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

[romulusmmcdougal]

No: HPFGUIDX 109935

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" <nrenka at y...> 
wrote:
Nora:
> Let me just say again that the idea of Voldemort as DADA teacher is 
> about as questionable as you can get.  It's canonical that he 
> resurfaces AS Lord Voldemort--wow, just the kind of name and kind
of 
> guy who Dumbledore-as-Headmaster is going to hire to teach the 
> kiddies.

RMM:
Happy Birthday!
Okay, now back to the discussion...
Well, if Voldemort is not a teacher at Hogwarts, he certainly has his 
top agents at school recruiting students for the DEs.
Remember what Hagrid said?  "Only mystery is why Voldemort didn't go 
after James and Lily -- they were Head Boy and Head Girl."
This tells me that other top students were being pegged by Voldemort 
and/or his agents.
And I don't see Slytherins trying to convince Gryffindors about the 
virtues of the new regime.

Secondly, Lord Voldemort. In the early 1970s, what does the name 
invoke to you?  The same as it would in 1981?  Apparently so.
You simply cannot look back in foresight and say -- hey its 1970 and 
Lord Voldemort is here and he is evil.  I know because of what he
does 
in 1980!!
Has Voldemort been suspected of anything before starting the movement 
of the DEs?
No, he left school with Honors.  He was Head Boy, he won a special 
award.
There is absolutely no reason that Voldemort, as Voldemort, would
have any bad reputation preceding him when he arrived on the scene in 
1970.

Certainly,
Dumbledore had suspicions of Tom Riddle.  Voldemort shows up and 
Dumbledore says -- hey you're evil, I'm not hiring you!!!
This is laughable, I'm sorry.  That is not how the real world works.
You have to put Dumbledore's statement about Voldemort in perspective.
He made those statements to Harry after the whole affair of LV and
DEs - Round 1 - had taken place. He is talking about what he learns 
about the man after much time with him, around him, probablyworking 
with him, learning about him through the Order of the Phoenix's work, 
etc.
He could not say that about Voldemort upon seeing him for the first 
time in 25 years.



Nora:
  Not to mention that it's generally better to try to prove 
> things from, you know, positive evidence.

RMM:
I am basing my speculations on canon. As they remain speculation, 
positive proof is not necessary.  However, I do have to question your 
approach.

Nora: 
> But there's a fairly clear difference in the Potterverse 
> between 'illegal and dangerous' and the Dark Arts.  The Dark Arts, 
> from what we've seen of them, are things that either destroy a 
> person's nature as a subject (death, pain that destroys the ability 
> to act, mental control), or things that require the element of
force 
> to work (blood of the enemy, forcibly taken and all of that jazz). 

RMM:
Like the Polyjuice Potion for one?  Knocking out a person and keeping 
them under wraps while you impersonate them?  You know, like stealing 
someone's identity?  
Well, I know three 2nd years that did exactly that.  But that's okay..
. they were just kids.
As far and Good and Bad are concerned there was absolutely no 
difference between what Harry, Ron, and Hermione did and what B. 
Crouch Jr. did.

Secondly, what happens to an individual who is found out to be an 
unregistered animagus?  A slap on the wrist?  Hardly.

And I agree. The dark arts fall ito the category that making someone 
do something against their will is certainly not kosher.
Like James' pranks with Snape for instance?  How much more did James 
do to Snape in the name of fun and kicks?
And Sirius' little "prank" with Snape!  Just fun and games.  Ho, ho, 
wouldn't that have been fun if Lupin had got a hold of Snape??  
Giggle, giggle...

What you are saying in effect is that just because the Marauders do 
it, or if Harry, Hermione, and Ron do it, it is OKAY.
If a Slytherin does it, then it is THE DARK ARTS and THEY ARE EVIL.
That is Situation Ethics, pure and simple.

Nora,
> Perhaps the situation with Dark Arts in the Potterverse is a little 
> more like that of the Supreme Court and pornography--"I can't
define 
> it for sure, but I know it when I see it."  Being good at dangerous 
> yet highly cool magic undertaken in order to aid a friend and 
> falling into the Dark Arts is walking across a line with some 
> ontological heft to it.

