more like Snape.

RMM: 
Interesting thought, but I don't think your idea fits with the scene:
<<'Well,' said James, appearing to deliberate the point, 'it's more 
the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean...' Many of the 
surrounding students laughed, Sirius and Wormtail included, but
Lupin, 
still apparently intent on his book, didn't, and nor did Lily. 'You 
think you're funny,' she said coldly. 'But you're just an
arrogant, bullying toerag, Potter. Leave him alone.'>>

You say that it is "Because he's into these things which I detest and 
that makes him a bad person and worthy of torment". 

However, Lily doesn't laugh, nor does Lupin -- the two who are 
obviously of the mindset you would attribute to James.
If that is what James meant, surely Lily would not have said: "You 
think you're funny, but you're just an arrogant, bullying toerag, 
Potter. Leave him alone."
To Lily, James' statement was a joke...and a poor one at that.

No, his comment to Lily bespeaks something else.

Secondly, as far as the Dark Arts goes, that is not ALL that the Dark 
Lord has to offer.  Does he not reward his faithful followers with 
wondrous gifts?  Is there not a reward for pleasing him?
You make Voldemort a one dimensional creature here.  If there is 
anything Voldemort is not, is one dimensional.
He is probably still the Brightest Wizard of his time, which time 
includes Dumbledore.  Note what Dumbledore said to Professor 
McGonagall in this regard: "Voldemort is more powerful than I will 
ever be."
It is not just the Dark Arts that Voldemort is good at. His
brilliance alone probably attracted quite a few members to the DEs 
than his use of the Dark Arts.

Also, does not the name "Death Eaters" connote a positive and 
optimistic ideal?  We are Death Eaters, we sweep death away, we
banish 
the rot and stink of death and replace it with long life and 
happiness.  We can promise one eternal youth!!  

Nora:
> But this organization is not exactly going to tolerate, you know, 
> wanting to marry a Mudblood--and it's clear that James has the 
> severe hots for Lily.

RMM:
And at this point in time, it is clear to the world that Lily is not 
interested.
And secondly, the organization, if it gets its hands on a candidate, 
will make sure such a thing as a marriage to one unworthy never 
happens.  So at this point in James' life this is not an argument 
against James' interest in the DEs.

Nora:
>  Furthermore, he doesn't need the economic 
> benefits--he's already loaded (per JKR interview).  He's got his
ego 
> fed by his friends, but he's even willing to abnegate some of that 
> ego for Lily.

RMM:
So you say.  I say, not necessarily.  He is a 15 year-old kid who is 
about to be tempted by things way beyond his ability to comprehend.
And none of them will be presented to him as DARK ARTS.


Nora:
<snipped>
> 
> Before OotP, we had a lot of speculation about whether the blood 
> thing really mattered, whether it was an important theme in the 
> books, etc.  It was quite a nasty shock to many a person onlist to 
> find out, canonically, that Slytherin House had pureblood
philosophy 
> *at its founding*.  Made myself and many another person go back and 
> look at CoS again, that's for sure--and it's eminently possible to 
> read that book as a paradigm of the pureblood/DE attempts to get
rid 
> of the Muggleborns.  JKR has a nifty answer on her website about
the 
> halfblood/pureblood thing.  Don't underestimate the importance of 
> the blood issue as one of the factual realities of the Potterverse--
> and right now with James, we *are* arguing facts, not reality.  One 
> of us is going to be proven right and the other is going to eat 
> feathers. :)

RMM:
Yes, the blood issue is a major element in these stories.  No one is 
arguing that.  However, I am not sure what you mean by "facts, not 
reality".  Facts are part of reality.  Maybe you can clarify what you 
are getting at.

I have not underestimated the blood issue in my speculations.
In fact, James will prove to be a rather noble character in the end.  
But he has some growing up to do, and some serious travails in store 
for him before he gets to the end.

Nora: 
> I'm sure Voldemort would have liked to get someone like James, who 
> all indications point to being from an old and respected family. 
> My pet hypothesis is that James refused, hence some part of 
> the 'defying him three times' thingy, which must also be important. 

RMM:
Well, we can pretty well guess that James will reach that point where 
he will have to refuse.  I have posted this already in a previous
post 
on this subject.  And the nature of the refusal is such that
Voldemort deems it necessary to kill him personally.  And it is 
normally someone who is important enough that gains this honor!

Nora:
> We also have Lucius Malfoy describing Harry's parents as 'meddling 
> fools' (do I remember correctly?  I'm flying with no net.)  
> 
> I just don't see how, when Voldemort IS canonically publically 
> associated with the anti-Muggleborn ideas, he could lure a James 
> Potter (who would have to be thick as a brick not to NOTICE that) 
> who is ardently pursuing a Muggleborn witch.

RMM:
Yes, well part of Hogwarts is into Purebloodism, and it doesn't stop 
purebloods, halfbloods, or muggleborns from attending now does it?

Nora: 
> So he's got a Dark Mark and everything?

RMM:
Don't know at what point the Dark Mark is branded on one.  And nor do 
you.

Nora:
>  He was in the Death 
> Eaters?  This sounds like *prime* Harry-taunting material for 
> Voldemort, and yet, nary a whisper.

RMM:
Quite a few were in the Death Eaters that are no more.  My response
to 
Voldemort would be: "Yes, well not too many came looking for you now 
did they?"

Nora:
>  Instead, we have a consistent 
> picture of Harry's parents (both of them, natch) as strong anti-
> Voldemort supporters.  This is the state of canon at present.

RMM:
And I have not varied from that position in my speculation.


> > RMM:
> > Okay Nora, give me FIVE OTHER THINGS I have messed up.

Nora:
> 
> 1.  Ignoring all of the canon statements about how James hated the 
> Dark Arts.

RMM:
Ouch, you're out to hurt.  I was not aware of them, since my 
speculation regarding James had nothing to do with his like or
dislike 
of the Dark Arts.  And nor does my speculation fall on the fact that 
they exist. :-)
And this is where you fail to understand the issue of Voldemort and 
the Death Eaters.
You equate Purebloodism with the Dark Arts, when in fact there is
much 
more to this issue.
Purebloodism, to many pure bloods, like nationalism to many 
constitutionalists is a good thing.  To international communists, 
nationalism is a pariah to be squashed and eliminated.  It depends on 
which side you are on.
On each side there are the extremists and there are the nominalists.

The methods of obtaining power, whether by just means or unjust means 
became the dividing line for many pure bloods. (see S. Black's 
comments)
This is where the Dark Arts probably reared its ugly head.
The Unforgivable Curses were employed, people were "disappeared",
etc. 
etc.
I see James viewing all of this with abhorence and saying:  NOT FOR 
ME!

Nora: 
> 2.  Ignoring the importance of pureblood philosophy to the INITIAL 
> public popularity of Voldemort's platform.

RMM:
Not!  See my comments before.  I too read what Black had to say about 
the Purebloodism advocated by Voldemort.  Potter disliked the DARK 
ARTS.  But we are not talking Potter's view of the Dark Arts here. 
We 
are talking about his views in regard to Purebloodism -- a completely 
different subject.  James Potter was likely a Pureblood.  But not of 
an extremist sort.  

Nora: 
> 3.  The 'defied him three times' becomes a little trickier to 
> explain, as does Lucius Malfoy's comment.

RMM:
Your slant on "defied him three times" gets trickier.  Not mine. He 
had escaped Voldemort three times, thus implying a threefold defiance.

Nora: 
> 4.  Screwing with the thematic point that people on the good side 
> can do awful stupid nasty things out of fear.

RMM:
You lost me here.  How does what I opine go against that?  There are 
also people on the good side that do awful things based on pride, 
conceit, curiousity, etc.

Nora:
> 5.  We've already got one tempted betrayer in the MWPP group; seems 
> more than a little like thematic overkill to have two.

RMM:
Who is the other?  Wormtail?  Lupin? Black?
I believe all of these save Wormtail were brave enough to stand up to 
Voldemort. (See Wormtail's comments here.) 
This implies that all were to some degree, more or less, idiots for 
the cause of the DEs. (See more Black's comments here.)

Nora:
>  James has 
> already been knocked off of his pedestal--literary economy says its 
> likely that we get to learn some better things about him next.  
> (After all, Snape was made sympathetic in OotP, which means he's 
> going to take it next book :).
> 
> It's not only that there's no support for James the Death Eater--
> it's that it goes directly contra things that have been well-
> established.  James the berk was *not* completely contradictory to 
> what came before--hey, who'da thunk that Snape really WAS telling
at 
> least a good portion of the truth in PoA?  But James the Voldemort 
> follower is such a huge reversal--and JKR doesn't really play huge 
> reversals.

RMM:
Huge reversal to you.  Not to me.  JKR is getting us ready for some 
hard doses of reality re: Harry's father.

RMM
www.hermionegranger.us