RMM:
Perhaps you can see a huge defining line between it, but to students 
at school who are already performing nasty things to each other,
there 
is no defining line for it.
Now that you go this route, it brings me to a conclusion.
James decided he hated the Dark Arts after doing it.... He was doing 
things that he only regretted later and finally swore off.
He shows at 15 that he is prime for bigger and better feats of 
nastiness, and there is nothing there to stop him....except Lily.

Nora:
> Again, WHY is James so truly pissed off about the use of the word 
> Mudblood and so insistent that he would never use it if he were
into 
> pureblood philosophy?

RMM:
I don't see him "pissed off" about using the word.  I see him telling 
Lily that he wouldn't call her that.  He is not serious about the 
Purebloodism.  He is seriously into the magic and what is being 
offered him in the DEs.

Nora:
>  It's surely an insight into Young!Snape that 
> he throws it off, and another insight into James that he wouldn't 
> use it.  Keep in mind, given that Voldemort's agenda is on people's 
> minds by this point in time, that 'Mudblood' has a little...heft 
> that it wouldn't have otherwise.

RMM:
Granted.  There were various types of people with various agendas
upon 
joining the DEs. There were the more extreme and the less extreme.
But joining the DEs was bigger than that.  I would say that based on 
the popularity of the group at the time, that it was the cool thing
to 
do as a student.

Nora:
> 
> Now, let's play a game.  Humor me--I'm the birthday girl.

RMM:
Happy birthday again!!

Nora:
> This game is called 'Let's list the social status of all the Death 
> Eaters we can think of'.
> 
> Lucius Malfoy: old pureblood family, definitely into the Dark Arts 
> (per CoS--do I really need to go into this one?)  Slytherin.
> 
> Bellatrix Lestrange: old pureblood family, into the Dark Arts
(given 
> the evidence of the Black family house).  Slytherin.
> 
> The Brothers Lestrange: must be pureblood because one of them made 
> an acceptable husband for Bellatrix.  Slytherin.
> 
> Barty Crouch Jr.: old pureblood family, child of a domineering and 
> magically powerful father.  Don't know.
> 
> Theodore Nott: pureblood family (per JKR's comments about Nott the 
> Younger on her website).  Don't know.
> 
> MacNair and Rookwood: don't know, but both of them have/had nice 
> good cushy Ministry jobs.
> 
> Now, I am damn well aware that this is incomplete.  However, it 
> makes a pretty solid argument from the evidence that this means 
> *something*--combine it with JKR's comments about HOW Death Eaters 
> think about half/pure/whatever, and we have a strong, strong, link 
> between Dark Arts, pureblood philosophy, Death Eaters, Voldemort. 

RMM:
But they are still not the same thing.  There were many into the 
Purebloodism.  Many of those left after the Dark Arts methods for 
taking power agenda arose.
There are many positive aspects of Purebloodism for instance.
Dark Arts are practiced by non Purebloods for instance.
Voldemort was a brilliant man -- not all EVIL -- unless you equate 
Evil with Brilliant.

So while there are links, the concepts are different and independent 
of each other.

 
Nora:
> They're canonically knotted together.

RMM:
Give me some quotes that ties them together then.  Otherwise, I 
dispute that claim.

> 
> > RMM:
> > Yes, I would agree when you put it in those terms.  :-)
> > I believe you oversimplify the situation here.  I could write 
> > reams about this one, but I will confine myself to a few comments.
> > First, James has always had a thing for Lily.
> > Two, Lily doesn't like James big ego.
> > Three, the DEs and Voldemort were preaching Pure Bloodism, but in 
> > terms, sugar coated enough, to convince the most sceptical that it
> > was a good movement only interested in the rights of those Pure 
> > blood magical families.  Pure bloods have rights too!  We are an 
> > anti-death to the Pure bloods organization.  We don't want to 
> > become extinct.  Save the Purebloods.  We are pro-pureblood.  
> > People always fall for the rhetoric.
> 
Nora:
> Canon for that?  

RMM:
Come now.  How else do you think people get drawn into political 
parties?  Have you not heard of the Big Lie?  or other such methods
of 
gaining a following?
Don't tell me you are one of those types that believe ALL GERMANS are 
evil because the majority of them were pro-Nazi in WWII.

Check out any Save the ________ organization's charter and aims.
Check out the political party platforms of your favorite political 
party.
There is plenty to show that any organization wanting to grow and 
prosper, will always put on the best face for the public.  No matter 
how nefarious its true goals and intentions.
Take the benevolent orders of Freemasons for example.

Nora:
>Seems pretty clear what they were preaching, and 
> it's more of a reflection on just how damnably nasty wizarding 
> society is AND was that people thought it was a good idea. 
Remember 
> that Fudge is also accused by DD of putting too much belief in 
> blood.  It's a canonically widespread bias.  It's what Dumbledore 
> has been fighting against for a long, long time.  It may well be
the 
> main thread of the books, from the Founders to the present.  It's 
> one thing that separates the 'good' good guys from the 'ewww' good 
> guys--Umbridge and Fudge think along blood lines, and therefore 
> share something deep with the DEs even though they purport to be 
> truly fighting them.

RMM:
Umbridge and Fudge in with the DEs?
Sorry, but that is completely out there.

Nora:
> His Uncle Alphard left him the money, which is why he got blasted 
> off of the tree.  Not shockingly, Sirius was being polite and
moving 
> out and no longer mooching once he could afford his own place.  No 
> sinister motive or deep schism needed for that, really?
> 
RMM:
> > He only visits the Potters for Sunday dinner.  This tells me that 
> > his visits are with the parents (who have "adopted" him) and not 
> > to James.
> 
Nora:
> I always read this as more like "I got invited over for family 
> dinner on Sundays with James and his parents".  James seems to have 
> had a good family life, and having dinner together--aww, that's 
> sweet and idyllic.  It seems to me that dining with a friend's 
> parents without that friend there is really on the far side of 
> somewhat bizzare.

RMM:
Is it? Here is canon:
<<'Your dad's place,' said Sirius. 'Your grandparents were really
good 
about it; they sort of adopted me as a second son. Yeah, I camped out 
at your dad's in the school holidays, and when I was seventeen I got
a 
place of my own. My Uncle Alphard had left me a decent bit of gold - 
he's been wiped off here, too, that's probably why - anyway, after 
that I looked after myself. I was always welcome at Mr and Mrs 
Potter's for Sunday lunch, though.'>>

Not so bizarre after all.  Mr. and Mrs. Potter "sort of adopt him as
a 
second son".  What is wrong with visiting then with your adoptive 
parents?  What is so bizarre about that? hmmmmmmmmmmm......???

This brings up a real world example for me.  I have friend, and I
have 
met my friend's parents.  I spend more time with my friend's parents 
than I do with my friend!  Funny how things like that go.

Anyway, I will grant that it does not preclude James not being there 
at the Sunday lunches.

However, I will use the fact that there has been a change in James 
that Lily now sees him as attractive where she saw him as a jerk 
before.
This change can be partially explained by a separation between the
two 
troublemakers - Sirius and James.  James probably became a little
more 
mature outside the influence of his best buddy.
So, there may be a double reason why James has altered his ego to the 
point that Lily now sees him in a different light and now begins to
go 
out with him.  (The other reason being James entry into the world of 
Voldemort.)


RMM before:
> > Where is James?
> > And what happend to their relationship?  Had James started seeing
> > Lily at this time?  NO, for we are told that they only started 
> > going out during their 7th year at Hogwarts.
> > Something happened to cause a rift between James and Sirius -- 
> > being two of the closest friends imaginable.
>
Nora: 
> So the two of them made up later despite this deep rift of James 
> becoming a Death Eater?

RMM:
Correct.  I believe Sirius and James became very close again before 
and/or after they both defied Voldemort, for I believe that Sirius 
ended up joining the DEs for at least a time, just so he could be 
close to James.  And they probably left the DEs around the same time 
and took Peter with them.


Nora:
> So *how* do you square Remus-the-leader with Remus-who-utterly-
> failed-at-keeping-his-friends-under-control?

RMM:
A soft hearted leader when it came to the Marauders.

Nora:
>  JKR has told us that 
> Remus' fault is that he lets his friends get away with too much 
> because he values them so highly, as he hasn't had many friends.  

RMM:
And I agree.

Nora:
> Keep in mind, also, the situation under which the 'I led them...' 
> comment is made--then the situation where it is *proven* to us that 
> Remus was really more of the passive type (yes, Pippin, I know... :)
> It doesn't quite work out consistently, does it?

RMM:
It is only proven about how he "led" the Marauders.  It is not proven 
as to how he "led others..."  He was a prefect after all.
Typically a prefect, with some exceptions, has a leadership type 
personality and carries himself with authority.


RMM before:
> > Now, James and Sirius enter their 7th year at Hogwarts.
> > James begins to see Lily, because Lily likes what she sees in
this 
> > young man now.  James has changed.  He seems less egotistical and
> > more 
> > thoughtful and kind and less childish....
> > What has accomplished this change in James?
> > I would speculate and say that James has been introduced to some 
> > very  powerful magic that has completely impressed him.
> > He sees how little he knows in terms of this and it makes him
less 
> > inward looking.  He now has no reason to think that he is great; 
> > he has just been humbled by the most powerful wizard of his age.  
> > He grows to admire and like Voldemort as a true mentor. 
Voldemort 
> > likes James and makes him feel special.  They probably become
very 
> > close friends.
> > Meantime, Sirius is one who begins to miss his friend James 
> > terribly, now has to make a decision:  join James or not.
> > I believe he breaks down and joins up.
> 
Nora:
> There is absolutely zero to suggest any of this.

RMM:
There is plenty to show that:
James and Sirius enter 7th year at Hogwarts; James and Lily begin 
dating in their 7th year; Voldemort is recruiting from among the best 
and brightest at Hogwarts (see Hagrid's comments); Sirius has nothing 
to do with the Purebloodism of his family; Lupin suspected Sirius of 
being a spy -- which implies that no matter who told Lupin he was a 
spy, if there was no basis for the belief, then Lupin would have 
doubted anyone saying that about Sirius.  But Lupin believed whoever 
told him.  That implies that Sirius was in fact associated with 
Voldemort.
The rift between James and Sirius is implied, though not necessarily, 
by Sirius getting his own place between his 6th and 7th years at 
Hogwarts, and only visiting the Potters on Sundays for lunch.
And James Potter had to have come very close to Voldemort in order to 
invoke Voldemort's own participation in James' death for his act of 
defiance.  It seems that family or very close friends get this 
treatment.  See the Riddle family graves for this one.
Can anyone give me a list of those personally killed by Voldemort?  
And please excuse those who were killed by someone else using his 
wand.  I think you will see that the known list is small.

So quite a bit of canon can infer what I stated above.

Nora:
>  James liking 
> Voldemort, when James is canonically rather close to Dumbledore? 

RMM:
Sure why not?  

Nora: 
> Sirius joining the DEs, when he's completely clueless about the 
> existence of the Dark Mark?

RMM:
Nora, what do you know about the Dark Mark?  Do you know when it is 
administered?  Can a person get into the organization and not receive 
the Dark Mark?  At what point does a person receive it?

It is interesting that you should note that.  Where is it in the 
books?  That would fit in with my contention that he joined, but he 
did not advance very far.  Probably due to insubordination and/or 
nearness to the critical date of departure for James.

Nora:
  Again, none of this adds up on 
> canonical grounds, and that's not even going into the timeline and 
> thematic mess that it makes.

RMM:
I have constructed the timeline for Sirius and James and their 6th
and 
7th years at Hogwarts.  All of it conforms to canon.

Nora:
> -Nora notes that there is an acute lack of cake in her house

With all the best for your birthday,
I remain, RMM